Rating Dilemma

With regard to the percentage of 5 star ratings, I'm not sure that there should be a "quota" or "target", although I do agree that they should be the exception rather than the norm.

I think I have reviewed ten 2010 albums so far this year. One had a five star rating, David Minasian, and I do consider this album to be exceptional.

I have, from what I can make out, another five to review, a couple of which I have been holding back. However, one thing is for certain, and that is not one of them will be five stars. There is a two star, then a mix of three & four.

So, one out of fifteen, or just short of 7%. That's higher than some figures quoted as a "guide", but still only one album for the entire year's purchases.

I also consider a three star rating to constitute a good album, and definitely worthy of purchase. For example, i reviewed Blackmore's Night new album yesterday (I think) and gave it three stars. It is a good BN album, and definitely one that fans of the band and that type of music would enjoy, but is by no means essential.

Finally, I don't compare albums between artists when awarding ratings. They are awarded entirely on that album, and that album alone. It is also, of course, possible for artists/bands to have more than one masterpiece. Yes, Genesis, and Marillion (I know that's my personal bias), for example, have certainly produced these.

Thank you for all your opinions.

I have understood so far, that I should give away 5-stars as less as possible, and I'll try it. So that means for me when I rate, that 4-stars I regard as essential and the 5-stars are my few personal favourites. Which is a bit different from the description on this site, where 5-stars are 'essential' and 4-stars are 'add-ons'. But probably this is only playing with words.

Tapfret wrote: Oh...and please don't shoot yourself in the head.

When you say so...