Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:42:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
471 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Ken Godawa writes:
> I'm curious on why so many of the popular sets receive a "zero" rating.
> It just doesn't make any sense. Unless it's a valid reason, these ratings
> should be thrown out. Either these people are jealous or
> complete morons.
I just read through the majority of this thread. Here's my take...
I tend to regard the set ratings on the Lugnet database as mostly just a
curiosity. I don't take them that seriously, partly because I already know
what sets *I* like, and other people's rankings aren't likely to change
mine. But also, I have noticed that there are different groups of rankers
who fall into certain camps. Some people vote high on newer themes like SW
but the same people might vote low on older sets. Other people who are
nostalgic for older sets might vote higher for Classic Space or Town. And
finally, the ranking system is purely one of "What's your impression of this
set?" It does not ask the voter to consider price per piece, or to consider
the useful parts in a set where the main model is poor, or vise versa.
For these reasons I find the ratings interesting, but no basis for me
deciding what sets to buy. And for the same reasons, I think the comments
section for each set is far more valuable (and sometimes entertaining).
Curiously though, even the comments are not always ones I agree with either.
Take this set...
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/361_2
...The only comment listed is somewhat negative. However, I look at the
image of this set and think, "Wow, I'd love to have several of these for my
middle-class housing project in my Town." The only think I'd add is a trash
barrel (which wasn't available when the set was).
...However, if we really want a meaningful rating system, perhaps some
definition or example might be worthwhile, besides just "pick a number from
x-y". Maybe something like this:
100 = The price, piece selection, model, etc. are all so superb you simply
cannot imagine a set ever being better.
90 = One of your favorite sets. You wish you could buy more.
80 = A great set, but not quite as great as your favorites.
70 = A good compliment to other sets, or a good source of pieces.
60 = A decent set that could be better in some significant way.
50 = A mediocre set that is decent for those who really like the theme.
40 = A fair set for play or pieces or price, but only one such quality.
30 = A poor set that has one or two redeeming qualities like a rare piece.
20 = A set you think could have been improved on all levels of price, piece
selection, playability, etc.
10 = You think the rights for this set should have been sold off to a TLC
competitor it is so bad.
00 = That's a set?
Well, that's my thought...
-Hendo
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) I think part of the problem is people buy sets for different reasons. I (for example) would've rated the set you mentioned a 70 because I'd love it for part selection; though the model itself doesn't really intreuge me to buy it. I think what (...) (22 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| I'm curious on why so many of the popular sets receive a "zero" rating. It just doesn't make any sense. Unless it's a valid reason, these ratings should be thrown out. Either these people are jealous or complete morons. (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
