Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:24:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
572 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Ken Godawa writes:
> > > I'm curious on why so many of the popular sets receive a "zero" rating.
> > As well... what would your solution to this problem be? Would you like to
> > see the zero rating removed? Should every set, no matter how good or bad,
> > get a minimum 10 rating?
>
> I would say probably not... some sets really ARE duds.
>
> > Or, like in some judged sports, should we remove
> > the highest and the lowest rating in order to better average out the
> > remaining votes?
>
> That's not a bad idea. It works for Figure Skating (and we know how fair and
> impartial THAT sport is!) Grin.... No seriously, it IS a good idea.
>
> I would say this, though.... how abou this... (and it may be overengineering
> the solution.) My supposition is that someone has went through and given a
> lot of sets as 0. In fact wasn't there a case early in ratings where it was
> known that someone went through and rated every single Pirate set with 0?
>
> Maybe there should be a requirement that in order to be allowed to rate sets
> you need to rate some sets good as well as some bad? Require that your
> average rating across all sets you rated is at least 10 and no less than 90?
> That is, no going and rating EVERYTHING a 0 or EVERYTHING a 100. This will
> encourage people to put some thought into what they like and dislike. You
> get 5 0s (or 5 100s) and then you have to go find something you like (or
> dislike, as the case may be) or else no more ratings are accepted until your
> average is within range.
Just *slightly* overengineered. :)
To implement the drop high and low rating idea, it might look something like
this:
averageRating = ((sumOfAllRatings - lowestRating) - highestRating) /
(totalNumberOfVotes - 2)
I think. :)
> Seriously, if you think every single set LEGO ever made is worth only 0,
> what are you doing here at LUGNET? I know Allan and I have different
> opinions
Perhaps not as much now as we did at one time. I have really tried to focus
on the good things about LEGO, as I know I was guilty of not doing that in
the past. Generally, I've tried to stay out of discussions like this for
the last few months. But I saw in this thread the potential to help sort
out something that was clearly bothering another user.
<ANGEL MODE OFF> ;)
> but we both can find sets we'd rate higher than 0, and sets we'd
> rate lower than 100... I am sure of it.
Which is why I can think of perhaps only one or two sets I might ever rate
with a zero. And they are part of a series that rhymes with Black Throne. :)
But seriously, I do try to find at least *some* good in any set I'm about to
rate. I personally think more sets fall into the 40 - 60 range than some of
us might like to admit.
> Probably not really a good idea but maybe it will get people thinking?
> (deciding it's not really a major problem is an OK outcome)
Yes, I think the discussion of this issue is more important than effecting a
solution. From the evidence given, I don't think any sets are really
'hurting' from the zero ratings, but it obviously bothered Ken enough to
start this thread. I think getting everyone's opinion is just as critical
as fixing something that may not be that broken.
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) I would say probably not... some sets really ARE duds. (...) That's not a bad idea. It works for Figure Skating (and we know how fair and impartial THAT sport is!) Grin.... No seriously, it IS a good idea. I would say this, though.... how abou (...) (22 years ago, 17-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
