Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:32:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
684 times
|
| |
|
|
Ken Godawa wrote:
>
> "Allan Bedford" <ExpertBuilder-DELETE-TO-REPLY@apotome.com> wrote in message
> news:H5qnsF.2ru@lugnet.com...
>
> <snipe>
> > I would say there are a number of non-moronic reasons that someone might
> > rate a set a zero. But in the overall scheme of things, I'm not sure it's
> > creating a problem. Two zeros for some of these sets really doesn't • reduce
> > the overall rating that much when many of the other votes are 100.
> >
> > I'm still curious though, what do you see as a solution? It's o.k. to
> > criticize (trust me, I'm an expert) but it is also appropriate in a case
> > like this to offer an alternative solution. Any thoughts on how to • rectify
> > the "zero problem"?
> >
> > All the best,
> > Allan B.
>
> Good post. I agree that some people over rate sets. But when the majority
> of the ratings of a set are either 100 or 90 then I don't see how that same
> set
> can receive a 0. I would bet that those who rate a popular set a 0 don't
> own that set. If they did, I would like to read why that person rated it a
> 0
> in the comments section.
>
> I would like to see a system where the top rating and bottom rating are
> thrown out.
> Similar to what is done in diving and ice skating scores. And depending on
> how many
> total ratings a set gets will determine how many of the top and bottom
> ratings are thrown out.
I haven't read to the end of this thread yet, but some of my thoughts
after reading a bunch:
Throwing out the highest and lowest score might not really help since
then it would just mean two people would have to decide to trash a set
or theme.
I kind of like Larry's suggestion of a limitation on the average of a
particular member's ratings. I would be inclined though to just require
the average to be at least 50 (and perhaps less than 90). Why? I think
it's fair to insist that you rate at least as many sets good as you rate
bad (this would force people to save their share of poor ratings for
sets they cared about as opposed to just trashing a theme they didn't
like - or they could trash a theme they didn't like and not get to rate
low the truly poor sets in their theme of interest). The reason I
wouldn't require the average to be in a small range in the center is
that many people would choose only to rate those sets they liked.
On this last part, perhaps a better rating system would be to ask people
to rate sets on a scale of 0-10 (why do we need 0-100?), then show the
distribution of ratings which are at least a 5. Also, show the total
number of people rating the set, and the total number of people rating
sets at all. Perhaps even give two rating for the set, one for parts,
and one for set quality (i.e. Larry might rate a Castle set as a 5 for
quality, but an 8 for parts). This would do a better job of showing the
sets which were truly good since they wouldn't be affected by the
naysayers. If a set really isn't that good, it's not going to have many
ratings 5 or higher. A set with 100 ratings 5 or higher which average 7
is probably a better set than one with 3 ratings which average 10 (and
you'll probably know if you fit in the niche that the 3 10s set perhaps
is particularly attractive to).
On the other hand, it's almost impossible to really get a good ratings
system since you really need to know how the likes of the people giving
the ratings match your own (that's why I tend to almost ignore movie
reviews - though I will pay some attention to the number of stars the
movie is rated with, but will completely ignore them if I have heard
good things about the film from friends, and consider it a movie I want
to see [for example a Star Wars movie - sure, the recent ones don't seem
as good as A New Hope, but then I realize I'm a different person, and
I've probably got a somewhat romanticized opinion of A New Hope]).
I've certainly had little problem figuring out which sets were
desireable without a ratings system.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| "Allan Bedford" <ExpertBuilder-DELET...otome.com> wrote in message news:H5qnsF.2ru@lugnet.com... <snipe> (...) reduce (...) rectify (...) Good post. I agree that some people over rate sets. But when the majority of the ratings of a set are either (...) (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
|
|
|
|
