Best Ever Albums

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

RoundTheBend — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:36:32 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 04/18/2012 06:36

ShaneSpear wrote:

I just use the standard school grading system for the most part.

95 = A+
90 = A
85 = B+
80 = B
75 = C+
70 = C
65 = D+
60 = D
55 and below = various degrees of failure

This would be a good system, but A and 90 both have non-descriptive titles. That is the main point. Not that I'm an idiot and don't know what an A is or a 90, but I study language and the sign, signifier and signified all could mean something different.

No big change needs to take place, but I think it would be nice to have some kind of description to what 100 means vs. 95. For numbers, I could care less between the two. But I am not a numbers person, but100 and 95 is a huge difference to a numbers person. Not everyone here is on the math/science side of the world. Some of us are more liberal arts minded, thus the suggestion.

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

RoundTheBend — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:39:38 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 04/17/2012 17:39

I am content as well - it was just an idea. I guess with so many people- an 80 could mean a lot of things, and that is fine by me.

My idea wasn't to have someone write what an 80 means every time they rate something - rather keep the system the way it is with the star system, but when hovering over a rating there is also a descriptive for what the quantitative means. Make sense now? Jive?

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

HigherThanTheSun — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:41:52 GMT

Author: HigherThanTheSun

Posted: 04/17/2012 12:41

Hayden wrote:

I think I just yelled at you in another thread, and I don't really want to do it again, cause you're a good guy and such, 🫢 but...no. :|

Didn't realise you were yelling at me in the other thread... maybe some exclamation marks would have helped! 😉

I see the points being made here, I guess if everyone already has their own idea of what their ratings mean then changing it would suddenly make a lot of people's ratings wrong. I'm pretty content as it is but I don't really mind either way.

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

Xavygravy — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:00:15 GMT

Author: Xavygravy

Posted: 04/17/2012 09:00

19loveless91 wrote:

I think we all use different systems, so if we standardize it for the whole site, it will mean that a lot of now existing ratings will have to be changed.

Aside from the above limitation, I think it would technically be a better system in terms of being closer to the true/accurate rating of an album. That said, the limitation is quite significant, and the current system works well enough, so there shouldn't really be any need for it.

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

albummaster — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:27:55 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 04/17/2012 08:27

it has been discussed before and the consensus then was to keep things as they are, because people like the individuality of their own rating systems. I think some kind of personalised annotation wouldn't be a bad thing, but the rating should really speak for itself so it might be a bit superfluous.

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

19loveless91 — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:20:11 GMT

Author: 19loveless91

Posted: 04/17/2012 05:20

I think we all use different systems, so if we standardize it for the whole site, it will mean that a lot of now existing ratings will have to be changed. Not a fan.
I Agree with Hayden

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

ShaneSpear — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:26:44 GMT

Author: ShaneSpear

Posted: 04/17/2012 04:26

I just use the standard school grading system for the most part.

95 = A+
90 = A
85 = B+
80 = B
75 = C+
70 = C
65 = D+
60 = D
55 and below = various degrees of failure

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

Hayden — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:14:00 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 04/17/2012 01:14

HigherThanTheSun wrote:

I think 'Incredible' 'Average' and 'Poor', for example, are pretty unambiguous terms. This isn't a bad idea at all.

I think I just yelled at you in another thread, and I don't really want to do it again, cause you're a good guy and such, 🫢 but...no. 😐

And sethmadsen, I think that the inclusion of the individuals average rating put on the side (that we already have) should be good enough. But if you want the RYM-ish sidenotes, I guess that wouldn't be too bad. 🤔

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

HigherThanTheSun — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:20:44 GMT

Author: HigherThanTheSun

Posted: 04/17/2012 00:20

I think 'Incredible' 'Average' and 'Poor', for example, are pretty unambiguous terms. This isn't a bad idea at all.

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

videoheadcleaner — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:20:41 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 04/16/2012 23:20

RFNAPLES wrote:

If you don't know the difference among 50, 70 and 100, how would labeling them with words help? Language is often nondescript. Is good better than average? Is poor better than fail, etc.? How will you force members to use the definitions and scale you want? Or would you just have six ratings: Poorest, Poorer, Poor, Good, Better, Best?

On RYM you can nominate your own rating "terms" so it is easy for you. This way, other users can see that an average album for you could be 4 stars instead of 2.5 (drawing long bow on the average term here).

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

RFNAPLES — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:53:20 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/16/2012 22:53

If you don't know the difference among 50, 70 and 100, how would labeling them with words help? Language is often nondescript. Is good better than average? Is poor better than fail, etc.? How will you force members to use the definitions and scale you want? Or would you just have six ratings: Poorest, Poorer, Poor, Good, Better, Best?

Re: Standardizing what stars mean

Norman Bates — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:59:35 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 04/16/2012 20:59

My contribution: 2.5=average.

Standardizing what stars mean

RoundTheBend — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:58:37 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 04/16/2012 17:58

So I have recently started to take seriously the consistency of my star ratings and thought that maybe a cool feature on the website could be instead of when you hover over the stars it states, "Rate this song!", replace that with some kind of simple description of what that star represents.

An example of this would be if I were to rank something 100- it would state most amazing. Well it might make me rethink putting that on something, whereas 100 might not be understood as such.

I guess what I am saying is that the data is often stated to have high integrity on this site (which it does) and that might help make statistics more "real." It'd be nice if we standardized what we mean by 50, 70 100, etc.

I am sure this could be a difficult task as many would maybe disagree with the standardization, but at the same time I think it would add some credibility to have a standardized meaning of ratings.

I know that the star system has been talked about before, but I couldn't find anything wanting to standardize the star system to meanings. What is the difference between a 4 star and 5 star on BEA?