Will there ever be an added .5 star rating? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Angelo

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: May 07 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13244

Posted: August 12 2007 at 15:43

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Those who don't improve are condemned to faillure.

Or in other words: Progress or perish... Wink

Seriously though, I like your proposal Iván, and you brought up a few arguments not mentioned before. However, this does not resolve the huge backlog of existing reviews that would have to be 'fixed'. And worse, I just realised that a lot of reviewers and 'raters-without-review' are not even visiting the site anymore. How would we deal with that???

ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected]

andu

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089

Posted: August 12 2007 at 15:43

micky wrote:

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

I fully agree and support this ^

ProgBagel

Prog Reviewer

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2819

Posted: August 12 2007 at 16:05

Can it be a slow process of changing old reviews...like choosing the top reviewers and then down the list? (hierarchy)

Easy Livin View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585

Posted: August 12 2007 at 16:29

It's really a question of what new rating would the reviewer wish to apply? If they originally gave 4 stars, do they wish it to now be 3.5, 4, or 4.5?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: August 12 2007 at 16:29

ProgBagel wrote:

Can it be a slow process of changing old reviews...like choosing the top reviewers and then down the list? (hierarchy)

The top reviewers are mostly Collaborators who are able to change the rating.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 12 2007 at 16:30

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: August 12 2007 at 16:31

Easy Livin wrote:

In Peru, Ivan actually means "The wise man from the mountains, who is the font of knowledge on all things progressive".

Not exactly, itt means the wise man from the coast

I always lived 5 blocks from the beach until 5 years ago that I live 4 Kms (40 blocks) from the beach.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 12 2007 at 16:42

bhikkhu

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109

Posted: August 12 2007 at 23:11

Does changing an old review really matter that much? If someone is interested in doing so, they will do it. Otherwise the existing rating stands. It would be nice to have the option for future ratings.

a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: August 12 2007 at 23:36

Angelo wrote:

Seriously though, I like your proposal Iván, and you brought up a few arguments not mentioned before. However, this does not resolve the huge backlog of existing reviews that would have to be 'fixed'. And worse, I just realised that a lot of reviewers and 'raters-without-review' are not even visiting the site anymore. How would we deal with that???

The ratings without review are not really a problem, changing a rating is a voluntary act, some may be able or even want to do it (Owners, Adms and Collaborators), the others will stay.

At the end a rating without review can show no contradiction, because the rater has not expressed a single opinion.

Iván

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: August 13 2007 at 17:45

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

micky wrote:

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

Then why change Art Rock, why add RPI if the system has worked so well that lead us to the first place in the net?

Simply because we want to make it even better, the spirit of superation makes us progress, if we stayed with what works, we will still be using kerosene lamps because at the end light is light.

Those who don't improve are condemned to faillure.

hahahha.. nice speech Ivan. Being the season of political campaigning youu should consider a career as a politician... when all else fails... lots of slogans, wave the flag and say those who are against you are against the site LOL

Sure I'm all for improving the site, when it needs to be improved. This is simple.. and works...

Rating :

Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music
Excellent addition to any prog music collection
Good, but non-essential
Collectors/fans only
Poor. Only for completionists

just what comes between essential and excellent anyway LOL

... let me guess.. almost essential.

Edited by micky - August 13 2007 at 17:48

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Raff

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24438

Posted: August 13 2007 at 18:40

Personally, I am in favour of adding half-star ratings, but only as a way of gilding the lily, so to say. As others have already pointed out, what really should count is the REVIEW, not the rating. When I want to know more about an album prior to buying it, I do look at the overall rating, but I don't certainly stop there - I usually try to read at least a few reviews, especially those coming from consistently reliable reviewers. In fact, a good reviewer will be able to convey what they see as the real value of an album, which includes its being somehow 'more' or 'less' than the rating that appears next to it.

ProgBagel

Prog Reviewer

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2819

Posted: August 13 2007 at 19:49

Ghost Rider wrote:

Personally, I am in favour of adding half-star ratings, but only as a way of gilding the lily, so to say. As others have already pointed out, what really should count is the REVIEW, not the rating. When I want to know more about an album prior to buying it, I do look at the overall rating, but I don't certainly stop there - I usually try to read at least a few reviews, especially those coming from consistently reliable reviewers. In fact, a good reviewer will be able to convey what they see as the real value of an album, which includes its being somehow 'more' or 'less' than the rating that appears next to it.

Agreed, but how will we differentiate between all the 3's and 4's...the .5 would make a huge difference when checking out the reviews (if there are many).

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: August 14 2007 at 00:05

micky wrote:

Please Micky, I'm not in political campaign for anything, I don't even live in USA so it's not political season for us and for that reason no contagious political bug has infected me.

And please don't put words in my mouth, I never said those who are against me are against the site, I don't feel the Messiah, I say what I feel (That's why I have discussions, because when I dissagree with something I say it loud and clear) and for me the .5 star is an improvement

Sure I'm all for improving the site, when it needs to be improved. This is simple.. and works...

But are you the only person capable of saying what is an improvement and what not?

Rating :

Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music
Excellent addition to any prog music collection
Good, but non-essential
Collectors/fans only
Poor. Only for completionists

Funny:

You believe RPI is necesary, everyubody who disagreed with you was against the site.
You wanted to change Art Rock, everybody who disgreed with you and wanted to kep Art Rock SIMPLE AND WORKING was against the sitte (I was convinced by Tony R that iot would be better and accepted it publicly).
You wanted to add The Who, ELO, Beck, etc and everybody who disagreed was against the site.

But:

We believe .5 stars ratings COULD be added and you don't so it's a political campaign.
The majority of the site who participated in a thread started by you disagreed with adding Jon Lord to Symphonic (Even the Symphonic Team who is in charge of a genre and remains in charge of it because it was trusted by the Administrators and owners) and i was a dictator
The majority of members participating including me believe The Bonzo Dog band should be here and you attack us saying it's a "kee jerk reaction".

So is only something valid and convenient for Prog Archives when you propose it?

just what comes between essential and excellent anyway LOL

... let me guess.. almost essential.

Seems you have not read my proposition.

Both 5 and 4.5 ratings should be considered essential (Of course IMHO) only that the 5 stars should bbe cobnsidered as Masterpieces and Clasics of the genre, the 4.5 are also considered essential but not necesarilly a masterpiece..

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but at least i don't oppose to a propositiobn only because a determined persion supports it.}

raed my proposition is in the previous page.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 14 2007 at 00:07

ZowieZiggy View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 19 2005
Location: Siem Reap
Status: Offline
Points: 311

Posted: October 07 2007 at 19:30

I am glad I saw this thread before I opened a new one which would have raised the same issue. I have read countless reviews which starts or ends with : 3,5 really or 9 out of ten if I could.

I am often confronted to this problem as well and I would really like to use this half star rating (starting from 0.5). I also wonder what's all the fuss for existing reviews. I am able to edit the text, change the rating as much as I want trough the collaborator link and selecting the according review I want to change (and I could this from the early days of my reviewing process, when I was not a "prog reviewer"). So each individual reviewer could do this. No extra work for the admin team.

If you have written 900 reviews like me, it might take about 450 minutes to do so (considering that I would edit 25 % of them and that I would spend 2 minutes per review).

If I consider the time spent to write the original reviews, it is peanuts. And fewer reviewers have wrote more.

This would be a good effort and makes PA more accurate because as it is now, the reviewing process works by 20% increment which is absolutely not accurate enough.

IMO, it would be a great step ahead, and please don't tell me that it won't change because it has been working like so far.

I konw that this thread has been silent for a while so I just hope someone will read this comment and re-lauch the debate. For the best of PA.

Cheers.

Edited by ZowieZiggy - October 07 2007 at 19:35

ZowieZiggy

Peter

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669

Posted: October 19 2007 at 09:08

Sigh.

I guess if the non-word "completionists" can't even be edited after all this time, we shouldn''t expect any more major, constructive change, no matter how long and how many if us have requested it....

Why such resistance to change in this area? You make up and add categories, move bands around, revamp the forum, but still cannot/will not do this, supposedly just because some few have written lots of reviews? So what? Let them slowly edit their ratings, or simply not bother.

Very frustrating, really -- I feel the serious, carefully-reasoned input of myself (and many others) on the ratings issue is perennially undervalued -- if not instantly dismissed out of hand, or simply ignored.

(Look at the way Ivan's post is ridiculed, above ^. Sorry Micky, but your mocking, dismissive reply is plain disrespectful, immature, and unacceptable. I would be offended in Ivan's position.)

So why bother?

Indeed, why review at all, if a few with power to effect change only follow their own whims, and even persist on attaching something that's NOT EVEN A WORD to MY reviews, against my long-expressed wishes?

My thread on the ratings issues was dead within a couple of days -- but pointless A vs B and "best" polls, and even silly juvenile threads about imaginary bands thrive.

It was better here, once. I felt I had a real say in things -- in short, i felt valued, and part of some sort of TEAM.

Edited by Peter - October 19 2007 at 09:18

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

Dick Heath View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Jazz-Rock Specialist

Joined: April 19 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 12818

Posted: October 19 2007 at 09:48

I'm sure it's been written many times before but the star rating here is built on 5 values that are not necessary co-related wrt semantics nor seem to have comparative weightings.

Rating :

Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music
Excellent addition to any prog music collection
Good, but non-essential
Collectors/fans only
Poor. Only for completionists

What is essential? I can assure many of the albums rated 5 here are non-essential to me (and no doubt many other people). Masterpiece - how do you interpret that term; originally meant the piece the apprentice made to demonstrate he/she was worthy of joining the guide of masters, more recent the very best that an artist or a craftman has produced - implying masterpieces are in limited supply. A masterpiece is rarely essential. Change the definition here, no ambiquity, no doubling of definitions.

Perhaps excellent addition to any prog collection implies an universality, every person will like the music. However, ever since the walls came down for the inclusion of genres at PA, that stretch commonsense as being prog, then by indicating this value demonstrats an insular arrogance. Change the definition.

Good - do we need any more?

Collectors/fans only : I like ............but wrt attempting to give equal weighting to the 5 categories, I feel at 1 star For completists only it's a tab too close to a 2 star. And again two verbal values for 1 star provides a dilemma. For 1 star: poor, far from their best work or compared to similar band's albums.

How about for 0 star: utter crap or (to tie in with my current thread) or alternatively rip-off.

Peter I agree with much with what you say. I've said it before: one reason prog was so vigorously attacked was because it got intellectiualised so often in the arly days - it atttracted university and collage students. And in those discussion ideas were exchanged , things were learnt, i.e. a fair degree of open-mindedness. So it would good to get a debate going that doesn't result in:

a) nasty personal attacks

b) individuals banging on with their blinkered viewed

c) mindless twandle

instead:

c) considered viewpoints were brought to the forum,

d) people would listen, and occasionally learn and moderate their views.

e) and humour, with some good natured teasing permitted

would be the standard.

That's why I joined PA but it happens less and less nowadays

The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS.
CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php
Host by PA's Dick Heath.

Peter

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669

Posted: October 19 2007 at 10:06

(Partial) Olive Branch post:

look, i'm not threatening to quit or anything, and I am trying to write some new reviews (it goes very, very slowly. I don't really know why, but the task has become work, not fun -- perhaps because reviews disappear unremarked so quickly), but I can't say I'm not truly frustrated by the eternal, intractable lack of movement on the ratings issues (the generic words, and the stars).

yes, IT'S JUST MUSIC, and yes, i still consider the various powers that be here to be nice, smart people and my friends, but it really irks me to see a long-serving, ultra-dedicated and sincere Collaborator like Ivan being publicly treated here like he was above. (His last post has not even been responded to.) i know Ivan can well speak for himself and defend his own honour, but as his friend, and as someone who often finds himself on the same, ever-losing side on such issues, i am offended and angered on his behalf. I honestly cannot recall ever having seen Ivan treat others (let alone fellow Collabs) in the disrespectful, dismissive manner he has been treated above. he certainly does not laugh (

) at other's serious, carefully considered posts -- now does he?

Show respect to earn respect and get it returned -- it is not automatic or some sort of "right" which comes with an elevated position.

Other than that, have a GROOVY weekend!

And at least change "completionist" to "completist" -- it's only been there for what -- 3 or 4 YEARS?

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

Peter

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669

Posted: October 19 2007 at 10:12

Thanks for the input, Dick.

(i always consider your wise words carefully.)

As an educator, I firmly believe, and must reiterate, that five generic grading descriptions pulled off some list do not say it all (thus dump the words altogether -- let the review speak for itself) and increments of 20% are simply too large to permit very exact grading.

I am hardly alone in thinking this.

TTYL!

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

Easy Livin View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585

Posted: October 19 2007 at 14:03

There are of course many many suggestions made for improving the site. That is how we got where we are today, through the invaluable input of everyone involved.

We can't always do everything everyone suggests though. Quite often one person's great idea is another's total disaster for the site. In the case of the ratings, for everyone who wants 1/2 star ratings, there is another who does not, and another who wants marks out of 100 etc. There is no right and wrong here. Likewise, with the words which accompany the stars, there are 101 suggestions what they should be, but no apparent consensus. Everone thinks their solution is best.

It must be remembered that the words are for guidance only. I don't believe anyone takes them 100% literally. Everyone has their own modus operandi when it comes to allocating stars. Some do it mathematically, averaging their rating for each track, for some it's an overall feel, for others it is simply an effort to manipulate the overall rating for the album! We are, I think, all intelligent enough to come to our own conclusions based on what we see. Let's not get too obsessed with the words.

The other thing i'd mention is that some people spend far more time working for the site than others. It is surely only reasonable that they should be allowed to prioritise what they do as suits them. Everyone will have their own ideas of what is most important, but we have to allow those who do the doing to make their decisions on what gets done first. There are only so many hours in the day, and everyone has a real life too.

My personal view is that any change in the wording is not a priority.

I actually remember the discussions on the word "Completionist". It started off as completist, which it was agreed was not a word. After much debate and serious consideration our worthy experts concluded that completionists was a better word.

I guess it's a bit like business talk though, completionist and completist are quite widely used in music magazines etc. and thus become words through the constant evolution of the English language (runs for cover now!). I suppose the word "Prog" is not actually right either, my spell checker does not like it! At the end of the day, it's all down to the deregulisation of the bordorisation of language.

By the way, M@x is working on a new version of the site so expect significant changes soon!

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: October 20 2007 at 01:37

Thanks Peter, but don't worry, I learned to reply when I'm mentioned but ignore what is not worth of paying attention.

Iván

Peter

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669

Posted: October 23 2007 at 07:52

Easy Livin wrote:

There are of course many many suggestions made for improving the site. That is how we got where we are today, through the invaluable input of everyone involved.

My personal view is that any change in the wording is not a priority.

By the way, M@x is working on a new version of the site so expect significant changes soon!

I guess that's that, then. No half stars (though I thought a majority wanted them), and no updating the "prog-is best" ratings words.

No more suggestions.

Like many others, I'll continue to review as if half stars were there, though, and to rate non-prog albums as high as i see fit.

Asssuming I ever actually complete any reviews....

Thanks for the response, Bob. (seriously)

Edited by Peter - October 23 2007 at 07:54

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.