New Entries in the CoasterBuzz Top 100

It must be ridden by half of the "experienced riders*"

*someone whose count is above the median for CBuzz users

So does that mean those 41 are all experienced riders?

Or are there non-experienced riders who were included in the 40 waiting for 1 more experienced rider to push them over the top?

Or is it impossible to tell without consulting the video tape?

Rider experience is on a slider.

Those 41 are all experienced riders.

Siren's Curse enters the chat, much higher than I would have initially guessed. I feel like the reception on parts of the internet has been very positive but not ecstatic.

But, given our recent discussion, the placement does make sense. The ride looks absolutely terrific, CBuzz's audience heavily leans toward folks who go to Cedar Point regularly, and maybe people who are likely to have ridden it in its opening season are also likely to be folks who are going to enjoy it a lot - self-selection bias essentially.

That's just about how I'd describe it: It's really good, it's not great. It is possible that a 1-5 scale isn't very good at capturing that? Throw in the novelty of the tilt mechanism, and it is easy to see how folks give it the benefit of the doubt.

(I've never bothered to rank my track record. I'm a bad enthusiast, I guess.)

There's that 41 again. I'm intrigued by the notion that 0 non-experienced riders have been on Siren's Curse. I'm not saying it's wrong; just interesting. It made a lot more sense for Nemesis as it takes a certain level of enthusiast to make the trek, but I get the impression a lot of coasterbuzzers get to Cedar Point on the regular.

Here's where I need someone to tell me how I'm being a dumb-dumb. Millennium Force is the champion of ridership at 856 riders. If that's the entire coasterbuzz populace, wouldn't that mean we have 428 experienced riders? Then that would require a ride to be on 214 track records?

Not sure what you're asking. There are plenty of non-experienced riders who rated it. They're not counted in that number.

Brian, you aren’t the only one who doesn’t rank. I just give stars. It would be impossible to rank, maybe if I were to rank by category, like best wood, best invert, best historic, etc. but I could never give a definite top 5.

I guess what I should have said is that I neither rank nor rate. Again: I'm a Bad Enthusiast, and I Feel Bad.

There isn't a way for individuals to rank coasters. Beyond giving them a 1-5 rating. Collectively, those 1-5 ratings (using the formula being discussed in recent posts in this thread) result in the Top 100 coasters per this site. Doesn't look like Professor Noble does the 1-5 ratings. I don't either. Its just an easy way for me to keep track of number of coasters I have ridden.

You've been able to rank coasters for like, 15+ years. With the link on your track record that says "rank your track record" under the title "track record." Not that many people bother. I don't either.

Honestly I don’t think I could rank more precisely than the 1-5 scale. Except I might add a zero reserved for those special machines I wouldn’t ride again if you paid me. (Son of Beast, any Zamperla Volare, etc.)

^^ Learn something new.... Or maybe re-learn something I knew 15+ years ago.

Is someone who ranks their track record weird? Or maybe someone who doesn't rate the coasters on theirs is? ;)

I rank mine. I'm a freak.

It's fun. I start at the top and ask myself, "Self? Would you rather ride this one, or the one below it?"

And then Self replies either, "Move that one down, Freak. I like the one under it a little better," or, "Keep it there, Freak. I like the one below it a little worse."

I move down the list, looking at coasters two at a time, sliding them up and down, asking myself which one I would rather ride it they were the only two coasters on the planet.

Adding stars makes it even more challenging, because sometimes I notice that a three star is in the four star group, for example, and I need to figure out if the mistake is the stars, or the rank.

Anxiety and irritability set in once I realize a few days later that my tastes have changed, and I need to re-rank accordingly.

I give all the coasters on my track record a 1-5 rating on here, but don't rank them. I created a spreadsheet probably around the time I joined Coasterbuzz (2002) and have them ranked in separate wood and steel categories. And after 214 coasters, those rankings are so ridiculous, to be honest.

Edit: Just found the creation date of the spreadsheet and it was 6/1/2001. So I was browsing this site at the time but wouldn't sign up as a member until the following March. I've had this stupid thing for nearly half my life (just updated today after adding 3 more coasters at Busch Gardens this past weekend*), so my nerddom is off the charts. I should probably create a spreadsheet for that. Complete with sliders.

*Pantheon is my new #1 steel. It's that good.

For those that are curious, the math shakes out like this;

If we presume that no one rated Siren's Curse at a 3 or below (a large assumption to be sure), then the score comes from 28 of the 41 ranking it a 5, and the other 13 ranking it a 4;

(28 riders x 5 rank) + (13 riders x 4 rank) = 192 points / 41 riders = 4.68293 Score

So, the ratio of rank 5 vs rank 4 is about 2-to-1. That seems quite realistic.

For reference, the top spot of Steel Vengeance (with the same assumption) works out to be 310 riders at rank 5 and 27 riders at rank 4..... which is more than an 11-to-1 ratio. SteVe obviously impresses the hell out of most people that ride it.

Later,
EV

Brian Noble:

I neither rank nor rate. Again: I'm a Bad Enthusiast, and I Feel Bad.

You should :) Our top 100 is irreparably skewed because of your lack of ratings.

EchoVictor:

… SteVe …

Sven

I rate anything "could matter" for the top 100. On my home spreadsheet I rank things on a scale of 10 but everything lower than 5 just gets "not worth ranking." I have some fine separation at the top (9.9's and 9.8's) but generally by 0.5 increments elsewhere so there's quite a few "these coasters are all in this general range and I'm not going to split hairs." But to each their own.