Pop up message for 1 star ratings

Formentera Lady wrote: Also to prevent fanboyism: One may only rate an album 5 stars, if he/she rated another album of the same artist with at least 4 stars. (Exception: if the artist has only 1 album, a 5 star rating should be allowed.)

How would that prevent fanboyism?  At least 4 stars?  Five stars is at least 4 stars. 

Formentera Lady wrote: Epignosis wrote: Formentera Lady wrote: Also to prevent fanboyism: One may only rate an album 5 stars, if he/she rated another album of the same artist with at least 4 stars. (Exception: if the artist has only 1 album, a 5 star rating should be allowed.) How would that prevent fanboyism?  At least 4 stars?  Five stars is at least 4 stars.  Sorry, I mean: ...if he/she rated another album of the same artist with not more than 4 stars. (Well, the difficulties of a foreign language... )

Ah, no problem!

I wouldn't support such a thing though.  In fact, I don't think any changes should be made at all to prevent ratings manipulations.  The freedom to rate and review whatever we want is a good thing.  That people abuse this freedom does not mean we scrap the freedom! 

The admins do a wonderful job weeding out multiple accounts, the rating weights hammer the mountains into molehills (and vice versa), and ultimately, the problems get solved.

CCVP wrote: Agreed Robert, and there are many cases where the artist/band only released one or two albums and both are excellent/masterpieces, such as Sloche, Anglagard, Khan, etc.

What are you talking about?! 

Anglagard is terrible! 

Ok fine. I got the right and fair solution. You all write reviews and rate albums, but they'll only be puablished if they receive my approval, ok?

Epignosis wrote: Formentera Lady wrote: Epignosis wrote: Formentera Lady wrote: Also to prevent fanboyism: One may only rate an album 5 stars, if he/she rated another album of the same artist with at least 4 stars. (Exception: if the artist has only 1 album, a 5 star rating should be allowed.) How would that prevent fanboyism?  At least 4 stars?  Five stars is at least 4 stars.  Sorry, I mean: ...if he/she rated another album of the same artist with not more than 4 stars. (Well, the difficulties of a foreign language... ) Ah, no problem! I wouldn't support such a thing though.  In fact, I don't think any changes should be made at all to prevent ratings manipulations.  The freedom to rate and review whatever we want is a good thing.  That people abuse this freedom does not mean we scrap the freedom!  The admins do a wonderful job weeding out multiple accounts, the rating weights hammer the mountains into molehills (and vice versa), and ultimately, the problems get solved.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's a silly rule. What do you do for artists with only one album? What about if an artist is just so good that its albums all deserve five stars. Imagine if the archives were created in 1969. One could easily argue that Crimson's first two, three, four, five, or six albums deserve five stars. Kayo Dot's albums could easily all be five stars.

I know someone in this thread who'll strongly disagree with you on that last statement

Formentera Lady wrote: The last days I often thought about that, that maybe people rate albums 1 or 2 stars only, because they do not like the artist in general.   For example, I was also tempted to rate Bjork's Debut album (I happen to own it) with 1 star, but then I thought, I could not do this. I would have rated it so low only, because I do not like her style in general. And that would probably not be fair towards her. So shouldn't it be prevented somehow? With a rule, let's say: One may only rate an album 1 or 2 stars, if he/she rated another album of the same artist with at least 3 stars. Also to prevent fanboyism: One may only rate an album 5 stars, if he/she rated another album of the same artist with at least 4 stars. (Exception: if the artist has only 1 album, a 5 star rating should be allowed.) I know it is complicated...

 

Edited by someone_else - December 20 2010 at 07:36

^^^Actually, their third album was quite decent. Their second would be at least decent if the last two track weren't so horrendous. And don't say their repetition is minimalism. There's nothing in there that is anything else but awful pretentiousness.

idlero wrote: Angelo wrote: On a more serious note: the pop up on 5 stars serves a purpose. It's intended to keep people from considering (new) albums master pieces too easily. Not every 'great album' is necessarily a masterpiece. A master piece can only reveal itself by standing the test of time. Maybe you could argue the same for a piece of rubbish, but a one star album is not necessarily a piece of rubbish. It may also be a non-prog album by an artist who has made prog albums before or after the one being rated. One to five stars is not just a numeric rating applied to an album, the individual ratings have their own definitions as well - and that's been the case since the launch of PA. Maybe in theory, but in practice this year we've seen a lot of 5* thrown in the battle for new releases which probably will be gorgotten in 2-3 years..

That's because you lot don't care to read the pop-up
Seriously though - we can't force people to read it, but it helps. At the same time, that is also the reason why we don't add one for 1-star ratings.

I love you guys but these ideas are all horrible. The only real relevance any rating has is for lesser known bands. The ultra-popular bands will have fanboys and all of their favorite band's albums will be 5-stars, end of story. No point playing Keystone Cops and muzzling everyone else to try to control them. There are a lot of reviewers here on PA. If you really want to know about the band, find a reviewer with similar tastes to you see what they say about the band.

This is the only change that makes any sense.
V

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: It would be more useful to stop ratings until an album is released, at least we would avoid annoying reviews of people who were never able to listen the album. Iván