Interesting Observation

[Scarica]

For all the discussions over the years of how the reviews work, the criteria used, accusations of being biased and the initial fears of misuse on the readers' reviews, I've noticed something interesting. As I skimmed over the reviews, looking at the critics' reviews and the readers' reviews, the biggest variance in the scores was 1.5 stars. Most of the haunts varied only by a point between the two groups...a couple match up, star for star. I don't think it's some weird fluke, because, in many cases there are 25+ reader reviews and only the 8 critics reviewing...but mathematically, it all just about evens out. Anyway, I just found that quite interesting...guess the system is working pretty well, all in all!

Now...off to read the rest of the reviews and figure out just where to go this year (since I only have time for 1...maybe 2)...

[Rev. Noch]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarica @ Oct 27 2008, 12:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5470)</div>
For all the discussions over the years of how the reviews work, the criteria used, accusations of being biased and the initial fears of misuse on the readers&#39; reviews, I&#39;ve noticed something interesting. As I skimmed over the reviews, looking at the critics&#39; reviews and the readers&#39; reviews, the biggest variance in the scores was 1.5 stars. Most of the haunts varied only by a point between the two groups...a couple match up, star for star. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s some weird fluke, because, in many cases there are 25+ reader reviews and only the 8 critics reviewing...but mathematically, it all just about evens out. Anyway, I just found that quite interesting...guess the system is working pretty well, all in all!

Now...off to read the rest of the reviews and figure out just where to go this year (since I only have time for 1...maybe 2)...[/b]

Good point. That&#39;s what I would imagine would happen. Thanks for actually taking the time to look it up!