| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Vompatti 
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407
|
 Posted: June 13 2011 at 10:41 |
|
1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 46, 56, 67, 79.
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 12:01 |
|
I love the 5 star system as it is.
|
|
|
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13637
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 13:01 |
 Epignosis wrote:
I love the 5 star system as it is.
|
Overall, it suits us nicely. People are quite capable, as I do often, of saying that an album has been rounded up or down from a .5 rating if the narrative justifies it.
|
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 13:50 |
Vompatti wrote:
1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 46, 56, 67, 79.
|
Wrong scale. It's: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17...
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 14:03 |
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 46, 56, 67, 79.
|
Wrong scale. It's: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17...
|
Just because you happen to prefer a different scale doesn't make my scale "wrong". 
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 14:03 |
|
I can not vote in this poll somehow, but option one or how it is now.
|
|
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 14:11 |
Vompatti wrote:
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 46, 56, 67, 79.
|
Wrong scale. It's: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17...
|
Just because you happen to prefer a different scale doesn't make my scale "wrong".
|
Oh, sorry, I thought you were referencing the first numbers.
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 14:21 |
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 46, 56, 67, 79.
|
Wrong scale. It's: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17...
|
Just because you happen to prefer a different scale doesn't make my scale "wrong".
|
Oh, sorry, I thought you were referencing the first numbers.
|
Don't you think an infinite scale would give too many ratings to choose from?
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 14:28 |
Vompatti wrote:
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 46, 56, 67, 79.
|
Wrong scale. It's: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17...
|
Just because you happen to prefer a different scale doesn't make my scale "wrong".
|
Oh, sorry, I thought you were referencing the first numbers.
|
Don't you think an infinite scale would give too many ratings to choose from?
|
So, what? Are we on a progressive forum or not?! 
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 14:44 |
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 46, 56, 67, 79.
|
Wrong scale. It's: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17...
|
Just because you happen to prefer a different scale doesn't make my scale "wrong".
|
Oh, sorry, I thought you were referencing the first numbers.
|
Don't you think an infinite scale would give too many ratings to choose from?
|
So, what? Are we on a progressive forum or not?!
|
  
|
|
Earendil
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1584
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 15:57 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Oh, if it's a general problem it means the poll was created somewhere else, then moved in this section which probably does not allow polls.
The second and third options are mathematically the same, but I'd vote for the second instead of the third because it would temper the a****les who would feel the need to ask for subdivisions.
|
That must be it. It was under the general music poll category then got moved to site improvements. Nothing really needs changed though...
|
|
richardh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28121
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 17:10 |
|
Happy with it as it is. More important to post a review than to worry about the exact rating.
Edited by richardh - June 13 2011 at 17:11
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 13 2011 at 20:02 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
I have no idea why this poll says I've already voted. I haven't.
|
The higher ups are trying to keep us down. They know a rating rebellion is brewing and are suppressing votes. LOL J/K (especially since this thread has been made like 15 times  )
|
|
Formentera Lady
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 20 2010
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
|
Posted: June 14 2011 at 01:45 |
|
Now that I actually started rating and reviewing albums I have the feeling that I need half stars...
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: June 14 2011 at 06:47 |
|
The current rating system has many detractors, and I can empathise to a certain degree with some of their objections with regards gradation of appraisal e.g. it's better than what I think a 4 is, but not a bona fide 5 etc
The good thing about the current rating system is that if nothing else, it forces you to choose or make a clear cut decision without any blurry ambivalence and that's gotta be a good thang y'all
The only reason many of you hanker for half stars or decimal subdivisions is because you don't have the faintest idea how to articulate or qualify what you like or dislike about any given music.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: June 14 2011 at 07:05 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
The current rating system has many detractors, and I can empathise to a certain degree with some of their objections with regards gradation of appraisal e.g. it's better than what I think a 4 is, but not a bona fide 5 etc
The good thing about the current rating system is that if nothing else, it forces you to choose or make a clear cut decision without any blurry ambivalence and that's gotta be a good thang y'all
The only reason many of you hanker for half stars or decimal subdivisions is because you don't have the faintest idea how to articulate or qualify what you like or dislike about any given music.
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20252
|
Posted: June 14 2011 at 07:22 |
Alitare wrote:
I prefer a rating of 1-15.
13-15 are different levels of masterpieces, 5 star wonders. 12's are simply your average excellent works. 10's and 11's are competent and 'decent'. 9's 8's and 7's are all mediocre and predictable and generic, but not dreadfully offensive - usually just boring. 6's 5's and 4's are all differing levels of plain awful. Anything lower than a 4 is an atrocious abomination and an effrontery to the Lord of aural elation. (as a note, I've reviewed 1,000+ albums, and only one has gotten a 15, while NONE have gotten lower than a 4 (two 4's so far)
|
Yoiu describe Gnosis2000's scale 
I'd be content with halfstars, really!!!
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
someone_else
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 02 2008
Location: Going Bananas
Status: Offline
Points: 24324
|
Posted: June 14 2011 at 07:26 |
Vompatti wrote:
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 46, 56, 67, 79. |
Wrong scale. It's: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17...
|
Just because you happen to prefer a different scale doesn't make my scale "wrong".
|
None of these make sense  . I have two other suggestions (both are better) to choose from:
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, ...
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, ...
Edit:
By the way: how can it be that I cannot vote in this poll, even though I am logged in? Is this a bug, some unconventional authorization issue or is it because this thread is moved?
Edited by someone_else - June 14 2011 at 07:31
|
|
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407
|
Posted: June 14 2011 at 07:42 |
someone_else wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
CPicard wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37, 46, 56, 67, 79. |
Wrong scale. It's: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17...
|
Just because you happen to prefer a different scale doesn't make my scale "wrong".
|
None of these make sense . I have two other suggestions (both are better) to choose from:
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, ...
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, ...
Edit:
By the way: how can it be that I cannot vote in this poll, even though I am logged in? Is this a bug, some unconventional authorization issue or is it because this thread is moved? |
I think it's because the thread is moved k
Edited by Vompatti - June 14 2011 at 07:42
|
|
Warthur
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 06 2008
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 617
|
Posted: June 14 2011 at 08:39 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
The current rating system has many detractors, and I can empathise to a certain degree with some of their objections with regards gradation of appraisal e.g. it's better than what I think a 4 is, but not a bona fide 5 etc
The good thing about the current rating system is that if nothing else, it forces you to choose or make a clear cut decision without any blurry ambivalence and that's gotta be a good thang y'all |
Agreed.
I think the best way to look at the current rating system is that the stars aren't points on a scale going up to 5, they're broad ranges. So, for example, "four stars" is a broad range covering everything from albums which just about scrape into the definition of four star but only barely right up to those albums which are reaching for a fifth star but just don't *quite* make it.
This is obviously going to vary for everyone (hence why I think the average rating is more meaningful than people's individual ratings - when you average it everyone's different biases end up getting smoothed out), but for me I find that the five-star bucket is a bit narrower than 2, three or four, because only the absolute essential picks get into that club - I might find fine distinctions between different five star albums, but they're small enough to be negligible when looking at the overall scale. And, personally, I consider the 1-star range to be extremely narrow; I basically reserve one-star reviews for albums which go beyond simply being mediocre, uninspiring efforts and end up in the realm of actual full-blown incompetence.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Rating Scale
