ok folks i realize it has a small ridership do to its location in Erie PA. but skyliner above revine flyer? find it hard to swallowLast edited by teaj, Sunday, July 4, 2010 7:01 AM
No grammar in the first post? I find it hard to swallow.
Ravine flyer 2 is totally assume this year. It is virtually flying over the track. At times I swore the wheels weren't even touching. Smooth as silk, fast and furious. It's got to be ahead of skyliner.
Raven, you're being kind by only mentioning the grammar. :)
Can I awesome this thread is going to be closed? :)
Not sure why it's not on the list, but I ranked it pretty high.
Didn't this feature just debut? Perhaps most members haven't had a chance to rank their coasters yet (I haven't).
At least someone read the FAQ. Thanks, 'Moosh.
Something that just popped into my head while looking at the list:
How do relocated coasters work?
For instance, I wouldn't add Firehawk to my track record because I first rode it as X-Flight and I don't count it as two credits.
So how does that work for ranking them?
I'm assuming I give no weight to Firehawk (even though technically I have with my rating of X-Flight).
This poll sucks. ;)
jeff i did read FAQ tvm and did this to as much update their list as get one of my favorite woodies in the ranking
Huh? Can someone translate teaj's post?
tvm = thanks very much. I think... ;)
As for the rest, I believe teaj is asking why RF2 doesn't rank higher. As with all the other TGG rides I've ridden, it's in MY top-ten. (Yes, even Hades). :)
I can't believe I haven't gotten to Waldameer yet this year. Not only is RF2 in my top 10, it's my second ranked woodie (bet you can't guess what takes the #1 spot!)
It just doesn't have enough votes. If you read the FAQ, then why did you ask why it wasn't there? And if you haven't guessed, we like stuff like punctuation and grammar here.
Gonch: Relocated rides are only counted in their current position. There's kind of a weird compromise there, because some people (including me) like to count them in both places, and one could argue that they offer a different experience in different places. Dominator, for example, seems to ride a lot smoother by many accounts. But the calculation right now is based on current location.
Oh yeah now I remember why "we " don't post here. And no place in my post did I ask why it wasn't there. But am still surprised Lakemont had larger numbers than Waldameer with local populations of 47,000 and 280,000 respectivly. Perhaps it is the lower membership of CoasterBuzz in the area. Enjoy your new Lego Space NeedleLast edited by teaj, Monday, July 5, 2010 2:32 AM
Sorry, but I just have to add a "lol" here.
Who is "Lego Space Needle", and why does teaj enjoy him/her so much? And what does that have to do with the amazing new "coaster buzz" top 100?
By the way, I really like the new top 100 feature. It's pretty interesting. I first heard about it in the recent newsletter, I believe. I only looked at it once, but this thread has reminded me to check it out regularly. Good idea, Jeff. Thanks!
Oh yeah now I remember why "we " don't post here.
Thank god you remembered.
Translation of my reply, for teaj: thk gd u rmmmbrd.
teaj Needs pancakes. Stat!
I noticed this week that Goliath (SFOG) and Griffon cracked the list with 72 votes each. They could still drop back off as new track records come online and the threshold gets higher, but it's hard to say. The comprooder does the math. What I find particularly interesting is how rides with a large sample don't change score much from week to week. That's why I've been so adamant about sample size, and why I happen to think it matters.
What I find particularly interesting is how rides with a large sample don't change score much from week to week. That's why I've been so adamant about sample size, and why I happen to think it matters.
I know we've been back and forth on this, but... :)
In this case I agree entirely. Your system is based on the number of people as a whole. You created a system where sample size is an important part of the equation, so of course it matters.
In the case of Mitch's head-to-head thingy, I still say a smaller sample size is perfectly relevant (or at least as relevant as you can get) on some of the rarer head-to-head comparisons.
I'm not saying a larger sample isn't better or that it doesn't matter at all, but depending on the system used, I still think some of those smaller samples would easily hold up as the sample size grew.
But yeah, the larger a sample size is, the less the results will fluctuate when new samples are added. That just makes sense.Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Monday, July 5, 2010 2:22 PM
You must be logged in to post