Partial explanation: we interpret these scales as going from worst possible to best possible, and
games that get as far as being on sale and getting reviews are usually at least pretty good because otherwise there’d be no point selling them and no point reviewing them
people entering competitions are usually at least pretty good because otherwise they wouldn’t be there
a typical day is actually quite a bit closer to best possible than worst possible, because there are so many at-least-kinda-plausible ways for it to go badly
One reason why this is only a partial explanation is that “possible” obviously really means something like “at least semi-plausible” and what’s at least semi-plausible depends on context and whim. But, e.g., suppose we take it to mean something like: take past history, discard outliers at both ends, and expand the range slightly. Then I bet what you find is that
most games that go on sale and attract enough attention to get reviewed are broadly of comparable quality
but a non-negligible fraction are quite a lot worse because of some serious failing in design or management or something
most performances in competitions at a given level are broadly of comparable quality
but a non-negligible fraction are quite a lot worse because the competitor made a mistake of some kind
most of a given person’s days are roughly equally satisfactory
but a non-negligible fraction are quite a lot worse because of illness, work stress, argument with a family member, etc.
so that in order for a scale to be able to cover (say) 99% of cases it needs to extend quite a bit further downward than upward relative to the median case.
a typical day is actually quite a bit closer to best possible than worst possible, because there are so many at-least-kinda-plausible ways for it to go badly
Think about it in therms of probability space. If somthign is basically functional, then there are a near- infinite number of ways for it to be worse, but a finite number of ways for it to get better.
Partial explanation: we interpret these scales as going from worst possible to best possible, and
games that get as far as being on sale and getting reviews are usually at least pretty good because otherwise there’d be no point selling them and no point reviewing them
people entering competitions are usually at least pretty good because otherwise they wouldn’t be there
a typical day is actually quite a bit closer to best possible than worst possible, because there are so many at-least-kinda-plausible ways for it to go badly
One reason why this is only a partial explanation is that “possible” obviously really means something like “at least semi-plausible” and what’s at least semi-plausible depends on context and whim. But, e.g., suppose we take it to mean something like: take past history, discard outliers at both ends, and expand the range slightly. Then I bet what you find is that
most games that go on sale and attract enough attention to get reviewed are broadly of comparable quality
but a non-negligible fraction are quite a lot worse because of some serious failing in design or management or something
most performances in competitions at a given level are broadly of comparable quality
but a non-negligible fraction are quite a lot worse because the competitor made a mistake of some kind
most of a given person’s days are roughly equally satisfactory
but a non-negligible fraction are quite a lot worse because of illness, work stress, argument with a family member, etc.
so that in order for a scale to be able to cover (say) 99% of cases it needs to extend quite a bit further downward than upward relative to the median case.
Think about it in therms of probability space. If somthign is basically functional, then there are a near- infinite number of ways for it to be worse, but a finite number of ways for it to get better.
http://xkcd.com/883/