 | | Re: Lego Purity —Tim David
| | | | (...) Hmmm, I know I'm not Mr Pure, but I'm not sure why I scored quite so (URL) low>! Tim (17 years ago, 25-Sep-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Purity —David Eaton
| | | | | | (...) I'm kind of suprised as well, actually-- it seems that a fair number of people think that Galidor, Znap, Bionicle, Clikits, etc are more impure than I would've thought them to be. I would've figured more people would say that they were fine, (...) (17 years ago, 25-Sep-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Purity —Matija Puzar
| | | | | | (...) Wow, I'm even worse... I feel dirty! Anyway thanks, nice to see what is the general trend :) Would it be possible also to show the overall general score? Cheers, Matija (17 years ago, 25-Sep-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Purity —David Eaton
| | | | | (...) Alright, I sneakily changed how it calculates things behind-the-scenes, so... you're still low, but not *AS* low. Basically, I was using a weighted average and a straightforward "distance from the mean" method for calculating scoring. I now (...) (17 years ago, 25-Sep-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Purity —Brian Davis
| | | | | | (...) So, then, the way you're fudging the LEGO purity scores... makes you less pure? Wow, this could get needlessly self-referential... (17 years ago, 26-Sep-07, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Purity —David Eaton
| | | | | | | (...) Ow, my purity! DaveE (17 years ago, 26-Sep-07, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego Purity —Ross Crawford
| | | | | (...) Are you sure the Pure/Impure headings above the scores are the right way round? According to them, I score 10/10 :D ROSCO (17 years ago, 26-Sep-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | | |
