no ravine flyer2 in the coaster buzz top 100

Mitch uses the "head-to-head" methodology in order to make more comparisons overall. It's a way to TRY and compensate for low ridership. While it does make it easier to "game the system", it also permits rides to be counted that might not be in a major (US) area.

IMO, Blackpool's wooden Wild Mouse blows away most everyting else on the list, for instance...unimaginably good.

Yeah, you know how I feel about that. A small sample is still a small sample. There is no way to compensate for that.

If I recall, I couldn't vote for Tig'ger at IBeach, on Mitch's poll (I think you could vote for generic "jet star."). Tig'ger is one of my favorite steel coasters, so polls and lists are just that. Everyone has their own in the end.

Have you ridden it since they added seatbelts? I don't think it changed the ride experience. I was just suprised they got added.

Without sounding like a fanboy, I really like what Jeff has constructed here. I appreciate how dynamic it is. Instead of once a year, it changes every week. As members post their track records, the poll shifts to reflect the new numbers coming in. And as individuals add new credits, their own shifting track records can influence the greater ranking.

I don't know if it's any more valid a methodology than Mitch's, or any other coaster poll, but it's certainly the most interesting and fun that I've seen.

Jason Hammond said:
Have you ridden it since they added seatbelts? I don't think it changed the ride experience. I was just suprised they got added.

I sure have. I still love the ride, but I do prefer most 'classic' coasters as they were meant to be. It's really no biggie, but there are always more points for the 'no seat belt' rides that are kept that way.

I find it rather... odd, when I hear coaster enthusiasts are uncomfortable without seatbelts, etc. Seems a little backwards.

Some of us aren't resistant to change. :)

When Tig'rr had no seatbelts, you could cram an extra adult in there for bonus speed... just sayin'... :)

P.S. to Jeff- yes, I truly get the aversion to small samples (and anecdotal evidence)...and I tend to believe that they're generally attached to "bad science".

Tons of movement on the list this week. I'm suprised to see that Bizarro dropped from 2nd to 5th.

With a different number of riders and numbers out to 5 decimal places, what are the odds of this:

91. Wild Thing, Valleyfair! 3.50000 (88 riders)
91. Mamba, Worlds of Fun 3.50000 (98 riders)

Pretty good, apparently. There are several ties in there. Happened the first week as well, and I checked the math to make sure.

Not that it matters much, but shouldn't the tie go to the ride with more votes, as in:
91. Mamba
92. Wild Thing

Raven-Phile said:
Some of us aren't resistant to change. :)

I hear ya Raven. By the name token, some of us haven't been conditioned by lame concepts such as 'stapleing' of lap bars and pretty much inert rides like most B&Ms. Add to that PTC ratchet bars, etc.

I'm not the biggest B&M fan, though some of them are pretty fun. I'm also not really a "classic" out-n-back fan. I much prefer to be thrown the hell around if I'm going to wait in line for something. I don't necessarily like rides that are bumpy and rough, but I crave intensity.

That, is why Maverick is absolutely my favorite ride these days.

Raven-Phile said: I much prefer to be thrown the hell around if I'm going to wait in line for something.

Have I got a ride for you! (wink wink nudge nudge) ;)

Do I finally get my M:TR credit??

Just have to keep playing devil's advocate here for a minute:

rollergator said:
P.S. to Jeff- yes, I truly get the aversion to small samples (and anecdotal evidence)...and I tend to believe that they're generally attached to "bad science".

But aren't the anomolies of low ridership based on sample group in the CB list (things like RFII, Prowler, Evel Knievel, Renegade and countless top-notch foreign coasters all missing from the list due to low ridership) making the results as potentially inaccurate as the fallacy of including low rideship based on the rarity of a group from which to sample in Mitch's List?

Because, if you remove those personal choices of inaccuracy - Jeff choosing to leave off coasters that clearly would make the list if he had a larger sample size (those US woodies) or more well-traveled, diverse sample (foreign steel) and/or Mitch allowing the small samples and using a sample group that tend to travel more - then the lists are strikingly similar (once you break the CB list to spearate wood and steel lists).

Which says to me they're essentially playing with the same data at the core of it all. They just choose to display it (with their own tolerance for misses in either direction) in different ways...and regardless, a miss is a miss.

(Jeff addresses much of that quite well in the FAQ too.)

And if you compare the Golden Ticket list - well, it's clear (to me, at least) that there's a a collection of coasters that are just good. We all know which ones they are and it's not a mystery or a science to know or express that info. Seems like all of these polls, lists, formulas and algorithms are all just ways of overthinking the same common, collective knowledge.

And yes, I realize the irony in bitching about overthinking something by overthinking it. :)

With that said the CB list is a lot of fun. Personally, I love that the wood and steel aren't separated, the dynamic nature is one of those "so simple it was hard" ideas and the fact that it tends to skew towards the US makes it extra relevant for me as I have little desire - or resources - for international coaster travel.

Good stuff.

Now if someone really wants to make the definitive list - do a mash-up of the data from all three lists (CB, GT and Mitch) and present the aggregate. ;)

Lord Gonchar said:
But aren't the anomolies of low ridership based on sample group in the CB list (things like RFII, Prowler, Evel Knievel, Renegade and countless top-notch foreign coasters all missing from the list due to low ridership) making the results as potentially inaccurate as the fallacy of including low rideship based on the rarity of a group from which to sample in Mitch's List?

Perhaps, but I think what Bill and I are getting at is that there's scientific precedent here, and it has been around for hundreds of years. Statistics are generally only as meaningful as their sample size. If you wanted to get really geeky about it, I'm sure books have been written about why this is so. With each increase in the counting of any statistic, it's more likely that it represents a true indication of what the reality is. It's probably exponential, too. No one would ever argue that 100 opinions are less likely to represent an actual average than 2.

Are the results of Mitch's poll results and those of any other poll really all that different? Seems to me we see the same rides near the top (and bottom) of pretty much any poll.

Raven-Phile said:
Do I finally get my M:TR credit??

Sorry, I prefer masculine men. ;)

Mamoosh said:
Are the results of Mitch's poll results and those of any other poll really all that different? Seems to me we see the same rides near the top (and bottom) of pretty much any poll.

That's essentially where I ended with my wordy post above. :)

Jeff said:
Perhaps, but I think what Bill and I are getting at is that there's scientific precedent here, and it has been around for hundreds of years.

I get that. But my repeated, gentle prodding comes with the fact that despite following all the best scientific precedent the results are still flawed in a way that ignores the reality.

Does it really matter how you get there if the end result is the same?

That is to say we all know coasters like RFII, Prowler, Renegade, Expedition GeForce and others are among the best in the world an any list omitting them is inaccurate at best. We don't need numbers or scientific precedent to know that. In this case that kind of scrutiny is getting in the way of the reality. It's overthinking it.

In this case, the scientific precedent is failing on some level.

It's almost the inverse of your complaints about Mitch's poll. In being so strict with the data, the list misses obvious truths.

Funniest part is, like I said, that if we toss out the fringe anomolies from the polls, both lists are strikingly similar.

Even scarier? They look a lot like the Golden Tickets. :)