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

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

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

Posted: December 09 2007 at 20:56

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:

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
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.
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.
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

Sckxyss

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 05 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1319

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?

. 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

Easy Livin View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

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

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.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

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

Posted: January 08 2008 at 00:36

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?

. 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

Sckxyss

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 05 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1319

Posted: January 20 2008 at 02:55

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

. 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.

Iv�n

Many brought up the issue of what to do with the old reviews (read the thread if you don't believe me

). 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.

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21680

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:

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

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

Posted: January 20 2008 at 15:22

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

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21680

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:

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

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

Posted: January 20 2008 at 23:07

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.

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

ZowieZiggy View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

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

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