Maybe Progarchives needs a 6th star!

Well, I have not listened to every cd reviewd with 5 stars here in progarchives, but I´m sure that not all those deserves to be call MASTERPIECE.

What is needed here?:  

1) A 6th star to Real Masterpeices

2) Redefine the meaning of each star.... Maybe 4 stars would be I really love this album and I recomed (or command) to every one to buy it   and 5 stars MASTERPIECE

I don´t now what do you think, but from my point of view the website did a nice job changing the algorithm to rank the top 100 albums, so, I think that they need to work on this topic too, and it will help to everyone to find the reviews and rankings more helpfull.

If it is left beside then a Britney feat Michael Bolton album arranged by Alan Parsons could be ranked as a Masterpiece and just for the arrangments.

Thats no fare to real Masterpieces!

Suggestions?

The problem is, most people don't review what they like harsh enough.  I have two albums in my collection that I'd give that 5th (or 6th ) star.  I've got hundreds of albums, and there are only a handful that I don't enjoy...  but among the hundreds, there are only *two* I would give the perfect score.  (TFK's Unfold The Future and Pain Of Salvation's Remedy Lane, for the record)

We need to redefine the system, really...  where 1 star is just bad, 2 stars is flawed, but fans will still love it, 3 stars is still a worthy prog purchase, an "average" for good prog, 4 is love-it-it's-really-damn-good, and 5 stars is flawless.  Or switch to a 10-star scale.  Or something.    But I agree, far too often do people think "Now I really fancy that album, even listen to it once a month or so...  five stars!"


Edited by Man Overboard

Yes, I think that 4.5 stars is needed too.

 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Man Overboard wrote: The problem is, most people don't review what they like harsh enough.  I have two albums in my collection that I'd give that 5th (or 6th ) star.  I've got hundreds of albums, and there are only a handful that I don't enjoy...  but among the hundreds, there are only *two* I would give the perfect score.  (TFK's Unfold The Future and Pain Of Salvation's Remedy Lane, for the record) We need to redefine the system, really...  where 1 star is just bad, 2 stars is flawed, but fans will still love it, 3 stars is still a worthy prog purchase, an "average" for good prog, 4 is love-it-it's-really-damn-good, and 5 stars is flawless.  Or switch to a 10-star scale.  Or something.    But I agree, far too often do people think "Now I really fancy that album, even listen to it once a month or so...  five stars!" Isn't the rating defined that way? People just don't realise that 3 stars actually means "good", not "mediocre". I admit that I've written some 5 star reviews ... maybe those were 4.5 star reviews really ... if you define 5 stars as "1 out of hundreds of albums", I think that we really need more stars. It really depends on the definition, you can either say "4 stars are very good albums, 5 stars are exceptional (essential) albums and masterpieces", or "4 stars are very good and exceptional (essential) albums, and 5 stars is masterpieces". I guess we really need 4.5 stars to appropriately rate essential albums that are a little short of being absolute masterpieces.

So what's the difference between a masterpiece and a real masterpiece?

My suggestion for this would be the following.

reviewers rate between 0 till 5 stars.

where
5 stars means a masterpiece within the subgenre.
4 stars means a very good album
3 stars means a good album
2 stars means not good, only for fans
1 star   means bad album
0 stars means a disgrace to music

 

then there is the sixth star, which can't be aworded individually, but is calculated with a simple formula, where the result amounts to a percentage of 6 star quality.

The 10 highest ratings, and the 10 lowest ratings are neglected, and the rest of the ratings are averaged, and multiplied with 20. an extra condition can be a minimum of 50 ratings (arbitrary, maybe 100 ratings will be more apropriate)

 

excample.

YES Close to the Edge ratings (198 entries)

Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (83%) (163 ratings) Excellent addition to any prog music collection (9%) (17 ratings) Good, but non-essential (4%) (8 ratings) Collectors/fans only (2%) (4 ratings) Poor. Only for completionists (3%) (6 ratings)

top 10 ratings, and bottom 10 ratings are substracted,

so we'll have

5 stars = 153  =      765
4 stars = 17    =       68
3 stars = 8      =       24
2 stars = 0
1 stars = 0

average is 857/178 = 4,81 * 20 = 96% 6 star equivalent.

so it's almost certainly regarded by the majority as a masterpiece.

More disputed albums, will have a wider spread of ratings, and have a lower score.

 

I like this idea

Half stars? Stupid babble. A 0-10 scale would be the correct way to go. The 1-5 scale is way too narrow to allow for any accurate rating, especially in prog rock.

That said, the main problem is that most people do not rate albums properly, like I do. You have to remain completely objective, because if you give a flawed album the best rating, the same rating awarded to an album that is flawless, will be rendered meaningless.

 

Poxx wrote: Half stars? Stupid babble. A 0-10 scale would be the correct way to go. The 1-5 scale is way too narrow to allow for any accurate rating, especially in prog rock. That said, the main problem is that most people do not rate albums properly, like I do. You have to remain completely objective, because if you give a flawed album the best rating, the same rating awarded to an album that is flawless, will be rendered meaningless.

half stars 0-5 and stars 0-10 is the same ...

Objectivity is an illusion ... determining if an album is flawed or not is totally subjective. Complete flawlessness is an illusion, too.

Like above, I'd like to mention CttE ... it is very much flawed by today's standards, but a masterpiece nonetheless.

A sixth star? Please, do not give the progmetal fanboys even more weapons...