Will there ever be an added .5 star rating?

Joolz wrote: Easy Livin wrote: If there is a strong push from the memebrs for half stars, or 1-10 ratings, I'm sure M@x will reconsider. Is that strength of opinion there, or is this more of a nice to have? Not from me ... I am opposed to any change because I believe the current system to be perfectly adequate ... ratings are there as a quick reference, a very rough guide to how the reviewer feels .... if you want more detail then you read the review. The problem with the current system ... apart from the many reviewers who give false ratings [eg 5 stars for non-Prog albums etc] .... is that the 'rating' is used as the basis of the chart. IMO if you want to create a proper chart from members ratings then you need to have a lot more detail .... graded by 100 with different categories like 'progginess', sound quality, enjoyment factor, musical quality, songwriting etc. ... only then will you get a decent chart from it.

ditto from me Bob...   the ratings have become some sort of a game, an obsession to some. That should have been obvious when some here wanted to remove live prog albums from the top prog album list. Enough...

There is no need to fix what isn't broken...  the stars are a guide, a quick reference.  What counts is the review itself.

One thing I've been thinking about and which I will definitely implement is that along with the rating the reviewer will be able to assign a level of "importance" to the album:

0: Unimportant
1: only for collectors
2: only useful for fans of the band/artist
3: recommended for fans of the genre
4: essential for fans of the genre
5: absolutely essential

The Doctor wrote: Angelo wrote: The Doctor wrote: I think our rating scale should go to 11, just in case you need that extra little bit of rating.  Well, why don't we redivide the existing 5, so that 5 gets that little bit of extra?   My ratings go to 11.

I knew it.... your real name is Nigel T.

Easy Livin wrote: If there is a strong push from the memebrs for half stars, or 1-10 ratings, I'm sure M@x will reconsider. Is that strength of opinion there, or is this more of a nice to have?

Not from me ... I am opposed to any change because I believe the current system to be perfectly adequate ... ratings are there as a quick reference, a very rough guide to how the reviewer feels .... if you want more detail then you read the review.

The problem with the current system ... apart from the many reviewers who give false ratings [eg 5 stars for non-Prog albums etc] .... is that the 'rating' is used as the basis of the chart. IMO if you want to create a proper chart from members ratings then you need to have a lot more detail .... graded by 100 with different categories like 'progginess', sound quality, enjoyment factor, musical quality, songwriting etc. ... only then will you get a decent chart from it.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The T wrote: I'm all for it... Not only for the .5 ratings but also for a triumphant return of the 0-stars rating, which I could use with masterful precision   No I agree with the site policy, it's harsh to give an album 0 stars for something they did with lots of work.   Iván

Sorry, but one or two stars are also "harsh" ... there is no polite way to say that you really don't like an album - or that the recording artists made grave errors or need to practice more.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - August 12 2007 at 04:42

micky wrote: exactly my point .....   people feel at loss to quantify in in a 1-5 structure because that is what is most important to them... placing the emphasis on the  rating.. not the  review itself.  Leave it the way it is.

Not totally true i feel, people who don't write a review will be primarily concerned with this issue, people who make a dedicated effort trying to make a good review will be  concerned in the first place with wording the best they can what they feel about that particular album, otherwise they wouldn't  make the effort. Rating it is secondary to them.

I know myself , i've not been a very prolific reviewer sofar, all the albums i reviewed sofar have gotten 4 stars  although they range from 3.75 to 4.5 imo sofar which is quite a difference.  Another example is Erik's database, it was fun for me browsing through it because he distinghuishes now in rating between a lot of albums that he just gave 3 or 4 stars in the past.

pretty please

FINAL WORD^ let's not dwell too long here

Dirk wrote: micky wrote: My two cents...  there are other things that the site needs to deal with than giving those would like to manipulate the ratings list another tool to do it with.  If feel like you need an extra half star to rate an album....  you are only interested in manipulating the rankings.  Your review should spell out in words the distinction in a album halfway between those stars and round up or down as we all have done.I think enough time has been wasted on tinkering with the reviews and the ratings... Halfway agreed, a written review'll tell you much more than a number once it's read, still  you certainly see  a lot of reviewers  stating that an album is for example  4.5 (rounding up or down accordingly subsequebtly). But the plain fact that they're doing this means they're somewhat at a loss to quantify their feelings about an album within the 1-5 rating structure. So  i don't see any harm in an extension, manipulaters always have a free hand as long as they don't get caught whatever the structure is.

The is the best way of putting it.

1 - 5 sums up the quality of the album, and in words you should specifically describe how good it is, how much you like it, and, again, it always works to give a 4.5, really!!!!!!!!