AfterHours
Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)
|
- #282
- Posted: 03/09/2022 23:04
- Post subject:
|
| Rhyner wrote: |
Second, and relatedly, I'd like to understand the origins/rationale behind how you have chosen to structurally conceive of your scale, in order to better point the way to an ultimate rating formula/function/algorithm for it. Any way you choose to quantify things on a scale is in some sense arbitrary, and could have been done differently. With temperature this is obviously so, as there are three different scales in widespread use (Celsius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin). Any one of the three is a perfectly intelligible temperature scale, but the three have clear differences (e.g. 0 C = 32 F = 273.15 K; does doubling this temperature make more sense in one of the three scales than it does the other two?).
Let's assume for the moment that I'm correct in 2.5 being a crucial fixed point of your scale that helps define it. What I'm wondering in this hypothetical case is why you chose to fix this 2.5 positive-vs.-negative-accumulation turning-point concept at 2.5 rather than at, say, 5. Five seems a perfectly natural point for that, assuming we're starting from scratch in assembling a rating scale. Is there any particular guiding principle you have that dictates having 2.5 be the correct number of that specific fixed point? I presume, based on what you've previously written, that trying to get your scale calibrated/aligned with that of Scaruffi plays a big role here, but is there some other fundamental aspect of how you choose to rate art that has naturally led to these decisions?
Tl;dr, here's the second question:
2. What is the origin/rationale behind how and where you have decided to structurally fix the "joints" (as discussed in question one) of your scale?
|
Re: "based on Scaruffi" continued...
Not sure if there's anything left to say re: Scaruffi except maybe that the accuracy of his goal posts was discovered only after much listening (of music). Later, cinema, the vast majority of which I had declared most of my ratings before his (and still, roughly 80% accuracy), so this only further verified the similarities in criteria and goal posts after his ratings were made available. (Edit: before that, the same verification process with Jazz, where I rated most of mine before his ... still approx 80%). And yet later, Paintings have helped me further clarify on my own (and still are), but haven't been verified with Scaruffi yet because he has never rated any. So I didn't see his 9s and what-not and automatically gear my scale to those (many of his 9s were 9.5+ for me at first, and even some 8s and other lower ratings were up there). This came about more and more AFTER listening and comparing. In other words, the accuracy was "discovered" and "verified" rather than "assumed" or "an automatic influence" prior to this.
Re: the rest of #2...
"2.5" seems to be the exact point where a work passes a threshold between "indifferent" quality and a very very very minor positive accumulation (2.6...) in relation to the rest of the scale above that. 5 probably isn't this point simply because "average" or "mediocre" is still a positive advancement in the grand scheme of things (even if could be called "very poor" relative to an all time masterpiece). 5 still would imply that the artist/band/film-maker/painter is expressively engaged and inspired and making a legitimate effort and creative endeavor (even if all of this could be called underwhelming). This points were first theorized as "logical" points, but further verified by listening to many many works descending gradually from 7 on down to check that each of the qualitative steps were in line with this or close. "Or close" because, again, they should not be considered "finalized" (particularly 2.5, which may be lower) but should be considered "most likely true or close".
"5" could certainly seem true as the joint where the above threshold takes place, particularly in relation to 8s, 8.5s, 9s, and above. But when going through 5s and below, it does seem to occur (very gradually) a bit lower. 2.5 (still being tested if I ever have enough patience to complete such tests!) seems like where it really begins. Though the accumulation at 2.6 and so on is so low that it is hard to decipher.
Raw or more fundamental scores have been discussed/proposed between DelBoca and I (in different words). But never fully concluded. And as the scale has changed shape in small ways, these alterations have put a damper in determining this. But I am totally open to ideas/breakdowns/theories.
As it stands, assuming 2.5 is the exact point of "indifference" (no accumulation up or down, or virtually so). It might be something like...
2.5 = 0 (zero positive qualitative accumulation)
2.6-4.9 = very gradual accumulation from 0.1-0.9
5.0 = 1
6.0 = 2.5
7.0 = 6
8.0 = 12
9.0 = 24
9.3 = approx 27.5
10 = approx 55 (full 10/10 at least, seems to be "double" a 9.3 or close)
--------------------------------------------
| Rhyner wrote: |
Third, a bit on the logarithmic nature of your scale. Logarithmic scales can be counterintuitive (for evidence just look back at your discussion with Seth about how the rating-by-halves math "doesn't make any sense"), but they're really just a more manageable way of looking at data with high variability that might be unwieldy when dealt with in its otherwise more intuitive "raw" form. To quote Wikipedia on one of the most famous logarithmic scales, the Richter scale: "it's essential to understand the Richter scale uses logarithms simply to make the measurements manageable (i.e., a magnitude 3 quake factors 10³ while a magnitude 5 quake is 100 times stronger than that)." It's much easier to talk about threes and fives and eights rather than 1000s and 100000s and 100000000s.
But behind the threes and fives and eights are these more unwieldy numbers. I'd like to know if the same is true in principle with your logarithmic-type rating scale. For instance, on your scale two 7.0s might be equivalent to an 8.0, but in the same way as with the Richter scale, are there "raw" versions of these scores that can be added in the traditional arithmetic way? To pick numbers arbitrarily, let's say the "raw" quality score, not yet converted to your logarithmic-type ten point scale, of a 7.0 is 85. Then two of these would add to 170. Which means 170 is the "raw quality" score of the more tidy and manageable 8.0. And since two 8.0s make a 9.0, the "raw" quality, logarithmically "de-converted" score of 9.0 is 340. And so on. (Don't worry about the numbers being at all correct; I just want to know if the principle applies.)
Thus:
3. Would it be fair to say that whatever the function/process is that determines the numerical "level of quality" of a work, the last step in giving it a rating is in some sense logarithmically converting the "raw" quality score to a more tidy numerical value on your ten point scale, such that you could take these ten point scale scores and run the process backwards in order to deal with these scores in their more "raw" form? Or is there something fundamentally keeping us from doing that?
|
Yes, I think you have that right, assuming I'm following you.
The element that makes it hard to get an exact determination (and that has been discussed between DelBoca and I) is that the logarithm might fall short of explaining factors of "accumulation" that come into play and that pose themselves as anomalies in certain comparisons. Per the above (estimated, rough draft) scale I answered above, a 10/10 is 55 times a 5. But in practice, this doesn't seem to be true. If one had 55 5.0s in a row, each of them un-repetitive from the other, but also an accumulation upon the last, one would NEVER reach a 10/10. Yet, per those numbers, we should. But it doesn't really work that way. It would be more accurate to say that those numbers may work if one could place 55 5.0s in the same space/time as the initial 5.0. In other words, WITHOUT increasing space or time, 55 times over. Then one could perhaps have a 10. The "consecutive" version doesn't accumulate fast enough to change shape/development/quality per unit of time needed to get anywhere near the profundity, density, depth of a 10. It would be just one 5 after the other and maybe that would equal something above a 5, but exactly what is unclear. Direct accumulations like this only seem to work between two closer points, but not when the gap is too great.
So such a basic logarithm/scale probably isn't detailed or expressive enough to show the true needs of accumulation.
So there are probably 2 sets of numbers: one like the above. Another that illustrates "density" of accumulation.
It is currently being "tested" by me (and was being discussed with DelBoca) that the "real" scale is between these two points or maybe even "only" the "density of accumulation". And the "extent" of accumulation is not truly accurate as it doesn't work out in practice particularly when comparing 2 points where there is a large enough gap in aesthetic/artistic development.
(I'll leave it there for now but let me know if I need to explain more)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
|
|
|
|
