Originally posted by TwoThreeFour
Originally posted by Creslin321
Originally posted by Icewhite
Originally posted by Nikkita
Originally posted by Creslin321
This is going nowhere lol. No reason to restate my same points yet again.
You are not reastating anything you are just changing goal posts ;). What you have been saying now about aggregate of metacritichad nothign to do with your OP. You just needed to lash out at people and call them idiots so you did. No matter how reasonable and cool you try to appear now but i think cat is already out of the bag.
I think he had the right idea; just lacks the mathspeak. Faulty polling is a big big bugaboo for a lot of people; but not many of them have the terminology to explain just exactly what's wrong with the picture. Still others are only unhappy if the poll isn't "their direction".
Problem is that even if I did calculate the real standard deviation for this distribution, and show how a 1 is like 4 std devs away from the mean, but a 10 is only 1 away...most people wouldn't understand and would just call me a fanboi and move on lol.
That would only work if the upper limit for the scale is above 10 because where would otherwise the point corresponding to 4 standard deviations be in the direction pointing upwards? Which is why I refered in loose terms refered to a modified normal distribution rather than a regular one. One important property being that the 9.5 -> 10.0 step being very difficult for a game to achieve, which works well with the notion of "10.0 represents perfection".
None of this matters.
There is no standard way to enter the data into Metacritic. There's no definition of the numbers and what they mean. There's no definition of what the user score represents. All that stuff about standard deviation is just noise.
I agree that people certainly give stupid reasons for their opinions on Metacritic. That doesn't invalidate their opinions. Their opinions can't be invalidated there is no valid state for the opinions. You'd have to clearly define what the valid state is
before putting the information into the system.
** edit **
If the issue is that the reasons are stupid, then the rating is irrelevant. Someone could give a stupid reason for their score of '8' just as well as they could give a stupid reason for a score '0'. If the issue is the score themselves, then that falls under an individual pushing a value system on many people who do not share that same value system and weren't informed of the value system when they were entering their scores. If the issue is both combined, you still have to validate the reasons as well as the scores...you can't give an '8' a pass without reviewing the reasons for the '8'.