| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Moatilliatta 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 01 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3083
|
 Topic: Half-Star Ratings
Posted: May 10 2006 at 17:12 |
I didn't see anything appear in the search, so I thought I'd bring this idea up:
I see a lot of reviewers (including myself) make a note about the album worth _.5 stars or "add another half star," etc. for whatever reason, but they have to mark it down slightly less than they think it's worth, or they raise it up slightly more than they think it's worth. It isn't really important, but it might be nifty if we could have half-star rating abilities. I did see a thread suggesting a 10-star system, but I think condensing it into 5 with half-stars would be better.
|
www.last.fm/user/ThisCenotaph
 
|
 |
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: May 10 2006 at 17:43 |
I'm very much against the idea, but i believe that there will be half stars at some time.
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21616
|
Posted: May 10 2006 at 18:13 |
How about introducing ONE half star:
1 2 3 4 4.5 5
|
|
|
|
Fitzcarraldo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
|
Posted: May 10 2006 at 18:24 |
 MikeEnRegalia wrote:
How about introducing ONE half star:
1 2 3 4 4.5 5
|
I think things are OK as they are really, but would not be particularly bothered if half-stars were introduced.
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21616
|
Posted: May 10 2006 at 18:42 |
The point is that the current system gives me exactly two options for albums which I really like. 3 stars are already mediocre. Let's face it - an album which you rate "good, but non essential" is not an album that you would recommend to anybody.
So that leaves me with 4 or 5 stars for my favorite albums. Not enough for me!
|
|
|
|
aapatsos
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226
|
Posted: May 10 2006 at 18:47 |
^ this is true
if there is only one half star that needs to be inroduced, that's the 4.5 star
|
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 03:57 |
|
One of the main issues with introducing half stars now is the impact on all the existing ratings. For the majority of people, these cannot be changed once they are posted. We would be inundated with people saying, I gave this album 3 stars but I now want to make it 3½.
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 04:26 |
|
Half stars would be great. Its needed.
There' a huge difference if an album is rated 3.51 of 4.49. Still they both end up being a (****) four star album. Very misleading.
****1/2 stars is also its how most people would rate albums with one
weak song short of a masterpiece. When four is too little, five is too
much.
|
|
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21616
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 05:15 |
Easy Livin wrote:
One of the main issues with introducing half stars now is the impact on all the existing ratings. For the majority of people, these cannot be changed once they are posted. We would be inundated with people saying, I gave this album 3 stars but I now want to make it 3½. |
Of course that's a problem. But I doubt that many people would insist on this. And those who do could be told: "Write more reviews, become a Prog Reviewer and then you're able to edit your reviews".
|
|
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20033
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 08:18 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
The point is that the current system gives me exactly two options for albums which I really like. 3 stars are already mediocre. Let's face it - an album which you rate "good, but non essential" is not an album that you would recommend to anybody.
So that leaves me with 4 or 5 stars for my favorite albums. Not enough for me! |
Why not? If an album's good, then I'd recommend it. There's no such thing as an "essential" album in the strict definition of the word.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21616
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 08:33 |
|
^ I mean that an album which I award with only 3 stars is one that IMO contains so many flaws that while I would not call it bad (I'm a polite person) I would not want it in my album collection, and I would not recommend it to anybody.
|
|
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20033
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 08:48 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ I mean that an album which I award with only 3 stars is one that IMO contains so many flaws that while I would not call it bad (I'm a polite person) I would not want it in my album collection, and I would not recommend it to anybody. |
OK, you're working differently to me. I normally start with 3 stars and work up or down. This means the average CD in my collection would be 3 stars (that would be something like Rush's Fly By Night, nothing earth shattering, but perfectly reasonable and one I would play every now and then), then there would be the 4 star albums such as Renaissance's Ashes Are Burning which (imo) are brilliant and get played a lot, then I reserve 5 stars for absolute classics such as Relayer.
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20436
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 09:03 |
chopper wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ I mean that an album which I award with only 3 stars is one that IMO contains so many flaws that while I would not call it bad (I'm a polite person) I would not want it in my album collection, and I would not recommend it to anybody. |
OK, you're working differently to me. I normally start with 3 stars and work up or down. This means the average CD in my collection would be 3 stars (that would be something like Rush's Fly By Night, nothing earth shattering, but perfectly reasonable and one I would play every now and then), then there would be the 4 star albums such as Renaissance's Ashes Are Burning which (imo) are brilliant and get played a lot, then I reserve 5 stars for absolute classics such as Relayer. |
this is exactly how the rating should be done : by the middle and not from the top >> this would avoid many deceptions
Edited by Sean Trane - May 11 2006 at 09:04
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21616
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 09:27 |
|
An album that's in the middle is not an album that I would call good. That's the problem.
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 09:33 |
|
For me a 3 star album is a good album also.
|
|
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 09:39 |
|
The way I see it,many people ascribe "star ratings" based on what they think of the band,not the album.I have actually had one person tell me "I would have give it 4 stars really,but I felt disloyal".
I would personally be happier with a rating out of 10 system with only a rating of 1 and 10 having explanations.
However,the fanboys would still hand out perfect 10s to their favourite bands...
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20436
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 09:48 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
An album that's in the middle is not an album that I would call good. That's the problem. |
if you give three stars to an album, generally I would not call this an excellent album (just good) meaning I do not really recommend it >> the middle albums are not to be really recommended , just the above average ones
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Ricochet
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 12:45 |
Much too complicated.....let it be this way....like...till ever. 
also do think that any change in the rating system would be of sever
damage to the already existing reviews....what happens with them? 
Edited by Ricochet - May 11 2006 at 12:46
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21616
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 13:09 |
|
^ if an additional half star option (e.g. 4.5) was added, nothing would have to be changed.
|
|
|
|
Joolz
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377
|
Posted: May 11 2006 at 13:21 |
chopper wrote:
I normally start with 3 stars and work up or down. This means the average CD in my collection would be 3 stars (that would be something like Rush's Fly By Night, nothing earth shattering, but perfectly reasonable and one I would play every now and then), then there would be the 4 star albums such as Renaissance's Ashes Are Burning which (imo) are brilliant and get played a lot, then I reserve 5 stars for absolute classics such as Relayer. |
Spot on Chopper, surely that is how it is meant to be. PA defines 3 stars as "Good - but non-essential" and I have applied that to several enjoyable albums. How can 3 stars possibly be interpreted as anything less than 'good' when the word 'good' is in the definition? In my opinion, even 2 stars does not define a 'bad' album because it is still something that is enjoyed by fans of that band. Perhaps I am being too literal in my interpretation - ***** "Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music" - ie an outright all-time classic
***** "Excellent addition to any prog music collection" - ie brilliant, a personal favourite, love it to death, play it a lot but not quite a classic really
***** "Good, but non-essential" - ie like it, not quite so inspired, the band has done better, but still good
***** "Collectors/fans only" - ie like bits of it because I am a fan of the band, has many flaws, is generally below par
***** "Poor. Only for completionists" - ie don't like it, poor in every way, I only have it for the sake of completing the set
Working within the definitions is to me quite sufficient. How would you define 4.5 stars?
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Half-Star Ratings
