Foam, I'm thinking the original question wasn't aimed so much at 1-5 vs. 2-10 (resolution would definitely play into that decision, as you've pointed out). I think the question was why not 0-5 (ie. 0-10)? That would allow for a full 5 (10) range, while the current system uses a range of only 4 (8) [5-1 or 10-2].

quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 Foam, I'm thinking the original question wasn't aimed so much at 1-5 vs. 2-10 (resolution would definitely play into that decision, as you've pointed out). I think the question was why not 0-5 (ie. 0-10)? That would allow for a full 5 (10) range, while the current system uses a range of only 4 (8) [5-1 or 10-2].

Challenging me in public, are you, Eagle? Fine! I love sparring with a well-matched opponent. There are so few willing to try such a dangerous sport [;)] First of all, the question was, "I never understood why 2, and not 1, is the lowest character we can give a beer at BeerPal." The question is not about range at all. It's about why is 2 the lowest score possible, instead of 1, or even 0. Secondly, the range on a scale of 0-5 or 0-10 is 6 or 11, respectively--not 5 or 10. To illustrate: if you want a full range of 5 and a lower bound of 0, you need an upper bound of---not 5, but 4! Thus the range of five possible scores would be 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4. By the way, having a scale that starts with zero is not preferred since the technical name for a beer that scores 0 is "water." So, if the question were about range, the solution of starting the scale at 0 is not satisfactory. Back over to you, my friend. Are you still in the ring, or are you looking around for your math book?

Oh, dear.... If this continues on for any more posts, the sponsors will pull their ads, the drunk passersby will badmouth our site as nerdy, and the regulars will fall asleep and mock us when they wake up. (Hey, if you're not Foam, have a beer and then read the rest of this.) In any event, Foam, did you say ring?... Allowing even zero ratings would be hypothetically legitimate, as some beers do approach water and at some point, I'd actually prefer water to do its job instead of fizzle water with barley and corn mixed in (I can't stand seltzer water in the first place, lol). Either way, I don't know what the intent of the original 1 vs. 2 comment was, but figured the desire would be to utilize the full scale from 0-10 (or 0-5), rather than only a scale of 1-5 (I stand corrected that the range using 1-10 would be 0.5-5.0). I'm not going to debate the motives of those raising the question and was merely speculating that it was about range, more resolution (and now would say that 0-10 works best - that's just an opinion, though, and not worthy of debate). Oh, and regarding ranges.... pick up a good stats book, as the "math" books seem to loose some finer points. Need any recommendations (hehe)? Ah well, in terms of the "rating" process, the input range would indeed be five on a scale from 0-4. That's because the rating process is discrete, ordinal. However, the calculated rating only currently has a range of 1-5 in a number space that is continuous and therefore has only a range of 4. Ah, my good friend, Foam.... Always a hoot. Oh, and if you read this and aren't named Foam, go click on a few google ads to keep the sponsors happy, before they pull their funding!

...nerd alert!

Mean 3.14 Median 3.2 Mode 4 Min 1 (Milwaukee's Best Light) Max 5 (only 2 in the Pantheon, so far...) Range, uh, um, 4.... (anybody wanna buy an old, used math book?)

quote: Originally posted by Suds McDuff ...nerd alert!

Despite allegations to the contrary and regardless of whatever rumor Eagle may have started, I do NOT manipulate my ratings so as to maintain a average that approximates pi. Only a nerd would do that!

quote: Originally posted by Suds McDuff ...nerd alert!

Hey, I wasn't thinking of you when I said "drunk passersby," lol.

quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 Geez, you really do have an average of almost pi. I'm amused at it for whatever that is worth, lol.

Well, my average is 3.141288, and pi is 3.141549, so I'm off by 0.000261. But if I rate my next beer at 3.210567 I'm golden ...

quote: Originally posted by FoamDome <blockquote id="quote"><table width=90% cellpadding=10><tr><td bgcolor=FFFFCC><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote: Originally posted by eaglefan538 Geez, you really do have an average of almost pi. I'm amused at it for whatever that is worth, lol. </font id="quote"></td></tr></table></blockquote id="quote"> Well, my average is 3.141288, and pi is 3.141549, so I'm off by 0.000261. But if I rate my next beer at 3.210567 I'm golden ...

I'm not sure if its sadder that I found that hilarious, or that I know pi to two more digits :)

quote: Originally posted by drewseslu I'm not sure if its sadder that I found that hilarious, or that I know pi to two more digits :)

Sadness is highly over-rated, but pi is forever.