 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Kerry Raymond
|
| | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:H5qp07.5wD@lugnet.com... (...) If we have a 0-100 scale, then assuming some kind of normal distribution, we would expect the average rating to be about 50 with a standard deviation (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Jeff Jardine
|
| | | | | (...) This is off-topic, but I really like the sound of your system. Here in Canada, we don't have standardised testing (like the SATs in the US) or any sort of grade balancing like this. Grade inflation is rampant. (...) I only rate sets that I (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Kerry Raymond
|
| | | | | | (...) The whole point of the statistics is to moderate people's over-enthusiasm, so therefore, the system should not allow sets to "retain the full grade that *I* think they deserve". Assuming you are rating all the sets (and not just your (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) <snip well thought out but complex system> And someone had the temerity to actually agree when I called MY proposal "possibly overengineered"??? :-) I like it. I think it would work. I never know when Kerry's spoofing or not, though. :-) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Heh-- I actually did something very similar for our company when we were sending out our customer service surveys (rated 1-5). Obviously some clients were overly thrilled with us and just gave us straight 5's. Some were mad at us and gave us (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | In lugnet.general, Kerry Raymond writes a really neat statistical analysis thingie which I snipped: My question here is "What are you using this information for which requires such analysis?". I mean do you base your set purchases on these figures? (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | (...) Use the information? Well, I guess you could. But it's information, it is a thing of beauty to be treasured and preserved for the benefit of future treasurers and preservers. A thing to be analysed to learn deeper truths. But you *could* use (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Kerry Raymond
|
| | | | | | | | (...) On the contrary, I have used it for precisely this purpose. Having come out of a long Dark Age, many themes (or subthemes) came and went in those 30 odd years. Since then, I read LUGnet and see all the people going on and on about Forestmen or (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Interesting. My first measure is the price/piece - whether on ebay or new. I have an upper limit, beyond which I will not purchase (although I'm always prepared to reassess my upper limit), and I have a working limit, beyond which I will not (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I always figured that no matter how good a set is, if I could by three other poorer sets for the same price and could come up with something much grander, then why the heck buy the overpriced set? And getting blue-coated soldiers (red are (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Indeed. Patience can save a lot of money. (Also, be aware that my 15c/part limit is Australian cents. 15 US cents way too much:-)) Richie (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) And how many times have you made such a purchase, without taking into account 0/100 votes, and been disappointed? ROSCO (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Johannes Koehler
|
| | | | | | | Hello! (...) Well done :-) I couldn't follow these analyses anyhow. First I was always bad at maths and secondly I didn't understand half of the sentences without looking up every other word.... (...) Absolutely correct! I think this set rating is (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Same for your comment, Jojo! I could not agree more (pling!). I think it is worth to spend a thought why people do rate some sets with extreme votes, but I think, once we have realized they do so, we can easily count it in. Any manipulation of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'm not sure information impracticality is really an excuse for inaccurate or misleading information. I think the point is that if we *can* get more accurate information, why not do it? Clearly this topic interests some people who actively (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I think if you criticise this, you fail to, fundamentally, get the point behind being obsessed with LEGO(r). Further, this mechanism really lets the obsessive/compulsive among us obsess about yet another thing, and by arguing against it you're (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) On the contrary! I encourage those who are so inclined to study these figures and do what they want with them! I just dont think it's necessary for such analysis to be "built in" to Lugnet. Unless, of course, Todd finds it interesting and (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | (...) I'm not sure that an average rating of 50 would be appropriate in this context. One of the ongoing themes of discussion in LUGNET is that LEGO set designs deteriorate over time. The apex of LEGO set design is generally thought to be in the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO? —Kerry Raymond
|
| | | | (...) Hmm, I see a lot of potential for expanding your organisation's efforts from carcases to live animals, to be specific, tertiary applicants. Given the way the parents moan about all the statistical moderation that takes place, I think a lot of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
