My rating system is using (+) and (-) & 25000 goal

I propose that we do not use points, and convert to a completely pointless system.

Nice rating system analyses I see here. Just theoretically speaking, this system can work with (theoretically) beyond 5 (because normal 5 is 5(-) ) - 5(+) and also before 1 rating, 1(-).

Anyway, I don't use it that way, just thinking about it. I'm just using 5 star for masterpieces only. Or for things unique in its genre (Abbey Road) and of course, 5 stars have 1/3-1/2 in my total ratings and I'm trying to use them sparingly now and edit these older ones and lower rating if possible.

Evolver, I'm using point system, I wouldn't be able to rate anything if I refuse it, I wouldn't be able to review, because reviewing is using system 1-5 and most of people do it in this way. Some use 4.5 of course and I'm using this one. There are slight differences.

I should have rather name this threat as using PA rating system with addition of (+) & (-).

Logan, great table. But if I was about to use it, I would stretch, or shorten it to my needs, because for example for some more folk, than prog folk albums I gave 3 stars, same as with Flash Gordon and Help. But I enjoy them both. But couldn't give Help! for example 5 stars. But Trout Mask, I'm sure a lot of people enjoy it. But I can't give it more than 1 star, because I don't see nothing here. I've tried a lot, but I can't give for example 3 stars to something where I don't see ANYTHING musical. After all, I'm not professional, I just do what I think I can do, write review from my point of view, trying to be fair.

Dean, you're right. You have talent on it. I wasn't thinking in numbers. I in fact did scale of certain length, completely random (in fact long enough to fill 1/2 of forum page), then it looked like this:

And I enlarged it to provide place for images. I wanted to express it, because sole scale wouldn't be so attractive. Yes, these albums can raise some emotions, as I already saw (even just from fun, not seriously meant - MovingPictures), but everyone can go to my collaboratorProfile.asp page and see them. OK, there's a lot of entries, but this signature is just shortcut. And when I look on them, I can defend every of these decisions. And from average ratings of these albums, I'm more or less within normal ratings ( = a lot of people had similar decision), except Trout Mask Replica and Alpha Centauri, but I explained these in reviews.

But this signature isn't so big, is it ? OK, it's wide, taking a lot of page width, but it's just 174px tall, there are many people with bigger picture as sig. But  I understand you, it looks too big. I don't know why, it's just 139.000px. Normal desktop in these days have 1280x1024, which equals roughly ten times more. I have disadvantage with my little screen, 1024x600. Some signatures, I have to scroll to see who's actually posting it :-D

So Dean, yes. I just made this table, gave inner "walls" to it and separated places for 1(-) to 5(+). Roughly, it fits. But we're not thinking about have rating beyond 5 star, do we ? But I didn't get that thing with the bigger rating is, the lesser is space between them. Of course, I once repeated grade because of math, but that was because of teacher issue and me not able to understand. Darn, now I understand Dean. Let me explain it, because 1(-) isn't equal to 1 star rating. We don't think about ratings 1-5 as flat ones, so it's the same thing with 1(-). It means that space between 1 star and 2 star is divided to 1(-) space and 1(+) space. As shown in signature picture, ........ wait a minute, that's doesn't work. Oh, seems like you got me. But I'll find it out.

Truth is that I'm trying to avoid 1 and 2 star ratings. Therefore, I mostly decide between 3-4 and 5 stars. I see what you mean now, as it is, the signature is using actually 6 stars rating system. But I'm not. Therefore I'm not using sig star system. :- / logically speaking, this is truth, so where's the real truth. I have to think about it more.

What about make 1, 2, 3(-),  3(+), 4(-), 4(+), 5(-) and 5(+) ? That wouldn't fit also. Oh crap, I like this. It makes me think and uses my brain to find solution.

I got it. We all know that there can be 4 better and 4 worse, I call it 4(+) and 4(-), some people use 3.5 for example. Do you know why I refuse to use it ? Because when somebody uses 3.5, he means 3 star, never 4. But mathematically speaking, 3.5 can be as much 3 as 4. But it never is 4 in reviews, so question can be, why ? I don't say that my system is flawless, but with your help, I can make it bulletproof. See, it's something different, almost as metaphorically speaking "my baby".

Conclusion: I think that I take rating system as big wilderness, where nothing  is for sure and you have to think about your decision. Therefore, I see stars as beacons, which are there just for orientation and keeping more or less on the right path. I think that my sig shows something which can't be shown. Because as I think about 3 stars and think around them, I see also 1 star as right border for 1(-). For those things worse than other 1(+) things.

It's not my dogma, I welcome new ideas or improvements. This is my best, for now, I'm basically using it for higher ratings, where it works..

Will it help a little bit ? This way, just half of a rating will be leaping over PA scale, with range between stars will be kept. 

5+ 5.00 =5+0.00 5- 4.56 =5-0.44 4+ 4.11 =4+0.11 4- 3.67 =4-0.33 3+ 3.22 =3+0.22 3- 2.78 =3-0.22

So it roughly works, with one eye closed and little bit tolerance.

you have used numbers that could lead to confusion

In fact, I'm not using numbers, just 5(-) and 5(+), so people would probably think that 5(-) = something between 4 and 5, while 5(+) = pure 5 star

non-linear system

So my system isn't also so much linear, is it ? When you hit 5 star on rating page, you'll get pop up message, which is telling you to use 0 rating sparingly. This suggests that in past, this site was using 0-5 star system, which would explain a lot.

What about this ? Look Dean, I appreciate  your help, you pointed out errors in this system, which wasn't obvious on first look (in fact, it worked quite fine and it also looked fine), so I have to improve it. That's good, because ====>

5+        5.00-4.66
5 -        4.66-4.33
4+        4.00-4.33
4-          3.50-4.00
3+        3.00-3.50
3-          2.50-3.00
2+        2.00-2.50
2-          1.66-2.00
1+        1.33-1.66
1-          1.00-1.33

==========> because, after all, I still use 1-5 star ratings :-) so these 1(-) to 5(+) are just words, nothing more. I believe in them, I use them as guide to final rating, but still it nothin dirty, it's fair business. And deviation 0.06 from 4.5 is still not much to be worried about. So no, my rating system in this form isn't exactly compatible with PA system, but it is, almost.

:- / Please Dean, we can find a way how to let me use it. 

I would prefer it if there was the option to review without ratings -- I can see how ratings can be useful for the site. Incidentally, I used to use MRQE.com (movie review query engine to search for film reviews when I didn't have a copy of Sight and Sound around, and I avoided those reviews that came with ratings.  I used to be quite opposed to the principle of ratings generally-speaking.

I also would never have guessed that 5 plus could be equivalent to edit 4.66 plus (that's odd to me).  Where I think that rating system could be useful is when it's used in conjunction with more detailed and explicit rating criteria/ descriptions.

I do like the grading system (A, B, C etc.) because I think it could help[ focus the reviewer's mind in choosing a rating.  Imagine one's a teacher grading papers, or more specifically a music teacher grading students' music -- if one thinks like that, then I think that the ratings are more likely to be more objective/fairer, and it could help improve reviews.  What's important to me is that one has a fairly well-developed framework, and is reasonably knowledgeable about the kind of music being made (understand the music), when one rates and reviews an album.  I don't think a rating should just show preference; it should be more analytically devised.


Edited by Logan - September 19 2009 at 15:03

With all these "refinements" that have been offered over the years, I've found the following shortcomings

1) expand the scale - 1 to 10, or by allowing increments of .5 . You would then avoid having to decide whether an album deserves a 3 instead of a 4. Meaning, you could rate it 7/10 or 3.5 .
    problem - wouldn't a scale of 1to 100 be more accurate ? Or breaking down the scale down to .10 units (2.39, for example) ? How far do you go before it is realized that most readers are just looking for a general opinion.

2) Tagging - Identify the component genres that make up a band's style or sound. Thereby giving a more in-depth description of the music, which means it will be easier for the reader to find albums or acts that they will like.
    problem - Who does the tagging ? How many tags ? Are tags broken down to their comparative ratios ? How much of a specific genre needs to be present   in the music to be used as a tag ? Over the course of a lengthy career, would a band's tags be attached to specific eras ?
     

3) reviews with no rating . Allows the reviewer to give an opinion without a score.
    problem - Ever read a   review where you can't really tell how much the writer liked or disliked the album ?

1to 5. Here's why. I'm one of many. The sum of opinions is calculated this way. This stands  for a general consensus of the community to releases that they know.

I.E. here's a place to start, that you may find useful. If you want to go further or dive deeper, here are other things that you can look at.