The question should be changed a bit. To get to the correct answer the normalized_rating is not needed (it actually makes it more difficult to answer). A better question would be, how many movies exists where the normalized_rating is equal to 1 (or 2 or whatever, have not yet checked)
Hi @Ivan_Jozsef_Torok, thanks for your valuable suggestion.
Since the question ends with:
What film has the lowest normalized_rating?
But as per your suggestion, giving an exact number would change the meaning/essence of the question. However, I will forward this feedback to the team, and we’ll make an update to the question, if needed.
In case you have any doubts, please feel free to reach out to us.
Thanks and Regards.
Curriculum Services Engineer
Okay, to clarify. My point is this: the following two questions have the same answer.
- What film has the lowest normalized_rating?
- What film has the lowest rating?
Quiestion 1. is difficult to answer (although it has the potential to learn more about normalized_rating).
Questoin 2. is easy to answer (but does not have the potential to learn more about normalized_rating).
Let’s ask a different question instead:
3. How many films have normalized_rating between 2 and 3?
This question cannot be answered as easily as finding the lowest rating (with or without calculating the normalized_rating value). It can only be answered if the normalized_rating value is properly calclulated.
Hence the student cannot cheat (as I did) by simply checking for the film with the lowest rating instead of the (more difficult) lowest normalized_rating. To me the lowest of a normalized or plain value is the same from the same group. It is not as obvious to me to know a subset of the group based on normalized value. For that I would really need to calculate the normalized value first, then search for the ones that fit the criteria. But to find the edge of the scale I do not have to calculate the normalized value. Just simply check what is on the end.
Does it make more sense?