4 and a 1/2 Stars?

p0mt3 wrote: GaryB wrote: When I rate albums in my own collection I rate each song with whole numbers. When I've rated every song I total the score and divide by the number of songs which leaves me with a fraction (4.3, 4.7, etc.) as an overall rating for the album. This is for my personal collection. On a site this big with so many albums having been rated I think the decimal system would be going too far. Okay, I give up. I don;t know how many times myself and all those in favor of this must remind you folks, but we are not asking for a damned decimal system! Jesus! We're simply asking for a half star option between stars 4 and 5, how difficult is that to grasp? I'm not saying it's worth it, but at least base your arguments in some reality, here. You're talking about why we shouldn't have a decimal system? Fine, but the topic starter said nothing of the kind.

I think you're missing the point, Micah.









Oh how I crack myself up. 

The mention of the term "decimal system" was simply a reference to something other than "whole numbers" and not to insinuate that your intent was to add a ".5" after 4, 3, 2 and 1.

After much consideration, I've finally decided to vote 'No'.

This seems really uneccessary, I've never had a problem with voting, because I use my bloody heart!

It just seems really useless at this point - I didn't even really think about it until this whole thread thingy opened up, and its pretty irritating...

JUST CHOOSE 4 OR 5! NOT BOTH!

-Joel

I voted yes.

Epignosis wrote: p0mt3 wrote: GaryB wrote: When I rate albums in my own collection I rate each song with whole numbers. When I've rated every song I total the score and divide by the number of songs which leaves me with a fraction (4.3, 4.7, etc.) as an overall rating for the album. This is for my personal collection. On a site this big with so many albums having been rated I think the decimal system would be going too far. Okay, I give up. I don;t know how many times myself and all those in favor of this must remind you folks, but we are not asking for a damned decimal system! Jesus! We're simply asking for a half star option between stars 4 and 5, how difficult is that to grasp? I'm not saying it's worth it, but at least base your arguments in some reality, here. You're talking about why we shouldn't have a decimal system? Fine, but the topic starter said nothing of the kind. I think you're missing the point, Micah. Oh how I crack myself up.

Okay, I admit, that was funny.

I think that it would not really be fair to those who struggle between, say, 3 and 4 stars, if there were a 4 1/2 star option but no other half stars allowed.

I have WAY more trouble picking between 3 and 4 stars than between 4 and 5. 

4 or 5 is actually pretty simple because 5 should almost never happen, maybe a few times per year. 

The 3 or 4 thing can be excruciating sometimes. 

ExittheLemming wrote: SentimentalMercenary wrote: I'm late here, sorry about it.   The problem at hand is that too many people think that giving 4 stars is harsh for an album that they like, so they go and give 5 stars. This is an attitude that needs to be changed rather than the ranking system.   Personnaly, I will give 3 stars to many albums that I really enjoy. I will keep my 4 stars ratings only for exceptional albums that I love listening again and again without skipping any tracks, and which I feel are close to being or becoming a classic of the genre. I will award 5 stars strictly to established classics, true masterpieces that have influenced several other artists, or to the very few albums that simply moved me way beyond 99% of the rest.   Thus it's the attitude towards the 3 and 4 stars ratings which should be changed. Once we start to see them as good ratings rather than harsh or poor, it mostly fixes the system.   I also think that this problem is especially present within the tech metal genres, where 4 and 5 stars ratings are commonly awarded to just any commonplace tech metal album...  Industrial strength praise for the above. Well said sir. I too have long believed that the rating system ain't broke but the raters clearly are. To wit, a positive review of a so-called classic prog album (3 stars) is perceived as a disrespectful slander of a sacred cow. You only need to try to reconcile the body text of reviews with the ratings to see that e.g. "this track's a bit boring and some of the shorter songs are just ok but a prog masterpiece 5 stars" Enough already....

All the comments from Tin of Hurri Curri (did I get that right?) have been superb - good stuff -thanks

I have never before really appreciated that "3" is a specially good rating.   Does 3 out of 5 equate to 6 out of 10?  For a footballer on his Saturday's performance to be given 6 out of 10 would be considered "satisfactory" - he did his job but no more.  Clearly in this website it means more than that - maybe it's more that the definitions ought to be altered.

Maybe the mark in reality is out of 3.   Then you get 3* and 3** for the "4" and "5" ratings.  "3" is great, "3*" is extra-great, and "3**" is super-dooper unbelievably great....

Does this fit with what you're saying?

Just this really:

3 stars = Good, but non-essential

4 stars = Excellent addition to any prog rock music collection (and it needn't necessarily be a prog album)

5 stars = Essential: a masterpiece of progressive rock music*

*perhaps the 5 star definition is a tad blurry methinks i.e could you give a non-prog album 5 stars ? (I've never really understood this but I guess if it's listed on PA there ain't nowt stopping you landing 5 big wet smackers on that critter's forehead ?)