• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rate "Man of Steel," 1-10 Scale

Started by asr0462,

Man of Steel  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. Man of Steel

    • 34801
    • 34798
    • 34801
    • 34802
    • 34798
    • 34800
    • 34799
    • 34799
    • 34800
    • 34797

391 posts in this topic

gaz2810i

gaz2810i

Posted
Posted

I gave the film an 8. it's a great movie with flaws. I can understand someone giving it a 5 or even a 10 (each to their own) but how anybody can honestly say that this is a 1/10 or even a 1/10 movie I just don't know. I've seen a hundreds of movies not as good as this that I wouldn't give a 2 or even a 3 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maccai3

Maccai3

Posted
Posted
Wouldn't the median be 5? Or do you throw out the few outliers below 5, thus making it 8?

 

it works like

 

guy 1- 9

guy 2 - 9

guy 3 - 8 <<<<<<< this one

guy 4 - 5

guy 5 - 1

 

the higher numbers keep the median up

 

if it was

 

guy 1 - 10

guy 2 - 2<<<<< this would be it

guy 3 - 1

 

i think this is it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Speedy-D

Speedy-D

Posted
Posted
Wouldn't the median be 5? Or do you throw out the few outliers below 5, thus making it 8?

 

it works like

 

guy 1- 9

guy 2 - 9

guy 3 - 8 <<<<<<< this one

guy 4 - 5

guy 5 - 1

 

the higher numbers keep the median up

 

if it was

 

guy 1 - 10

guy 2 - 2<<<<< this would be it

guy 3 - 1

 

i think this is it

They why isn't the median for our poll 5 or 6?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maccai3

Maccai3

Posted
Posted
Wouldn't the median be 5? Or do you throw out the few outliers below 5, thus making it 8?

 

it works like

 

guy 1- 9

guy 2 - 9

guy 3 - 8 <<<<<<< this one

guy 4 - 5

guy 5 - 1

 

the higher numbers keep the median up

 

if it was

 

guy 1 - 10

guy 2 - 2<<<<< this would be it

guy 3 - 1

 

i think this is it

They why isn't the median for our poll 5 or 6?

 

because the middle value is 8

 

MofSpoll_zps36126de6.jpg

 

from this poll 38 votes are over 8, 26 votes are 8 and 45 votes under 8

 

if you lay it out like i did before in order high to low

 

guy 1 - 10

guy 2 - 10

etc...

 

then 109 votes have been placed, the 55th voted in the middle is the median

 

 

i think

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Speedy-D

Speedy-D

Posted
Posted

hm so it's kinda like average, but you don't use the values of the votes, just the counts? 10 votes above 8 have the same weight as 10 votes below 8, regardless of what those votes are. The ones below 8 matter because they're below 8, not because they're 3s or 4s. In this calculation a 3 and a 4 have the weight.

 

Did I miss the boat again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Wouldn't the median be 5? Or do you throw out the few outliers below 5, thus making it 8?

 

You're going for what they call "central tendencies" to determine where the results are really gravitating towards.

 

Median is calculated by placing the numbers in value order, and then determining the middle number by frequency. Because in this case you are using a set scale (1-10), and want to know by the frequency count where the central point is across the range.

 

Good point on throwing out outliers. If you didn't have a set range to assess (1-10), that is a common practice if something is so beyond common reality. This is where you use the mean to judge how far off from center these events are from "the average".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maccai3

Maccai3

Posted
Posted
hm so it's kinda like average, but you don't use the values of the votes, just the counts? 10 votes above 8 have the same weight as 10 votes below 8, regardless of what those votes are. The ones below 8 matter because they're below 8, not because they're 3s or 4s. In this calculation a 3 and a 4 have the weight.

 

Did I miss the boat again?

 

you're getting it

 

basically its the middle value that seperates the high votes from the low votes, in this case 8

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ianh

ianh

Posted
Posted

Was going to say 9 as I didn't like a few things but the fact that I have been wanting to see a Superman like this since I was a kid in the 70's with the amazing fight scenes bumped it to a 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maccai3

Maccai3

Posted
Posted
hm so it's kinda like average, but you don't use the values of the votes, just the counts? 10 votes above 8 have the same weight as 10 votes below 8, regardless of what those votes are. The ones below 8 matter because they're below 8, not because they're 3s or 4s. In this calculation a 3 and a 4 have the weight.

 

Did I miss the boat again?

 

you're getting it

 

basically its the middle value that seperates the high votes from the low votes, in this case 8

 

it also gives the statistical anomalies, in this case the 1's less weight

 

eg

 

5 voters on any film

3-10's

1-9

1-1

 

median is 10

mean is 8

mode is 10

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
hm so it's kinda like average, but you don't use the values of the votes, just the counts? 10 votes above 8 have the same weight as 10 votes below 8, regardless of what those votes are. The ones below 8 matter because they're below 8, not because they're 3s or 4s. In this calculation a 3 and a 4 have the weight.

 

Did I miss the boat again?

 

you're getting it

 

basically its the middle value that seperates the high votes from the low votes, in this case 8

 

In Six Sigma, a good case study used of why not to trust the mean by itself relates to some advertising University of North Carolina was using to attract top students. I guess for a period of time they were stating their average student upon graduation started out at $70,000 in annual salary. Someone looked into this after a few years, and realized why the number appeared high.

 

Michael Jordan, 1984, $6.15 million over seven years ($800K +/annually).

 

doh!

 

He didn't graduate from there until 1986 when he finished his degree. But some smarty thought to include him anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maccai3

Maccai3

Posted
Posted
hm so it's kinda like average, but you don't use the values of the votes, just the counts? 10 votes above 8 have the same weight as 10 votes below 8, regardless of what those votes are. The ones below 8 matter because they're below 8, not because they're 3s or 4s. In this calculation a 3 and a 4 have the weight.

 

Did I miss the boat again?

 

you're getting it

 

basically its the middle value that seperates the high votes from the low votes, in this case 8

 

In Six Sigma, a good case study used of why not to trust the mean by itself relates to some advertising University of North Carolina was using to attract top students. I guess for a period of time they were stating their average student upon graduation started out at $70,000 in annual salary. Someone looked into this after a few years, and realized why the number appeared high.

 

Michael Jordan, 1984, $6.15 million over seven years ($800K +/annually).

 

doh!

 

He didn't graduate from there until 1986 when he finished his degree. But some smarty thought to include him anyway.

 

haha

:roflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted

And what an outlier he is.

 

Michael Jordan Salary History:

 

84-85 Chicago Bulls $550,000

85-86 Chicago Bulls $630,000

86-87 Chicago Bulls $737,500

87-88 Chicago Bulls $845,000

88-89 Chicago Bulls $2 million

89-90 Chicago Bulls $2.25 million

90-91 Chicago Bulls $2.5 million

91-92 Chicago Bulls $3.25 million

92-93 Chicago Bulls $4 million

93-94 Chicago Bulls $4 million

94-95 Chicago Bulls $3.85 million

95-96 Chicago Bulls $3.85 million

96-97 Chicago Bulls $30.14 million

97-98 Chicago Bulls $33.14 million

01-02 Washington Wizards $1 million

02-03 Washington Wizards $1.03 million

Career: $93.7 million

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thunsicker

thunsicker

Posted
Posted
hm so it's kinda like average, but you don't use the values of the votes, just the counts? 10 votes above 8 have the same weight as 10 votes below 8, regardless of what those votes are. The ones below 8 matter because they're below 8, not because they're 3s or 4s. In this calculation a 3 and a 4 have the weight.

 

Did I miss the boat again?

 

you're getting it

 

basically its the middle value that seperates the high votes from the low votes, in this case 8

 

In Six Sigma, a good case study used of why not to trust the mean by itself relates to some advertising University of North Carolina was using to attract top students. I guess for a period of time they were stating their average student upon graduation started out at $70,000 in annual salary. Someone looked into this after a few years, and realized why the number appeared high.

 

Michael Jordan, 1984, $6.15 million over seven years ($800K +/annually).

 

doh!

 

He didn't graduate from there until 1986 when he finished his degree. But some smarty thought to include him anyway.

 

Of course with class sizes of 40,000+ that raises the mean only by about $20. But that is correct, outliers affect means quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maccai3

Maccai3

Posted
Posted
And what an outlier he is.

 

Michael Jordan Salary History:

 

84-85 Chicago Bulls $550,000

85-86 Chicago Bulls $630,000

86-87 Chicago Bulls $737,500

87-88 Chicago Bulls $845,000

88-89 Chicago Bulls $2 million

89-90 Chicago Bulls $2.25 million

90-91 Chicago Bulls $2.5 million

91-92 Chicago Bulls $3.25 million

92-93 Chicago Bulls $4 million

93-94 Chicago Bulls $4 million

94-95 Chicago Bulls $3.85 million

95-96 Chicago Bulls $3.85 million

96-97 Chicago Bulls $30.14 million

97-98 Chicago Bulls $33.14 million

01-02 Washington Wizards $1 million

02-03 Washington Wizards $1.03 million

Career: $93.7 million

 

add the sponsors and the Jordan's, apparently he still earns $80m a year

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
hm so it's kinda like average, but you don't use the values of the votes, just the counts? 10 votes above 8 have the same weight as 10 votes below 8, regardless of what those votes are. The ones below 8 matter because they're below 8, not because they're 3s or 4s. In this calculation a 3 and a 4 have the weight.

 

Did I miss the boat again?

 

you're getting it

 

basically its the middle value that seperates the high votes from the low votes, in this case 8

 

In Six Sigma, a good case study used of why not to trust the mean by itself relates to some advertising University of North Carolina was using to attract top students. I guess for a period of time they were stating their average student upon graduation started out at $70,000 in annual salary. Someone looked into this after a few years, and realized why the number appeared high.

 

Michael Jordan, 1984, $6.15 million over seven years ($800K +/annually).

 

doh!

 

He didn't graduate from there until 1986 when he finished his degree. But some smarty thought to include him anyway.

 

Of course with class sizes of 40,000+ that raises the mean only by about $20. But that is correct, outliers affect means quite a bit.

 

Those that graduated in 1984 - not total student count.

 

So in 1984, Univ of NC had 23,602 enrolled students, and a graduating class of 3,802. So 90% less than what you posted, which would have a huge impact on $800K in salary being averaged out across 3,802 students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing