Forum Home Forum Home > Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements > Help us improve the site
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Will there ever be an added .5 star rating?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWill there ever be an added .5 star rating?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
ZowieZiggy View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 19 2005
Location: Siem Reap
Status: Offline
Points: 311 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Will there ever be an added .5 star rating?
    Posted: January 23 2008 at 15:09
I am really in-line with Ivan here.
The only thing I believe would be best avoided is the "explanation" of the rating. I guess, it is therefore that people believe that a two-star rating means bad (which it is not), because the PA definition says : collectors/fans only. And what to say about good, but non-essential? Probably therefore as well so many reviewers are using the four stars rating for a good album...
 
To simplify, I would opt for the following :
 

5 Stars:            Masterpiece

4.5 Stars:         Essential

4 Stars:            Excellent

3.5 Stars:         Very good

3 Stars:            Good

2.5 Stars:         Average

2 Stars:            Below Average

1.5 Stars:         Weak

1 Star:             Extremely poor (or just poor)

0.5 Star:           Avoid it (or extremely poor)

 
Once and for all, there wouldn't be the adjective "progressive" in the definition. This was relevant in the infancy of this site, but when prog-related & proto-prog were included (which is not a bad thing per se), I guess that it is a bit superfluous. It will also avoid the dilema which many reviewers (not mer) do have with such albums. I will reming you the last part of the excellent review from Ivan about "Who's Next" :

 
"In a Classic Rock or general music site I will give the maximum rating without hesitation, no matter if it’s 5, 10 or 20, maybe even an extra one, but in a Prog site my hands are tied, if it had even the slightest Prog relation I would go with 4 stars but that’s not the case, so I will go with 3 stars, not without feeling a traitor to one of my all time favorite bands".
 
I guess that this is significant enough. FYI, I rated the album with 5 stars.
 
Sorry for this long message...
 
 
 
 
ZowieZiggy
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2008 at 23:07
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ I agree with your definitions except for the low end ... I don't think that 2.5 is really the "middle". I think that in music the average is already bad and certainly not a recommendation.
 
The important thing is the concept, the details can be polished, but lets remember something, an average PROG album in a PROG context is something that most progheads will like, even when it won't emotion most of us.
 
Just remember if Close to the Edge is a masterpiece, lets say Going for the One is an average album for Yes standards, not great but good enough formost of us.
 
Abnd 2.5 says it all...AVERAGE, just one word, each person can analyze if they want to buy an average album, we're not giving recommendation.
 
For me with half stars recommendations would start at 3.5 stars, and 3 stars would be a sort of in between rating ... not really bad, but also not a recommendation. On my website I moved the scale even more towards a logarithmic interpretation ... average albums start at 6.1, good albums at 7.1 ... masterpieces at 9.6.
 
Well,. you're a rating geek (not offensive), most of us can guide ourselves by simpler parameters, we don't understand or care about logarithms. LOL
 
If somebody tells me a Genesis album is average, I would probably buy it, if somebody tells me a STYX album is average, I will probably avoid it.
 
Iván
 
 
            
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21680 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2008 at 15:50
^ I agree with your definitions except for the low end ... I don't think that 2.5 is really the "middle". I think that in music the average is already bad and certainly not a recommendation. For me with half stars recommendations would start at 3.5 stars, and 3 stars would be a sort of in between rating ... not really bad, but also not a recommendation. On my website I moved the scale even more towards a logarithmic interpretation ... average albums start at 6.1, good albums at 7.1 ... masterpieces at 9.6.
Release Polls

Listened to:
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2008 at 15:22
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

One problem I see with adding half steps to the PA rating system is that the PA stars have complex definitions. It's not really like 1 star = 20%, 2 stars = 40% ... 5 stars = 100%. That's also why I'm thinking about adding a PA star rating on my website in addition to the 1-10 rating ... you cannot easily convert my numerical scale into PA stars. For example I rated Luca Scherani's album 7.2 at my website, but gave it 3 stars here. Likewise, not all albums which I rated >9.0 on my website would receive 5 stars here, as the numerical rounding would suggest.

So: I guess if we added half stars here we would have to carefully define the half steps so that they make sense within the definitions of the "whole" stars. 
 
IMO it's easy to make it coherent linkung one rating with the inmediate superior, done it twice...Why not drice?:
 
5 Stars: Essential: a masterpiece of Progressive Rock.
4.5 Stars: Essential but doesn't reach the status of masterpiece
4 Stars: Excellent addition to any Prog collection
3.5 Stars: Very good, most peope will find it an excellent addition.
3 Stars: Good, but non-essential
2.5 Stars: Average
2 Stars: Has it's moments, get it at your risk
1.5 Stars: Poor, only for die hard fans.
1 Star: Extremely poor, not recommended
0.5 Star: Avoid it,  the weakest moments of the band or artist.
 
I believe it would work
 
Our main problems is between 4 and 5, being 5 dstars an essential masterpiece and 4.5 essential but not a masterpiece, you give a lot of possibilities to move a band without taking their essential characteristics
 
For example I believe SEBTP is essential but hardly a masterpiece, on the other hand 4 is too low, so I gave a 5 stars rating in which I don't believe, because I honestly believe Foxytot is incredibly superior.
 
Between 3 and 4 is too wide, goes from an excellent addittion to not essential in one step, while the 3.5 says it's good and many people may find it a good addition.
 
2.5 is the average
 
2 stars is simple, not totally bad, but there are some weak moments, decide to buy it or not at your own risk, don't blame us, we were honest.
 
1.5 is for die-hard fans
1.0 means we don't recommend it.
0.5 mens that the reviewer believes isa waste of time and money.
 
I believe it's very coherent.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21680 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2008 at 03:58
One problem I see with adding half steps to the PA rating system is that the PA stars have complex definitions. It's not really like 1 star = 20%, 2 stars = 40% ... 5 stars = 100%. That's also why I'm thinking about adding a PA star rating on my website in addition to the 1-10 rating ... you cannot easily convert my numerical scale into PA stars. For example I rated Luca Scherani's album 7.2 at my website, but gave it 3 stars here. Likewise, not all albums which I rated >9.0 on my website would receive 5 stars here, as the numerical rounding would suggest.

So: I guess if we added half stars here we would have to carefully define the half steps so that they make sense within the definitions of the "whole" stars. 
Release Polls

Listened to:
Back to Top
Sckxyss View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 05 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1319 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2008 at 02:55
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Sckxyss Sckxyss wrote:

I don't get why reviewers with many reviews are complaining that they would have to change every review. Suppose they are so lazy that they they couldn't be bothered with this... who says they have to change their current ratings at all? Confused. It would still be a huge improvement for those who don't mind making a couple changes, and for new reviewers.
 
I don't kow where you get your info, as far as I read all the prolific reviewers whave said they would gladly rate again their albums, in this page Zowie and I said exactly the same.
 
In my case It wouldn't take me more thabn an hour, because I have mentioned the rating I would give to the album in a.5 base system, so it's oonly to change a format, ten seconds per album at the most.
 
Iv�n
 
Many brought up the issue of what to do with the old reviews (read the thread if you don't believe me Confused). I don't see why it's that big of an issue if the reviewer is allowed to change them, that's all.
 
@ Easy Livin: Obviously the appointed reviewers and collaborators are not lazy, therefore changing their ratings shouldn't be a huge issue. If they decide that for whatever reason that they don't like half star ratings, they wouldn't have to edit theirs.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 08 2008 at 00:36
Originally posted by Sckxyss Sckxyss wrote:

I don't get why reviewers with many reviews are complaining that they would have to change every review. Suppose they are so lazy that they they couldn't be bothered with this... who says they have to change their current ratings at all? Confused. It would still be a huge improvement for those who don't mind making a couple changes, and for new reviewers.
 
I don't kow where you get your info, as far as I read all the prolific reviewers whave said they would gladly rate again their albums, in this page Zowie and I said exactly the same.
 
In my case It wouldn't take me more thabn an hour, because I have mentioned the rating I would give to the album in a.5 base system, so it's oonly to change a format, ten seconds per album at the most.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 08 2008 at 00:37
            
Back to Top
Easy Livin View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2008 at 03:35
Calling reviewers with lots of reviews lazy is rather self defeating.
 
The point re half stars has been well made, and the views are well known. M@x has been fully appraised of this thread, it is now up to him whether he decides to change the current system.
Back to Top
Sckxyss View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 05 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1319 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2008 at 03:18
I don't get why reviewers with many reviews are complaining that they would have to change every review. Suppose they are so lazy that they they couldn't be bothered with this... who says they have to change their current ratings at all? Confused. It would still be a huge improvement for those who don't mind making a couple changes, and for new reviewers.
 
 
EDIT: For those who are offended by my use of the word lazy, I was just using it as one example of why someone wouldn't want to go back and adjust their reasons, as I can't think of another good reason not to want to.


Edited by Sckxyss - January 20 2008 at 02:59
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2007 at 20:56
Originally posted by ZowieZiggy ZowieZiggy wrote:

Let's get a poll amongst, let's say the hundred most prolific reviewers and see what comes out. At the end of the day, this is a subject which is theirs since "that is why they write reviews".
 
I'm only N° 49 with about 200 reviews, and to be honest I rated all Gabriel Genesis albums with 5 stars....This is not correct, I believe Foxtrot and Nursery Cryme are ahead of all the others, but none of them deserves only 4 stars,, I would change probably TLLDOB and Trespass to 4.5,...This would take me 1 or 2 minutes.
 
This of course wouldn't be manipulating, because I would take (not add) 0.5 stars from the most popular Genesis album.
 
But there are other cases in which the .5 star is necessary:
  1. I believe In the Hot Seat doesn't deserve 2 stars becauuse of the studio version of Pictures, so I rated it with 3 stars at the same level of Works I, I would take .5 star from ITHS
  2. Softsword by Wakeman doesn't deserve 4 stars, but IMHO is much better than Crossroads by Apple pie whioch doesn't deserve 2 stas, I would take .5 from Crossroad and add .5 to Softsword.
  3. Three sides Live by Genesis only has on out 4 sides that is good and one that can be listened, 2 stars is too little and 3 stars is way too much.
  4. Who's nexct is an awesome album,. but nott being Prog, I can't rate it with 4 or 5 stars according to the guidelines, so I wouild add . 5 stars.

Maybe I would change 20 or 30 out of almost 200 reviews, and please don't tell  that the review says it all, my reviews are normally long, more than 500 words each, but an accurate rating would be better.

All the changes would take me 20 minutes at the most.....I believe it's worth.
 
The question of posted reviews is not important. The ones who want to change them will do so (and I belong to these). It will take several days of my time but it does not really matter since I volunteered to do so.
 
Of course, if you feel better it's necessary.
 
Once in a while it is good to have other changes than pure cosmetics.
 
Not cosmetics, we have a decimal system, we are used to it, it's much easier and fair to rate the albums according to our system.
 
Iván
 
 
            
Back to Top
ZowieZiggy View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 19 2005
Location: Siem Reap
Status: Offline
Points: 311 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2007 at 18:41
Let's get a poll amongst, let's say the hundred most prolific reviewers and see what comes out. At the end of the day, this is a subject which is theirs since "that is why they write reviews".
 
The question of posted reviews is not important. The ones who want to change them will do so (and I belong to these). It will take several days of my time but it does not really matter since I volunteered to do so.
 
Once in a while it is good to have other changes than pure cosmetics.
 
Cheers,
 
 
Daniel.
ZowieZiggy
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2007 at 09:41
I've probably said this somewhere before, but it's a little too late to alter the ratings scale as most people use the scale as outlined and would have to go back and re-evaluate their old ratings.  People are already free to fractionalize their ratings and add qualifications in the review.  
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Rivertree View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Band Submissions

Joined: March 22 2006
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 17656 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2007 at 09:18
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by Fight Club Fight Club wrote:

Recently posted in another thread:

"Hey when are we finally going to be able to have half-star ratings? There are so many times when I think an album isn't quite a 5 star masterpiece, but deserves more than a 4. So what are we supposed to do about that? I'm sure a lot of other people agree.

Plus, I don't know about all of you, but there's so many albums that I really enjoy that I need more than 2 ratings to distinguish ones I think are above the level of "good."


in answer to the post....that is what your review itself is for... the stars are guides... the review itself is the means to differentiate those grey areas...  half stars won't take out the grey areas... in a year people would be asking for a 20 point rating system  because they feel they can't express... with a rating... the difference between a 4.5 and a 5.  That is why we write reviews...


This is exactly how I'm thinking about it, micky Thumbs%20Up


Back to Top
aapatsos View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2007 at 09:09
I believe that the current system is fair enough, even if it does not promote detailed ranking (i.e. 0.5 stars).
Originally posted by andu andu wrote:

5.0 Masterpiece
 4.5 Exceptional
 4.0 Excellent
 3.5 Very good
 3.0 Good
 2.5  Mediocre
 2.0 Collectors/Fans only.
 1.5  Poor. Only for completionists
1.0  To be avoided


 I agree to a high extent with this ranking but I think it's ''Good, but not essential'' Wink


Edited by aapatsos - December 08 2007 at 09:09
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2007 at 08:39
Originally posted by Fight Club Fight Club wrote:

Recently posted in another thread:

"Hey when are we finally going to be able to have half-star ratings? There are so many times when I think an album isn't quite a 5 star masterpiece, but deserves more than a 4. So what are we supposed to do about that? I'm sure a lot of other people agree.

Plus, I don't know about all of you, but there's so many albums that I really enjoy that I need more than 2 ratings to distinguish ones I think are above the level of "good."


in answer to the post....that is what your review itself is for... the stars are guides... the review itself is the means to differentiate those grey areas...  half stars won't take out the grey areas... in a year people would be asking for a 20 point rating system  because they feel they can't express... with a rating... the difference between a 4.5 and a 5.  That is why we write reviews...
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Fight Club View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: May 21 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 572 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2007 at 14:07
Recently posted in another thread:

"Hey when are we finally going to be able to have half-star ratings? There are so many times when I think an album isn't quite a 5 star masterpiece, but deserves more than a 4. So what are we supposed to do about that? I'm sure a lot of other people agree.

Plus, I don't know about all of you, but there's so many albums that I really enjoy that I need more than 2 ratings to distinguish ones I think are above the level of "good."
Back to Top
moreitsythanyou View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: April 23 2006
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 11682 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2007 at 21:21
With all the improvements being made, this would trump them all in usefulness. This is necessary and I can't wait until this happens.  
<font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR]
Back to Top
ZowieZiggy View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 19 2005
Location: Siem Reap
Status: Offline
Points: 311 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2007 at 21:17
Reply to Zappa88 (whom I salute BTW. Long time we didn't mail each other).
 
You wrote : "I don't know if this has been brought up and I don't really feel like looking, but if we do implement .5 star ratings, every reviewer will have to go back and change his/her rating and reviews if they feel and extra .5 star would be justified, and that would be a little time consuming, tiresome and pointless".
 
Just speaking as a reviewer, and I'm sure the reviwers with 10 times the reviews as me will agree.
 
A few weeks ago, in this same thread I wrote :
 
"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".
 
In the meantime, I am now heading thousand reviews and I still feel the same. I would take advantage of year-end to do this if available. By then, I guess that three days will be needed since I would probably reach 1,200 . But this isn't a problem.
 
Cheers and god night. It's now 3:15 AM in Belgium. Oh no, only 2 AM (daylight saving time offers me one more hour to sleep. Hurray).
 
Take care Zappa88.
 
 
Daniel.
ZowieZiggy
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2007 at 21:14
Originally posted by ZowieZiggy ZowieZiggy wrote:

I find that 2.5 - "mediocre" is a bit harsh. What about "Not Bad" or something approaching ? At the end of the day it sits just under "good" and "mediocre" does not really show this.
 
 
What about Bellow Average........It's exactly the same, but sounds less harsh.
 
But I still continue with my option:
 
5 Stars: Essential: a masterpiece of Progressive Rock.
4.5 Stars: Essential but doesn't reach the status of masterpiece
4 Stars: Excellent addition to any Prog collection
3.5 Stars: Very good, most peope will find it an excellent addition.
3 Stars: Good, but non-essential
2.5 Stars: Average
2 Stars: Has it's moments, get it at your risk
1.5 Stars: Poor, only for die hard fans.
1 Star: Extremely poor, not recommended
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 26 2007 at 21:21
            
Back to Top
andu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2007 at 17:49
Originally posted by ZowieZiggy ZowieZiggy wrote:

I find that 2.5 - "mediocre" is a bit harsh. What about "Not Bad" or something approaching ? At the end of the day it sits just under "good" and "mediocre" does not really show this.
 


Good idea Thumbs%20Up Though "mediocre" does not mean "bad" but is just a synonym for "medium", I would agree on not using it, as it seem to make a bad impression.

Anyway, I kinda don't support my own system. Why? It's because that though I trust it a lot and find it precise enough, I know that it has developed only and directly because of the way that the current stars system made me think a lot. The current system is so flexible that it surely stimulates elaboration and creativity into approaching music - I'm sure everybody should take advantage of this. Otherwise, I feel that gaining the .5 option will lead reviewing into searching for motivations for more and more precise ratings, instead of trying to write enlightening reviews. So I use my system for personal purposes and will use it in my reviews, but I wouldn't see it implemented. Smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.146 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.