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?
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? _________________ Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Music Albums, Part 1 by RFNAPLES
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).
I think 'Incredible' 'Average' and 'Poor', for example, are pretty unambiguous terms. This isn't a bad idea at all. _________________ Shut up mate you're boring!
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, ๐ซข but...no. ๐
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. ๐ค _________________ Doubles & Conch
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
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.
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
RoundTheBend
Norman Bates
RFNAPLES
videoheadcleaner
HigherThanTheSun
Hayden
ShaneSpear
albummaster
