Half-Star Ratings
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23142
Printed Date: March 03 2025 at 22:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Half-Star Ratings
Posted By: Moatilliatta
Subject: Half-Star Ratings
Date Posted: May 10 2006 at 17:12
|
I didn't see anything appear in the search, so I thought I'd bring this idea up:
I see a lot of reviewers (including myself) make a note about the album worth _.5 stars or "add another half star," etc. for whatever reason, but they have to mark it down slightly less than they think it's worth, or they raise it up slightly more than they think it's worth. It isn't really important, but it might be nifty if we could have half-star rating abilities. I did see a thread suggesting a 10-star system, but I think condensing it into 5 with half-stars would be better.
------------- www.last.fm/user/ThisCenotaph  
|
Replies:
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 10 2006 at 17:43
|
I'm very much against the idea, but i believe that there will be half stars at some time. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 10 2006 at 18:13
|
How about introducing ONE half star:
1 2 3 4 4.5 5
 ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: May 10 2006 at 18:24
 I think things are OK as they are really, but would not be particularly bothered if half-stars were introduced.
------------- http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=326" rel="nofollow - Read reviews by Fitzcarraldo |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 10 2006 at 18:42
|
The point is that the current system gives me exactly two options for albums which I really like. 3 stars are already mediocre. Let's face it - an album which you rate "good, but non essential" is not an album that you would recommend to anybody.
So that leaves me with 4 or 5 stars for my favorite albums. Not enough for me! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: May 10 2006 at 18:47
|
^ this is true
if there is only one half star that needs to be inroduced, that's the 4.5 star
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 03:57
| One of the main issues with introducing half stars now is the impact on all the existing ratings. For the majority of people, these cannot be changed once they are posted. We would be inundated with people saying, I gave this album 3 stars but I now want to make it 3½. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 04:26
|
Half stars would be great. Its needed. There' a huge difference if an album is rated 3.51 of 4.49. Still they both end up being a (****) four star album. Very misleading. ****1/2 stars is also its how most people would rate albums with one weak song short of a masterpiece. When four is too little, five is too much. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 05:15
Of course that's a problem. But I doubt that many people would insist on this. And those who do could be told: "Write more reviews, become a Prog Reviewer and then you're able to edit your reviews". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 08:18
Why not? If an album's good, then I'd recommend it. There's no such thing as an "essential" album in the strict definition of the word.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 08:33
|
^ I mean that an album which I award with only 3 stars is one that IMO contains so many flaws that while I would not call it bad (I'm a polite person) I would not want it in my album collection, and I would not recommend it to anybody.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 08:48
OK, you're working differently to me. I normally start with 3 stars and work up or down. This means the average CD in my collection would be 3 stars (that would be something like Rush's Fly By Night, nothing earth shattering, but perfectly reasonable and one I would play every now and then), then there would be the 4 star albums such as Renaissance's Ashes Are Burning which (imo) are brilliant and get played a lot, then I reserve 5 stars for absolute classics such as Relayer.
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 09:03
 this is exactly how the rating should be done : by the middle and not from the top >> this would avoid many deceptions ------------- 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 |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 09:27
|
An album that's in the middle is not an album that I would call good. That's the problem.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 09:33
|
For me a 3 star album is a good album also. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 09:39
|
The way I see it,many people ascribe "star ratings" based on what they think of the band,not the album.I have actually had one person tell me "I would have give it 4 stars really,but I felt disloyal".
I would personally be happier with a rating out of 10 system with only a rating of 1 and 10 having explanations. However,the fanboys would still hand out perfect 10s to their favourite bands... |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 09:48
if you give three stars to an album, generally I would not call this an excellent album (just good) meaning I do not really recommend it >> the middle albums are not to be really recommended , just the above average ones ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 12:45
Much too complicated.....let it be this way....like...till ever.  also do think that any change in the rating system would be of sever damage to the already existing reviews....what happens with them?  ------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 13:09
|
^ if an additional half star option (e.g. 4.5) was added, nothing would have to be changed. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 13:21
Spot on Chopper, surely that is how it is meant to be. PA defines 3 stars as "Good - but non-essential" and I have applied that to several enjoyable albums. How can 3 stars possibly be interpreted as anything less than 'good' when the word 'good' is in the definition? In my opinion, even 2 stars does not define a 'bad' album because it is still something that is enjoyed by fans of that band. Perhaps I am being too literal in my interpretation - ***** "Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music" - ie an outright all-time classic ***** "Excellent addition to any prog music collection" - ie brilliant, a personal favourite, love it to death, play it a lot but not quite a classic really ***** "Good, but non-essential" - ie like it, not quite so inspired, the band has done better, but still good ***** "Collectors/fans only" - ie like bits of it because I am a fan of the band, has many flaws, is generally below par ***** "Poor. Only for completionists" - ie don't like it, poor in every way, I only have it for the sake of completing the set Working within the definitions is to me quite sufficient. How would you define 4.5 stars? |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 13:39
|
Nice summary Joolz!
|
Posted By: Psychedelia
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 16:50
|
a ten star system would be the best. It would just give a much better indication of how good the album is
------------- Another emotional suicide, overdosed on sentiment and pride |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: May 24 2006 at 06:56
Case closed I'd say. The problem is not in the number of stars, rather in the definitions. I know from experience in other areas than music that no matter how many scoring levels there are - people will always feel like needing half steps. If we changed it to 10 stars now, a year from now we'd have the same discussion on adding halfs. In only once case have we ever changed the number of levels, and that was downward - from five to four. Main reason there was to avoid discussion on whether the middel score belonged in the top or bottom group - since decisions on further actions were based on this grouping. Leave PA scoring as it is - the definitions are in place, so if we all stick to those we should be just fine. Just my two (euro)cents. Angelo  ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: dalt99
Date Posted: June 02 2006 at 17:49
I disagree. I give "Deadwing" 3 stars for example but that doesn't mean I wouldn't recommend it to someone that loves that style of prog. It's juist not my style. I do agree however that it wouldn't hurt to add a half star system of some sort because the difference from 3 to 5 stars is HUGE but is only 2 points difference! ------------- Best of 2006 that I've heard: PFM-Stati Di Immaginazione Zenit-Surrender (Best "unknown" album) Oaksenham - Conquest of Pacific 2007: Phideaux - Doomsday Afternoon La Torre Del Alchimista - Neo |
Posted By: Kord
Date Posted: June 06 2006 at 09:24
I agree: I think a ten star system would express better your ideas about the album......it would be more precise.
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: June 06 2006 at 13:28
Wrong! The rating should reflect the score of the album within it's 'style of prog', not whether or not you like that style. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: June 09 2006 at 04:35
|
Add half stars. The overall ratings will be much more accurate then!! ------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: June 09 2006 at 08:11
| I write many reviews and many times I have to choose between "only for fans" with 2 stars and "good" with 3 stars, the gap is too big between these two possibilities, in my opinion really annoying! So the last months I rate 2,5 stars in order to give the right rating ... |
Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: June 09 2006 at 09:55
Why does it matter? Surely the important thing is what is written in the review. |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: June 09 2006 at 10:36
| Of course does it matter because if you choose to use stars, these stars should be a good indication, at this moment the rating of the stars is insufficient. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 09 2006 at 10:49
|
Currently the ratings can be interpreted like this: - 1 & 2: Bad - 3: Average - 4 & 5: Good IMO a three star albums is not recommendable unless the person you recommend it to already likes the band or the genre. If I rate an album 3 stars, it basically means that it's a good effort but there are some major drawbacks which make it a not so pleasant listening experience. Usually I don't listen to 3 star albums unless I have to. So it's like I said on the last page: You only have 2 stars for the really good albums. There really isn't any need to have more steps for the bad albums, but 4.5 stars would a really great new feature. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 09 2006 at 10:56
I agree that the gaps between stars are too big and not just between 2 and 3 , but also 3 and 4 and 4 and 5 also.
I started almost right from the start using halfstars over two years ago
Joolz, I agree with you , unfortunately, most people look at the star rating first and take too much importance of it because of the top lists on the site.
I agree with people misunderstand it because of its non-linear nature! our system, although non-linear, is straightforward and there will always be people to misinterpret even the simplest of concept.
3= GOOD
What the hell is so complicated about that. You are right, though : I would not recommend an album with 3* because it is just plain good >> I recommend only great albums (which means 4* and more), therefore an album which I rank as 3.5 stars is almost recommended because close to being ESSENTIAL , but not quite therte yet
A three stars album is also an uneven album with some superb tracks but also many average!
In short I think we must concentrate on whether an album is essential more than just stating it as good
------------- 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 |
Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: June 10 2006 at 07:00
|
