interpreting reviews ratings
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31167
Printed Date: November 30 2024 at 05:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: interpreting reviews ratings
Posted By: Pnoom!
Subject: interpreting reviews ratings
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 00:56
|
I'm not quite sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it's in the wrong place.
Now, given that this is a fan-based review site, reviews are generally biased in favor of the album, as not everyone is going to have time to review albums they don't like. So, this thread is for you to share your techniques for interpreting average ratings. For example, here is my strategy: 4.5+ stars: probably 4 stars, often 4.5 stars or above, possibly a true masterpiece 4-4.5 stars: probably 3.5-4 stars, occasionally 4.5 stars or above, occasionally a masterpiece 3.5-4 stars: 2.5-3 stars, not a very good release, occasionally 3.5 or so stars, and very occasionally 4 or more stars 3-3.5 stars: 2-3 stars, probably only for fans of the band 2-3 stars: definitely only for fans of the band 1-2 stars: poor, for completionists only 1 star: clearly not enough ratings to be accurate, but probably poor anyway |
Replies:
Posted By: Australian
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 01:08
|
When I'm working out the "average" of an album I usually round up, for example if an albums rating is 3.5 then I'll round up to 4. This is the way I think when rating. 1 star: they are asking money for this? 2 stars: Not 'bad' but getting there. Or a pointless album (ie. best of album) 3 stars: Ranging from good to very good, not quite what it could be though. 4 stars: Excellent album, essential for some people but just generally a fantastic album. 5 stars: Essential masterpiece for all prog listeners. ------------- 
|
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 03:05
That's about right. Most experienced reviewers here are not really biased. I'm certainly not. In fact, I have a lot of low ratings, telling people what not to waste money on is almost as important to pointing out masterpieces. If I love an album that's not very good on this site's scale, I will still rate it 2 stars but mention that it means a lot to me and on my personal liking scale it's a 5 star album. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Australian wrote:Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 03:30
Here's my interpretation of the scale again (Version 2.4 ):1: Bad (Totally unlistenable, due to bad musicianship, production or songwriting) 2: Mediocre (=Average, which in effect means "bad", but in a more polite way) 3: Good (which means: *Just* good enough to keep in one's collection, but not really recommendable, and usually you have other albums which do the same thing much better) 4: Very Good/Excellent (The most albums of my collection are 4 stars. It may be different for other people though - I like to keep my collection "lean and mean", selling most 1-3 stars albums ... eventually I want to have a collection that only contains 4/5 star albums) 5: Masterpieces/Top Albums (A few non-masterpieces also make it here, because slapping them down to 4 stars would not do them justice.) ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 03:56
|
without meaning too much (as my words-in my review-actually comprise how the album is). and of course, I don't mean here ratings definition, just what I understand and how I adapt to a rating (subjective) :
------------- 
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 06:48
|
I think that most people have misunderstood what I was getting at. It's not what YOU mean when you review an album, it's how you interpret the usually too high ratings on the site generated by lots of fans who review only their favorites (not a bad thing, but it does skew the ratings somewhat).
I wanted to know how you all coped with this. For an example, you can see my first post here. That's not how I rate albums, it's how I interpret ratings. |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 07:06
|
I don't interpret ratings, I interpret the reviewers who's rating is expressed.
------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 07:12
You're not making much sense. Either someone submits ratings that are too high (fanboy), or the person submits mainly ratings/reviews for his/her favorite albums but doesn't exaggerate. But the mere fact that someone's profile contains unusually many high ratings doesn't tell you *why* the reviewer submitted them, or which of the above mentioned principles apply.
You cannot interpret ratings of another person by applying your own "recipe". How do I cope with this situation? Simple: I accept the fact that the ratings have no specific meaning - a good average rating *suggests* that the album might be good, a low average rating *suggests* that the album might be not so good. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 07:41
I'll try to make some sense, then. What I meant is the fact that many people (especially non-members) only review their favorite albums, and accurately give them high ratings. However, this tendency generally exaggarates the actual rating of albums, as people who don't like them are underrepresented. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 08:00
|
^ maybe there are very few people who don't like these albums? No, of course I know what you mean. Generally when people don't like a certain style (e.g. Black Metal, Zeuhl, Canterbury ... any style with extreme attributes would serve as a good example) they don't listen to these albums, and - as a consequence - they don't review them either. Another problem that can't be solved - you can't really review something which you don't listen to.  But this is not really a problem: it applies to all albums, independently of style/genre. Should we force ourselves to listen to albums which we don't like just to be able to add some 1 or 2 star reviews to our record? At least *I* don't think so. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 08:23
5 = An album that I can find no serious fault with and all songs are good to great.4.5 = A really good album but with some small problem that stops it being a masterpiece, rounded down to 4 stars on this site.4 = A very good album with only one or two week parts.3.5 = An album with very good parts but with major flaw(s), rounded up to 4 (as with all half stars below 4).3 = An average album, good and worth a listen but lacks any thing to really make it stand out.2.5 = An album that has some really strong qualities but also many major flaws.2 = Poor album but with a few redeeming qualities.1.5 = A bad album that may have only 1 or 2 good things, but mostly rubbish.1 = A very bad album that has nothing to recommend. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: Paradox
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 09:08
|
I prefer not to read to much into ratings, as people's opinions of music are going to be different. One person may give an album 1 star, I may think it's brilliant. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 09:23
------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
A masterpiece! Excellent music all the way through with really few, or none weak parts. 
Excellent. Very even and balanced, though may have some weaker bits or generally less good than a 5 star album.
Good. Not bad, though lacking. 
Average. Uneven effort, some good and some awful songs.
Poor. Nothing interesting or appealing here, and generally weak and directly bad.