Twenty five thousands members goal beaten. What's next, Fifty k ? :-)

Anyway, there is a line "200,710" ratings and reviews, but can you tell us how many of them are actually reviews (I suppose that rating/review ratio is 3:1. More on well known albums, less on lesser known ones. Also, how many of these members (I have shameful 23504 newbie number, but that's the life of newcomer to business) are active (for example logged in during last month). And amongst those with prog reviewer status, are there those who aren't active anymore ?

If anyone has similar question, please ask, I can't think about all of it alone. And if no one care, then hell, at least there question are there.

Two topics in one guys

Good old Blowin Free, you can be always counted on.

Well, my signature is quite noticeable. First it was strip thinner in matter of width, but then I wasn't able to give cover images here, so I extended it proportionally. As you can see from my words, I've done it myself. It took my about 10 minutes in MS Paint, then another 10 to find nice scale, then choose good pictures from my reviews as example of what is in my mind appropriate for certain mark.

As you see, I rate albums with 1-5 scale as others, with majority of 4-5 stars and I'm trying to have about 4 average on all categories. So far, most of them are there. Anyway, because I was thinking a lot about star system, I've decided to do my own approach. For example, if something is in my opinion between 3 and 4 and it's better, then I give 4(-). It's also for sorting those who made it barely to 4 star rating from those who barely escaped from 5 star mark.

So, to answer your question, I got it from nowhere. It's my work, my way of doing reviewing thing. I've tried to be original and to be honest, I quite like this scale. Or maybe it's because I get used to use it. All I have to do now is to edit older reviews and include (-) & (+) here.

So what do you think about it ? 

You got me wrong, you can disagree with me that Pendragon's "Not of This World" is in my mind other word for perfection. Or that I see Help! as mediocre album with many promising proto prog traits. 

So please, reason of this thread wasn't to discuss my musical taste. Just the system for rating.

So OffTopic - And as for you, MovingPicture, I'm sorry, I've tried to find something good in it, ANYTHING. But I've failed. And Alpha Centauri, similar case. All I can hope for is that their later work will be better for me.

From 150 ratings, I gave just 2 one stars and these are on this signature. Just two, somebody has to be it. I don't like doing it, but I see it that way. I can speak for Tangerine Dream, some of their work I like. Some of it even for 4 stars. And you know that I'm trying to understand these harder genres. I already give a try to death metal and some of it was at least average for me. That's a significant progress. And normal technical metal, Mastodon's album I like for 5 stars. As for Zeuhl, I've heard their new, K.A. (sorry, it was so far only one I was able to get my hands on), and I like it. I'm still quite afraid, but it gave me hope that Zeuhl is good genre. And for RIO/Avant, try The Plastic People of the Universe from my country (if you will be able to get them, I know them just because of my father), there I'm making progress in some parts. Frank Zappa yes, Czech RIO scene, yes. Some others also, but Captain's Trout will remain. I know you're not alone, a lot of people see it in your way too. But it's not only hard to access, it's also hostile, unreasonably offensive. And in these short glimpses into music I was able to see, I saw nothing just plain NOTHNIG. 

Soooo, please let's back to topic, my rating system (within system of 1-2-3-4-5 stars), not personal tastes.

MartyMcFly89 wrote: Good old Blowin Free, you can be always counted on. Well, my signature is quite noticeable. First it was strip thinner in matter of width, but then I wasn't able to give cover images here, so I extended it proportionally. As you can see from my words, I've done it myself. It took my about 10 minutes in MS Paint, then another 10 to find nice scale, then choose good pictures from my reviews as example of what is in my mind appropriate for certain mark. As you see, I rate albums with 1-5 scale as others, with majority of 4-5 stars and I'm trying to have about 4 average on all categories. So far, most of them are there. Anyway, because I was thinking a lot about star system, I've decided to do my own approach. For example, if something is in my opinion between 3 and 4 and it's better, then I give 4(-). It's also for sorting those who made it barely to 4 star rating from those who barely escaped from 5 star mark. So, to answer your question, I got it from nowhere. It's my work, my way of doing reviewing thing. I've tried to be original and to be honest, I quite like this scale. Or maybe it's because I get used to use it. All I have to do now is to edit older reviews and include (-) & (+) here. So what do you think about it ?

Are you volunteering to create a website that generates these charts for people, like Mike does with the ProgFreak charts?

Uh, (to use your signature), pardon ?

In case of serious meaning, I'm not skilled in webmastering, webhosting, doing web pages, keeping it alive and after all, I don't really know what you're talking about (with all due respect, which I truly have for you). When I saw that implementing 1/2 star ratings system would be impossible to do, I've decided to do my system within PA system. It's not breaking rules, it's more like something similar to Sean Trane's 3.5 stars really signature (he uses it a lot, he's well known for that here).

In case of irony, I don't really know what to say.

Am I doing something wrong, harming something/someone, not understanding something important ? I'm really confused now. I just wanted to think about this system in public, talk with people about it.

Well, I little bit expected this, that it will be already used. At least it's entirely from my head, because TGM's biography, nor profile I haven't visited. Yet.

I did, now. He's doing it in little bit different way. But using him as an example for this, he uses normal ratings (as I understand it) and explains it by words in review. But I actually uses this in final rating, while making excuses with (+) and (-). This is wonderful, I can use it as excuse, as a way how to do it, as a little bit of philosophy, general rule how to decide about rating ...

Dean, I would like to. But if my skills are in something, then words are the thing. But even this will be threatened soon I'm afraid. Two weeks and I'll start attending university, studying English language (my favourite), so even less time. But after all, why to implement this. I suppose that I don't have copyright on that system. Everyone is free to use it in their reviews, I will know that I was first and that's all concerning me is over.

But if you talk about this actual image, I've done it manually. However, it can be done automatically, justt make form of blank scale (I like these colors, they're so ... natural), keep space of about 80x80 (or my have 77x77 for each album and let people insert images (in square format of course, 200x200 for example) and that's it, your signature will be complete. If this is what you mean. 

Please use more words to make sure I understood you correctly. I like long texts :-)

Well, these things sounds funny now, but I took them seriously then. Probably because of upcoming school.

So let's back too ground (-) and (+), I've said a lot here, now it's your turn.

more in PM  Crimson, I want to keep this threat clean. I'll be glad to talk with you, but somewhere else.

Well, I guess that I'll simply keep on using this system. I kinda like it, gives me a lot of space to decide, while I'm acting according to rules.

Now I don't know if to edit older reviews and implement new rating system too, or to keep it as it is.

Also, what system determines final rating in your head ?

And second also, do you sometimes have feeling, that your word dictionary is quite limited ? I never had, but as I'm reviewing, I found myself in this situation.

OK, now native speakers, please count mistakes in this post. Please, do it for me :- ) you know, few days till university education starts (English language), so I want to know where I stand.

Hehe, funny thing is that there's a guy, who said to me, that he can't speak English (much), but he's sure going to learn. He's either brave, or foolish, to study English language for teaching.

Nice rating system analyses I see here. Just theoretically speaking, this system can work with (theoretically) beyond 5 (because normal 5 is 5(-) ) - 5(+) and also before 1 rating, 1(-).

Anyway, I don't use it that way, just thinking about it. I'm just using 5 star for masterpieces only. Or for things unique in its genre (Abbey Road) and of course, 5 stars have 1/3-1/2 in my total ratings and I'm trying to use them sparingly now and edit these older ones and lower rating if possible.

Evolver, I'm using point system, I wouldn't be able to rate anything if I refuse it, I wouldn't be able to review, because reviewing is using system 1-5 and most of people do it in this way. Some use 4.5 of course and I'm using this one. There are slight differences.

I should have rather name this threat as using PA rating system with addition of (+) & (-).

Logan, great table. But if I was about to use it, I would stretch, or shorten it to my needs, because for example for some more folk, than prog folk albums I gave 3 stars, same as with Flash Gordon and Help. But I enjoy them both. But couldn't give Help! for example 5 stars. But Trout Mask, I'm sure a lot of people enjoy it. But I can't give it more than 1 star, because I don't see nothing here. I've tried a lot, but I can't give for example 3 stars to something where I don't see ANYTHING musical. After all, I'm not professional, I just do what I think I can do, write review from my point of view, trying to be fair.

Dean, you're right. You have talent on it. I wasn't thinking in numbers. I in fact did scale of certain length, completely random (in fact long enough to fill 1/2 of forum page), then it looked like this:

And I enlarged it to provide place for images. I wanted to express it, because sole scale wouldn't be so attractive. Yes, these albums can raise some emotions, as I already saw (even just from fun, not seriously meant - MovingPictures), but everyone can go to my collaboratorProfile.asp page and see them. OK, there's a lot of entries, but this signature is just shortcut. And when I look on them, I can defend every of these decisions. And from average ratings of these albums, I'm more or less within normal ratings ( = a lot of people had similar decision), except Trout Mask Replica and Alpha Centauri, but I explained these in reviews.

But this signature isn't so big, is it ? OK, it's wide, taking a lot of page width, but it's just 174px tall, there are many people with bigger picture as sig. But  I understand you, it looks too big. I don't know why, it's just 139.000px. Normal desktop in these days have 1280x1024, which equals roughly ten times more. I have disadvantage with my little screen, 1024x600. Some signatures, I have to scroll to see who's actually posting it :-D

So Dean, yes. I just made this table, gave inner "walls" to it and separated places for 1(-) to 5(+). Roughly, it fits. But we're not thinking about have rating beyond 5 star, do we ? But I didn't get that thing with the bigger rating is, the lesser is space between them. Of course, I once repeated grade because of math, but that was because of teacher issue and me not able to understand. Darn, now I understand Dean. Let me explain it, because 1(-) isn't equal to 1 star rating. We don't think about ratings 1-5 as flat ones, so it's the same thing with 1(-). It means that space between 1 star and 2 star is divided to 1(-) space and 1(+) space. As shown in signature picture, ........ wait a minute, that's doesn't work. Oh, seems like you got me. But I'll find it out.

Truth is that I'm trying to avoid 1 and 2 star ratings. Therefore, I mostly decide between 3-4 and 5 stars. I see what you mean now, as it is, the signature is using actually 6 stars rating system. But I'm not. Therefore I'm not using sig star system. :- / logically speaking, this is truth, so where's the real truth. I have to think about it more.

What about make 1, 2, 3(-),  3(+), 4(-), 4(+), 5(-) and 5(+) ? That wouldn't fit also. Oh crap, I like this. It makes me think and uses my brain to find solution.

I got it. We all know that there can be 4 better and 4 worse, I call it 4(+) and 4(-), some people use 3.5 for example. Do you know why I refuse to use it ? Because when somebody uses 3.5, he means 3 star, never 4. But mathematically speaking, 3.5 can be as much 3 as 4. But it never is 4 in reviews, so question can be, why ? I don't say that my system is flawless, but with your help, I can make it bulletproof. See, it's something different, almost as metaphorically speaking "my baby".

Conclusion: I think that I take rating system as big wilderness, where nothing  is for sure and you have to think about your decision. Therefore, I see stars as beacons, which are there just for orientation and keeping more or less on the right path. I think that my sig shows something which can't be shown. Because as I think about 3 stars and think around them, I see also 1 star as right border for 1(-). For those things worse than other 1(+) things.

It's not my dogma, I welcome new ideas or improvements. This is my best, for now, I'm basically using it for higher ratings, where it works..

Will it help a little bit ? This way, just half of a rating will be leaping over PA scale, with range between stars will be kept. 

5+ 5.00 =5+0.00 5- 4.56 =5-0.44 4+ 4.11 =4+0.11 4- 3.67 =4-0.33 3+ 3.22 =3+0.22 3- 2.78 =3-0.22

So it roughly works, with one eye closed and little bit tolerance.

you have used numbers that could lead to confusion

In fact, I'm not using numbers, just 5(-) and 5(+), so people would probably think that 5(-) = something between 4 and 5, while 5(+) = pure 5 star

non-linear system

So my system isn't also so much linear, is it ? When you hit 5 star on rating page, you'll get pop up message, which is telling you to use 0 rating sparingly. This suggests that in past, this site was using 0-5 star system, which would explain a lot.

What about this ? Look Dean, I appreciate  your help, you pointed out errors in this system, which wasn't obvious on first look (in fact, it worked quite fine and it also looked fine), so I have to improve it. That's good, because ====>

5+        5.00-4.66
5 -        4.66-4.33
4+        4.00-4.33
4-          3.50-4.00
3+        3.00-3.50
3-          2.50-3.00
2+        2.00-2.50
2-          1.66-2.00
1+        1.33-1.66
1-          1.00-1.33

==========> because, after all, I still use 1-5 star ratings :-) so these 1(-) to 5(+) are just words, nothing more. I believe in them, I use them as guide to final rating, but still it nothin dirty, it's fair business. And deviation 0.06 from 4.5 is still not much to be worried about. So no, my rating system in this form isn't exactly compatible with PA system, but it is, almost.

:- / Please Dean, we can find a way how to let me use it.