DinoToyBlog Star Ratings

[CityRaptor]

What it says in the title. Just look at this Nothosaurus:
https://dinotoyblog.com/nothosaurus-jurassic-world-dino-trackers-danger-pack-by-mattel/

It only has two stars? Why? Simply because it was made by Mattel. It's not perfect, but it is the best Nothosaurus on the blog.
Meanwhile old junk like the Kenner Jurassic Park series 1 Stegosaurus, Inpros ( which clearly where not great even when first released ), somes Hasbros and even screamer type Cheaposaurs get much better ratings.

Why? Because of Nostalgia? Nostalgia is toxic...just like many of the toys associated with it. KICK NOSTALGIA TO THE CURB!

 

[Crackington]

With respect, I don't think rating old figures highly arises from nostalgia, altough it may play a part.

To me it's having an historical appreciation of old toys and figures, many of which were the first made of their species. This was also at a time when there was limited access to information and far fewer resources in palaeontology in general.

I tend to get annoyed by the ratings from the opposite angle, where an old Marx figure gets a two because people obsessed with accuracy can't appreciate that it was accurate at the time (1950s). These old toys are the bedrock on which the modern figures are based.

I also don't think it's fair to lump Inpros in with screamers too. It's true they were cheap and cheerful but there was some thought behind them. They were the first company to make Saltoposuchus and Heteredontosaurus, obscure animals back then. The Pteranodon has pycnofibres unlike its 1970s contemporaries from Invicta, Airfix and Aurora. They were well made little toys and still largely in good condition today.

People need A GREATER APPRECIATION FOR THE HISTORY OF THEIR HOBBY!

[EmperorDinobot]

Well, I mean, I usually only review action figures, and those who love them can be very vocal about them. However, the people who frequent this place will find BOTM far more attractive than the other. If this place attracted more of the Facebook JP groups' members, they'd 1. get really bored and 2. rate Mattel's stupendous, yet misguided work higher. I find it rare for there to be others like me who enjoy the balance, and the incorporation of mixed animals into a dedicated display. I mean, here I am, seriously contemplating getting a vintage Starlux Euparkeria to put in my park right next to the titans. It looks nothing like my PNSO Keichousaurus in terms of detail, and they'll be in the same area, right next to the Mattel Tanystropheus, and under the shadow of the Dreadnoughtus.


I say let's pay attention to that sort of thing when it's contest time. I'll post a review of a nice-ish Mattel figure, and it'll make a 3.3 max, which, quite frankly, is what I would give to this hypothetical example, so in a way, they're right on the nose.



Also, I see some of the older animals with nostalgia. You show me a Carnegie Brachiosaurus, or a JP Velociraptor, or stuff from the JPIII era and I instantly burst to tears. But times change, and people die. You are rating the figure, not your memories. In terms of reviewing them, I'm of the opinion that maybe writing a few things about one's story with this individual would be ok, but clicking on a star is not a good measuring tool if the clicker or user is rating the figure high because of nostalgic feelings towards the figure. The star system ought to be used to objectively rate the figure.

[Bread]

I am not so much concerned about the rating of the figure, but why in the world does this figure have 400+ votes?!

Is it that bad of a figure that people need to vote?

I just want to share my opinion, regardless that I haven't even voted. I think it is an ugly figure, but it's a Mattel figure so I don't expect gold standard. Just not my interest area, but it's not a bad figure. Therefore it's not in my interest to vote.

But still, why in the world does this have a ton of votes?

[SidB]

I am not so much concerned about the rating of the figure, but why in the world does this figure have 400+ votes?!

Is it that bad of a figure that people need to vote?

I just want to share my opinion, regardless that I haven't even voted. I think it is an ugly figure, but it's a Mattel figure so I don't expect gold standard. Just not my interest area, but it's not a bad figure. Therefore it's not in my interest to vote.

But still, why in the world does this have a ton of votes?

Hey, I have a hypothesis - I voted for a figure, then by mistake, voted a second time. To my surprise, that second vote counted. You never used to be able to do this before the reset of the DTB's voting system. Could it be that people, some individuals, are voting dozens of times, or EVEN MORE?

[andrewsaurus rex]

the blog's rating system doesn't clearly define what exactly it is one is rating about the figure.  Is it accuracy?  Quality of sculpt and paint? Historical significance?  Fun factor? Value for money?....and so on. Because of that different people will rate each figure based on what's important to them. 

I really don't see a problem with it.  Most rating systems I encounter elsewhere I only agree with part of the time.  The blog's rating system is just a fun little guide; I don't think it should be taken too seriously.

[Gwangi]

As of this morning the Mattel Nothosaurus has 406 votes and a two star rating. I've been watching the votes stack up steadily since I posted it. I was blown away when it reached 300 and now it has surpassed 400. It's the most voted for toy on the entire blog. I cannot fathom why but I guess either the people have spoken and it's a 2-star figure or someone has too much time on their hands.

I don't know if it is being targeted or not but it is suspicious that it has so many votes and that the votes have jumped up for all the Nothosaurus toys on the blog. Most of them have about 50 votes now and when I posted Mattel's most of them had about 5 votes each. Still, even with a two-star vote the Mattel Nothosaurus has a higher rating than all the others on the blog.

I vote on everything in context. In context with similar figures, with its age, with what kind of toy it is. When I vote for Mattel toys I don't compare them to PNSO, I compare them to other Mattel toys and similar toys. They are action figures, they are toys, they're primarily for kids, and they're Jurassic World merchandise. I judge them based on those things and based on those things the Mattel Nothosaurus is NOT a 2-star toy. Wanna compare Mattel to another company? Compare them to Hasbro. Do that and nothing by Mattel is 2-star. And I vote like that across the board. Quality low-budget toys by Safari and CollectA, higher end figures by PNSO or Rebor, vintage toys, etc. If people aren't doing that then they aren't voting fairly or correctly. And I realize that's just my opinion and people can vote however they want but I still don't think it's fair, correct, or objective.

There has always been a bias around here against dinosaur toys that are clearly toys. Which is strange given the name of this place. Mattel especially has always been looked down upon and the emphasis around here has always been on accuracy. That's fine, I don't care if people like the brand or not, but if you don't like it then why bother voting for it on the blog? I don't visit blogs for products I don't like and/or buy and vote on them. That's weird. All that said, there are some Mattel toys that have done well on the blog...

Dreadnoughtus has a 4.5 star rating
HC Ceratosaurus has a 4
HC T. rex has a 4.8 which is the same as the BotM T. rex

At the end of the day they're just votes for toys and shouldn't be taken seriously. I just find myself invested since I write so many of these reviews.

[suspsy]

There is definitely something fishy going on with the Nothosaurus review. I don't buy for an instant that 408 different people voted on the exact same review.

[Gwangi]

On the subject of vintage figures I tend to be more forgiving of older figures when I vote for them. But being vintage does not mean a figure is good. Being the only figure of a species, or the first, also does not mean it's good. You can look at vintage figures and still see a spectrum of quality through which they can be judged. The Marx toys are a good benchmark, being the first mass produced dinosaur toys of the type we collect. Likewise, Invicta, which are in my opinion the best of all the vintage toy lines. Keeping Marx and Invicta in mind as a high standard I can then judge other toys from the 50's, 60's, and 70's. In doing so a lot of vintage toys don't do so well, like Inpro. They still have their charm and appeal though, and are worth collecting. They certainly shouldn't be judged against something from PNSO or Haolonggood.

But again, why are people voting for stuff they don't like or don't collect? If I collected Breyer horses I wouldn't feel compelled to downvote or disparage My Little Ponies.

[Crackington]

Excellent points Gwangi, though I tend to judge the oldies by their peer models. E.g. Inpro Triceratops one of their poorer offerings, probably a two, the Pteranodon 3-4 for the reasons I gave in my earlier post.

I should also add that although I'm sticking up for the older models, I do collect modern figures too. I'm in agreement with Emperor Dinobot there.

I don't think there's a "vintage-only" bloc of members actively conspiring to vote down Mattel or any other company. I quite like that Nothosaurus and gave it a four and last year gave the Dreadnoughtus five. I hope they make mini versions of both, will get 'em! (Yes I have some Mattel figures  )..

Maybe something else is going on as Gwangi and Suspsy point out?

[BlueKrono]

But again, why are people voting for stuff they don't like or don't collect? If I collected Breyer horses I wouldn't feel compelled to downvote or disparage My Little Ponies.

People vote to make their opinion known. It varies by individual, but some people will downvote a figure they just don't like. Others might downvote if it's a figure of a type they'd like to see less of, like vintage, or theropods. Personally I have no skin in the game, as I have quite an appreciation for vintage dinos and even some of the more ridiculous modern offerings. I tend to upvote species I like, regardless of whether they're objectively good figures.

[ceratopsian]

My policy is that I don't vote on figures that are distant from my collecting interests. I don't feel I can judge them in a meaningful way. So I wouldn't vote on a Mattel figure, for instance, but I would vote on an Invicta (even though I own only one Invicta).

[Sim]

Something I find strange is that the Wild Safari 2020 Edmontosaurus has 77 votes and a rating of 2.5.  I wonder why it's rated so low?  It's not that bad and I don't remember any criticism of that figure.  Is it just because it lacks nails on its hands?  That seems like a strange thing to downvote a figure on...

[Sim]

Adding to my previous post, I've been going through the blog's entries as I want to rate figures I've recently acquired.  And I've noticed the Safari 2019 Spinosaurus has a rating of two, while the AAA Utahraptor which doesn't look like a real animal has a rating of 4.1!

[Sim]

Adding to my previous post again, I've just got to the original Schleich Ceratosaurus and it has 39 votes and is rated at 3.8!

[Eatmycar]

Frankly, a lot of the Mattel stuff seems like it gets an egregious amount of votes. Negative votes too.

While I don't think it is a conspiracy, I find it odd that the Hammond Concavenator sits with 159 votes (https://dinotoyblog.com/concavenator-jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-hammond-collection-by-mattel/) when it is a very well made, painted, and designed figure.

I don't think all of this accounts for the bloody thumb claw either. I sincerely feel like people vote down the Mattel figures by a wide margin. It's likely the only articulated Concavenator on the market and will likely remain such, so I don't understand why it is taking such flak.

[Eatmycar]

To double post - I think the rating system should be revised or at least put on hold for a bit. In no way are some of these results reflective of a community's views on a figure.

https://dinotoyblog.com/tyrannosaurus-electronic-real-feel-jurassic-park-93-classic-collection-by-mattel/ 100 votes on this? Come on.

Meanwhile, one of the most anticipated action figures of last year... (this is a toy forum, I'm not sure why there is such a stigma against toys here) ...has only 53 votes? https://dinotoyblog.com/triceratops-118-scalebeasts-of-the-mesozoic-by-creative-beast-studio/

If anything should have more votes, it should be the Triceratops. Yet the Mattel rex has more votes, and they seem to be very negative. While I understand it's not paleoaccurate and it is an action figure (in a toy forum of all places?!), it's hard to understand the massive discrepancy between the ratings here and the glowing praises this figure has received in the Jurassic toy community without feeling as if some of these things are deliberately being shot down by people who dislike Mattel's creations.

[SidB]

There is definitely something fishy is going on with the Nothosaurus review. I don't buy for an instant that 408 different people voted on the exact same review.

EXACTLY. There's NO WAY 400 plus  different people have voted. There's something wrong with the voting mechanism. As I said previously, I was able to vote more than once on the same figure. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAPPEN! Likely one individual or a very few are responsible for the 400 votes.

[Lynx]

Something I find strange is that the Wild Safari 2020 Edmontosaurus has 77 votes and a rating of 2.5.  I wonder why it's rated so low?  It's not that bad and I don't remember any criticism of that figure.  Is it just because it lacks nails on its hands?  That seems like a strange thing to downvote a figure on...

I feel like vote rigging is definitely going on. Theres no way people are giving that many one stars.

[Eatmycar]

There is definitely something fishy is going on with the Nothosaurus review. I don't buy for an instant that 408 different people voted on the exact same review.

EXACTLY. There's NO WAY 400 plus  different people have voted. There's something wrong with the voting mechanism. As I said previously, I was able to vote more than once on the same figure. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAPPEN! Likely one individual or a very few are responsible for the 400 votes.

That's interesting because I can't vote a second time for the BoTM Triceratops (even though I voted for it once)... but I can for the Hammond Collection Concavenator.

I suspect something has to be toggled and the votes wiped entirely for these clearly over-voted figures.