Standing up for the 3 star rating

Dean wrote: claugroi wrote: This is very simple to me: a 3-star rating indicates a good album, but not so good to the point of being considered excellent, which would be 4 stars. 5 stars is only for the perfect albums, the great masterpieces of music. The AVERAGE or MEDIOCRE rating would be 2.5 because our maximum is 5. And then we come to that old problem of ProgArchives, which is not to have a .5 rating option. If we had the half stars, I think people wouldn't confuse 2.5 and 3 anymore by assuming a 3-star rating indicates a more or less album. I really think the broken ratings would make our site fairer. 2.5 is not the median, 3 is. There is no 0 rating, so 1+2+3+4+5=15; 15/5 =3

claugroi wrote: This is very simple to me: a 3-star rating indicates a good album, but not so good to the point of being considered excellent, which would be 4 stars. 5 stars is only for the perfect albums, the great masterpieces of music. The AVERAGE or MEDIOCRE rating would be 2.5 because our maximum is 5. And then we come to that old problem of ProgArchives, which is not to have a .5 rating option. If we had the half stars, I think people wouldn't confuse 2.5 and 3 anymore by assuming a 3-star rating indicates a more or less album. I really think the broken ratings would make our site fairer.

Guldbamsen wrote: 3 stars means a good album on here, yet there are a lot of people who rate stuff they don't like with 3 stars. Hell, I've even come across folks who get their panties in a twist because their music was awarded with 3 stars by a reviewer, who they themselves asked for a write-up. Insane.... If we can't be honest about the music we're supposed to be writing about, what can we? And as an artist one should brace oneself for critique - even, or especially, if it's coming from a friend. To some 'good' basically equates a 5 star rating, whereas something they don't particularly like gets 3 (there are of course also those irritating buggers who rate everything they haven't heard but think they know to suck with 1 star. Oh yes and then there are all those inane folks who think PA is all about the big competition: Who gets the gold on the archives? Music is sports). What do they do, when they encounter something that positively sends them flying through the room without socks and thermal g-string? They've already run out of stars. I don't think I've ever written a 3 star review without it being a recommendation. Sure, often I bring out the age ol 3.5 stars, but I never round up.  This problem (yes I see this as a problem - not because I put to much stock into ratings, but because almost everyone else do, and I'm a part of the site - now even more so since I metamorphosed into deputy janitor) is now viewable to everyone who reads the frontpage. Now it seems as if the only artists featured in reviews, that stay on the <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; : rgb65, 32, 113; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: normal;">POPULAR ARTISTS (TOP 50, LAST 24H) :</span><span style="line-height: 1.2;"> , are those who receive either a 4 or 5 star write-up. So even the readers seem to have bought into the notion that 3 stars simply isn't worth the mustard. </span> <span style="line-height: 1.2;">So I thought it was about time to </span>resurrect the honour, as well as the meaning, of the 3 star rating. <span style="line-height: 1.2;"> </span>

Guldbamsen wrote: 3 stars means a good album on here, yet there are a lot of people who rate stuff they don't like with 3 stars. Hell, I've even come across folks who get their panties in a twist because their music was awarded with 3 stars by a reviewer, who they themselves asked for a write-up. Insane.... If we can't be honest about the music we're supposed to be writing about, what can we? And as an artist one should brace oneself for critique - even, or especially, if it's coming from a friend. To some 'good' basically equates a 5 star rating, whereas something they don't particularly like gets 3 (there are of course also those irritating buggers who rate everything they haven't heard but think they know to suck with 1 star. Oh yes and then there are all those inane folks who think PA is all about the big competition: Who gets the gold on the archives? Music is sports). What do they do, when they encounter something that positively sends them flying through the room without socks and thermal g-string? They've already run out of stars. I don't think I've ever written a 3 star review without it being a recommendation. Sure, often I bring out the age ol 3.5 stars, but I never round up.  This problem (yes I see this as a problem - not because I put to much stock into ratings, but because almost everyone else do, and I'm a part of the site - now even more so since I metamorphosed into deputy janitor) is now viewable to everyone who reads the frontpage. Now it seems as if the only artists featured in reviews, that stay on the <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; : rgb65, 32, 113; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: normal;">POPULAR ARTISTS (TOP 50, LAST 24H) :</span><span style="line-height: 1.2;"> , are those who receive either a 4 or 5 star write-up. So even the readers seem to have bought into the notion that 3 stars simply isn't worth the mustard. </span> <span style="line-height: 1.2;">So I thought it was about time to </span>resurrect the honour, as well as the meaning, of the 3 star rating. <span style="line-height: 1.2;"> </span>

Hey Dave. I really appreciate your passion and insight with in this subject matter, but unfortunately most people (I am sorry to say) aren't very bright and when they immediately see something like a 3/5 they'll most likely think % more than anything else rather than seeing/understanding what each star truly means. It's all a matter if perception, so a glaring 3/5 which is roughly 60% is a pretty sh*tty rating in the grand scheme of things and I think that is what most people will think right off the bat. They won't see/understand "good, but not essential' really means. I feel ya all together my friend, and I know I'm far from a 'good reviewer', but I think I am In agreement with PA's rating system because you can still give an album 2/5 and still show some kind of possitive feedback. It doesn't have to be all bad. Again, the trouble is % and that is the problem, rather than the outline of what each star actually truly means here on PA.
I can understand some bands getting upset when they see a rating of 3/5 cause they think 'wtf 60/100? That sucks.' Sadly this problem will continue here. All in all though, 3/5 ain't bad.

Progmind wrote: Warthur wrote: I agree with those upthread who've said that the actual words of a reviewer are more meaningful than the precise number of stars they give an album - not least because it's those words which give you some idea of whether the reviewer's tastes are compatible with yours. That said, here's how I tend to apply stars on Rate Your Music: 5 - Superb, marvellous, this is the sort of gem we strive to find. 4.5 - I'm very impressed by the album and do genuinely like it, but at the same time I just can't quite bring myself to give it the fifth star - not because there's any glaring flaws to the album, but simply because it doesn't move me to the extent that a five star album would. 4 - A very good album which deserves people's attention. 3.5 - A good, solid album, anything scoring this or above is a "keeper" and anything scoring less won't necessarily stick around in my collection for long. 3 - A decent album which doesn't do anything for me personally, but I can see how other people might like it. 2.5 - There's clear flaws to the work but fans of this particular genre or band might still like it. May well still be worth checking out if there's a standout song or two that are head and shoulders above the others. 2 - We got problems. Doesn't preclude there being good songs on the album, but the good songs probably aren't very good and the less good material is off-putting. 1.5/<span style="line-height: 1.2;">1/0.5 - Stuff down here I basically can't stand. 1.5ish if the album is merely dull or uninteresting, lower if it's actively irritating.</span> Over here, where we don't have half-stars, I usually round the star ratings up simply because any prog-based album is slightly more likely to be enjoyed by this website's readers than it is by a general audience. The exception is 4.5 stars, which I round down to 4 to keep 5s special. Totally agree with you Warthur<span id="result_" ="" lang="en"><span ="hps">The</span> <span ="hps">problem I see</span> <span ="hps">with the current system</span> <span ="hps">is that it is</span> <span ="hps">unbalanced</span></span>. 5, 4 and 3 stars are good ratings, 2 stars mediocre (or for fans only) and 1 star <span id="result_" ="" lang="en"><span ="hps">represent the</span> <span ="hps">segment between</span> <span ="hps">the bad and the</span> <span ="hps">horrible</span></span>

Hello Progmind, in regards to your post/comment above, I too agree that a great and most articulate review means more compared to the star rating, however here on PA I have noticed that a plus 0.5 rating is reduced to the smaller number, this in math's sense is not correct because anything rated with another half should be upgraded to the next number above meanwhile here if one rates an album i.e. 4.5 it will be downgraded and reduced to 4
Anyway hugs to you

Now that you mentioned RYM, that reminds me after I started rating here I wish that you could give half-stars on PA too. (and GoodReads for that matter)

Finnforest wrote: LakeGlade12 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: LakeGlade12 wrote: Looking at all the posts here I can't find anyone who dosen't like the idea of half stars. So who exactly do we need to convince? Cal it a wild stab in the dark if you like, but how about the site owner? Just him (MAX)? I thought there would be some upper circle of Prog forum masters or something like that? I have just got a stong mental image of people wearing capes in some super secret room and a photograph of 2112 in the centre of the room    Don't let Dean and David throw you off.  That room does exist...and there are capes.  In fact, David walks around in **only** his cape....he's been talked to about it by HR but he still does it.  It sometimes takes days to get those images to flush from your brain.

I too have seen that. It's almost gotten to a point where no holiday feels complete without the above taking place.

rogerthat wrote: Er, thank you very much for assuming I do not have my own tastes

I apologize. And I didn't mean to say you don't have your own taste etc.
I just meant that sometimves it's nice to discover a good obscure band and recommand it to others.

Also I came to conclusion that there is a difference between giving a priority to albums that rated OVERALL above 4 stars, or priority to albums that have SOME nice 4 stars, but the overall rating is lower, let's say 3.4-4 rating. The second option is really OK, and very reasonable.

And finnaly, I appriciate anyone who buy music nowadays. I'm also buying, and also not that rich I can afford myself any disk in the world.



Edited by ShW1 - March 12 2014 at 16:56

A 3 star rating to me is often an album that features elements I think are quality elements, but also features elements that prevent me from thinking of it as a top tier release (which in my book is 4 stars or above). I don´t necessarily have to enjoy listening to the release myself. Hell...I often give our 4 star ratings to albums I don´t particularly enjoy. I might be a bit pretentious, but I do pride myself of being able to spot what´s a quality release and what´s not. It´s all subjective of course...

ShW1 wrote: rogerthat wrote:  If I want to buy an album, I am obviously going to prioritise and go for one that's already rated 4-plus and where the reviews also seem to justify the rating.   I think it is much more fruitful to develope one's taste, instead of just following the 'crowd'.

LakeGlade12 wrote: I have just got a stong mental image of people wearing capes in some super secret room and a photograph of 2112 in the centre of the room

I wouldn't speculate about it so publicly. They don't appreciate it.