Jaedenkaal wrote: Long time reader, first time poller. My only comments about the poll are regarding the 2* question at the beginning. I answered based on the highest number of 2*s I have ever championed, rather than who I actually have championed right now, since that seems to be more what you're interested in and since they're not the same at this time. Sorry Thor. I'm just using you for your ISO and HP. Other than that the survey was great. For the 1*s and 2*s, though, I wonder if a flat ranking might be more appropriate, since there are a small and non-increasing number of them. I guess the worst 2* doesn't have to be a 1.
Fightmastermpq wrote: Jaedenkaal wrote: Long time reader, first time poller. My only comments about the poll are regarding the 2* question at the beginning. I answered based on the highest number of 2*s I have ever championed, rather than who I actually have championed right now, since that seems to be more what you're interested in and since they're not the same at this time. Sorry Thor. I'm just using you for your ISO and HP. Other than that the survey was great. For the 1*s and 2*s, though, I wonder if a flat ranking might be more appropriate, since there are a small and non-increasing number of them. I guess the worst 2* doesn't have to be a 1. I ranked them as such. The best characters were 10s, the worst characters were 1s. Otherwise why have that level of granularity at all?
Jaedenkaal wrote: Fightmastermpq wrote: Jaedenkaal wrote: Long time reader, first time poller. My only comments about the poll are regarding the 2* question at the beginning. I answered based on the highest number of 2*s I have ever championed, rather than who I actually have championed right now, since that seems to be more what you're interested in and since they're not the same at this time. Sorry Thor. I'm just using you for your ISO and HP. Other than that the survey was great. For the 1*s and 2*s, though, I wonder if a flat ranking might be more appropriate, since there are a small and non-increasing number of them. I guess the worst 2* doesn't have to be a 1. I ranked them as such. The best characters were 10s, the worst characters were 1s. Otherwise why have that level of granularity at all? I guess that depends on what your scale is. Using your scale, you have less granularity to represent how much worse a character could be than they already are, or how much better they could be. Do your 10s mean that the character (s) is/are perfect? Or just the current best? If there were only 2 characters in a given tier, would one of them be a 10 and the other a 1? Did you feel obligated to give every 1* character a different rating? If so, which two ratings did you not use? If not, which rating(s) did you use more than once? Genuinely curious, I'm not sure there's a right answer here. With enough responses I suspect it won't matter that our votes are using somewhat different scales, the trends should be roughly the same either way.
Ebolamonkey84 wrote: Up to 162 responses so far. I will probably keep this open for another week or so. For reference, the last survey had 1150 responses.
Punter1 wrote: Think you're missing the "no opinion" option or to skip characters on the rankings. There are a number of characters that I have solitary covers for so have never actively used to get a valid opinion about. I rated lots around 4-6 as an average "whatever" since I was unable to skip them. This may end up skewing your results somewhat as people are forced to vote on all characters even if they've rarely played with them. I put all 5* at 5 just cos they are all of average use to me.
You will notice that the scale is from 0 to 10. All of the ratings are required, so use a 0 to indicate that you either have no opinion of a character or you don't have enough experience with them to make an educated choice. DO NOT use 0 as the lowest ranking, as all zeroes will not be factored into the average.
Tony Foot wrote: Didn't the last poll have a : I have no experience with this character? I felt I was rating 4 stars that maybe I shouldn't have. I wasn't sure if leaving it blank was possible?
generalTsobot wrote: Punter1 wrote: Think you're missing the "no opinion" option or to skip characters on the rankings. There are a number of characters that I have solitary covers for so have never actively used to get a valid opinion about. I rated lots around 4-6 as an average "whatever" since I was unable to skip them. This may end up skewing your results somewhat as people are forced to vote on all characters even if they've rarely played with them. I put all 5* at 5 just cos they are all of average use to me. From the OP: You will notice that the scale is from 0 to 10. All of the ratings are required, so use a 0 to indicate that you either have no opinion of a character or you don't have enough experience with them to make an educated choice. DO NOT use 0 as the lowest ranking, as all zeroes will not be factored into the average. Hopefully you didn't rank anyone "bad" as a 0!
Punter1 wrote: D'oh - I even re-read the OP before posting this last night as I thought it was weird not to have it! I'm pretty sure I didn't rank any as 0. My mind was making up a different interpretation of the "Do not use 0" somehow. Nothing to see here, move along!