The FIVE STAR rating system

I've said before, I think the best assets of the site are the reviews that can be made by anyone. The democratic aspect of it makes it more worthy than other sites with larger databases, but reviews made just by one or other person.

Maybe I'm too naive, but I expect people to check the ratings and reviews in order to help them make the decision to buy or not an album. Because, if the person is willing to illegally download the album, reading reviews and ratings will take more time than to download one, two songs or even the whole album to check the quality themselves. So, the site is destined to people who buy music. And nothing is better than the reviews.

The well-written ones, I mean. Because, if the reviewer can explain why he likes or dislikes the album, the reader can learn something useful, that he couldn't by looking at the ratings. It is easy to use the ratings to guide yourself when the album has 500 ratings, but it is hard when it has 2 or 3 ratings, and a well-written review can be more useful than 20 ratings. And by knowing the styles of some reviewers, you can even know beforehand that the music will suit your taste by reading a negative review (it had already happened with me more than once).

About the problems with the meaning of ratings, I don't think it is really a problem, since both taste and perception of "prog" are subjective matters. There is no right or wrong when saying that an album is a masterpiece of progressive music, if the person thinks that album is progressive music. You can pick any reviewer at random, with more than 50 reviews, and criticize one of his reviews saying that the album "is not progressive enough" to have such rating and the reviewer can always answer "In my opinion, it is".

Another issue: I, personally, don't expect a reviewer to have less than 80 percent of positive reviews (3 or more) and expect people to have many 5 star ratings. Why that? It is easy. I think that in 95% of cases, reviewers will have 80% of their reviews about albums they own. There are some exceptions of reviewers with legal access to many prog music they don't necessarily own, but it is rare (maybe too naive again). Since it is not recommended to review an album a person has listened just once or twice, the only albums available to review are the ones the person owns and the first to be reviewed will be the ones the person enjoys most, so I expect many 4 or 5 star reviews.

I don't want to own albums I consider bad, so-so or just ok. For example, I have reviewed some albums that I do not own because friends/relatives of mine lent me and left them with me for some time. Those are the majority of my 1 or 2 star reviews (of course, that are some albums that I bought because of the band and hated).

As for rating reviews, I think this would be more a tool for fanboys than for responsible people. Fanboys would give bad rating for every negative opinion about the albums they love. Responsible people would, from time to time, give a positive or negative rate, according to the situation.

So I think the site should focus more on their main assets (info and reviews) and leave the other matters for a long future.

^ I understand your point. When I mentioned that I expect means that I expect everybody, or at least almost everybody (excluding the curious), behave like that.

I don't trust reviews at all. Practically no one has my outlook, views, tastes, preferences, criteria, etc.

Avantgardehead wrote: I don't trust reviews at all. Practically no one has my outlook, views, tastes, preferences, criteria, etc.

So then how can you possibly hope to find music you like? 

rileydog22 wrote: Avantgardehead wrote: I don't trust reviews at all. Practically no one has my outlook, views, tastes, preferences, criteria, etc. So then how can you possibly hope to find music you like?

Last.fm recommendations are pretty good, and Pandora is a great resource as well (especially since I can listen to the entire song beforehand). A good number of stuff I find is also by random chance.

I feel exactly the same levels of frustration expressed by FF way back at the 2nd post on this thread . I never knew there were so many Masterpieces out there until I started reading these ratings and reviews . I'm glad I take no notice as I would now be broke after having bought them all and I would have a house full of shiny drinks coasters and a garden full of trees with shiny revolving discs dangling there to keep the mina birds and other vermin away.

But in fairness to you 5 star recidivists, you can't help yourselves, can you, when you only have 5 levels to work within . Therefore, for what it is worth, a system out of 10 or more would have to be better . Then we could view anyone who awarded the max. with a much greater amount of cynicism than we do currently........if that is at all possible Why? Because you would have more levels to choose from yet still demonstrate your unabashed self-serving bias towards your "masterpiece" of the day.

[P.S. Now, I would like to apologise for my unbridled cynicism on this topic, but I won't.......and it's good night from him].

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: I agree with The T about the  half points. There are a lort of albums that I rated with 5 stars that don't deserve to be at the peak, but neither they deserve a 4 stars. Mainly becauise we have albums that are ESSENTIAL but not MASTERPIECES, so this albums should deserve more than 4 stars but not the maximum rate. Some time ago I proposed a .5 system rating in the Collaborators section that I can't find, but it was similar to this:   5 stars: Essential, a Masterpiece of Progressive Rock 4.5 stars: Not a masterpiece (even wen close to this status), still essential for any Prog Collection 4 stars: Excellent addition to any prog music collection 3.5 stars: Excelent addition to most fans of the genre 3 stars: Good but no essential 2.5 stars: Average 2 stars: Collectors and fans only 1.5 stars: Diehard fans only 1 Star: Poor. Only for completionists 0.5 stars: Better avoid it   I believe this would work, but it would be hard to adapt the system.   Iván

 
 
 
THIS IS WHAT THIS WEB SITE NEED AND IT NEEDS IT NOW.
 
 
 

The T wrote: Let me use GENESIS as my perfect example of how imperfect is the rating system for me...   Selling England, Nursery Cryme, Foxtrot and A Trick of the Tail would get 5 stars no question. And I gave them 5 stars.   And then there were Three (an album I love and think it's THE underrated album) would get a 4.5 from me... but I'll have to give it a 5.   The Lamb, Tresspass and Wind and Wuthering would receive 4 stars. And they have.   Duke would receive 3.5, but I'll have to give it either 3 or 4. But I think it's better than:   We can't Dance would receive 3, and has.   Calling all stations and Abacab would receive 2.5, but as unavailable, have received 3.   From Genesis to Revelation would get 2, and has.   Genesis ("shapes") would receive 1.5, as it's better than the one below but worse than those above, but as unavailable, in this case I round off and gave it one.   Invisible Touch gets a 1.   So, 10 rating-steps are necessary...   (same case with my lowest reviews: Kayo Dot's DAWCT would get 1.5, and Sigur Ros a 0.5... and some of my 5-star would be 4.5.... ) The system is too rigid!!

 
 
 
GREAT EXEMPLIFICATION!
 
 

^I'm all for the change in the system, as I've said like 9586 times. But as of right now, I would be ETERNALLY GRATEFUL if I could just log in and browse the forum without tearing my hair off my head for the continuous errors...

It's not an admin decision. M@x is the site owner and webmaster, and right now he's up to his proverbials in sorting out the performance issues. He's aware of the request from some members for greater flexibility in the ratings, but it would mean a lot of work for him in rewriting the site.

Yep.......