Comment 74646

By DanJelly (registered) | Posted February 22, 2012 at 15:45:13 in reply to Comment 74644


I would buy that argument if Jackson Square and the other discarded sites had been re-scored between versions or if critera had been added or re-weighted to reflect any important new considerations.

Neither of these is the case. All 18 properties maintained their unweighted scores (Excellent = 5, Very Good = 4, etc) for each of the 44 criteria, and each of the criteria maintained their weight or importance (A through E), with a single exception which I have noted above, and this exception had no significant bearing on the ranking of Jackson Square or Crestwood in particular.

What changed was the math behind the process, and it changed after the scoring and weighting had already been done. This wasn't a way to introduce new logic or values to the process or codify some new element, it was a manipulation of the process to change the results without having to express the reasons.

It also raises the question: Who were the people who scored these sites and weighted these criteria? Were they previously aware of this mathematical change that altered the final results without their input? If not, they should probably be upset today.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools