RATING system @ progarchives.com

Hi all,

we ( at progarchives.com ) want your opinion on the BEST rating system for   the reviews.

5 stars - Mastepiece, the TOP !

4 stars - ???

3 stars - ???

2 stars - ???

1 star - ???

 

Help us create a better rating system, Thanks

MAX@

Great suggestion! Although I would call a 1-star 'bad, not interesting' in this case, because 'maybe worth a listen' sounds like it's actually pretty interesting...

and I also think the term 'Highly Recommended' would be fine too for a six- or seven-star.

Vibrationbaby wrote: I think the system is more or less adequate maybe you could add a little font of a bomb to indicate something which is so bad that it should be just tossed in the garbage or blasted off into space.

 

Don't you have a better solution ?

5 = Masterpeice/essential

4 = Excellent addition to any prog rock collection

3 = Good but non-essential

2 = Interesting moments but probably only appealing to collectors/fans

1 = Poor.Only for completionists

 

MAX@ wrote: Vibrationbaby wrote: I think the system is more or less adequate maybe you could add a little font of a bomb to indicate something which is so bad that it should be just tossed in the garbage or blasted off into space.   Don't you have a better solution ?

O.K. Maybe that`s going off the deep end a little. How about no stars to indicate an inferior work for that particular artist. I think the 5 star rating system is fine and I think that I get a pretty good idea of how a person feels about a particular work from a combination of what they`ve said in the review itself  and the number of stars they`ve given it out of 5. Why confuse things? I like Richardh`s suggestion for a five star system though.

Edited by Vibrationbaby

All:

If Richardh's suggestion is to be used - and I agree it is posssibly the best one if the site keeps to a five-star system - then I would expect to see a whole lot less 5-star reviews, though possibly more 4-star reviews.  As I asked on my newest thread re ratings, can one really give "Fugazi" (as good as it may be) the same five stars that are given to "Dark Side of the Moon?"  Indeed, here's a question for the ages: If a newer prog band is clearly "influenced" (let's keep "derivative" out of it) by an early, "essential" prog band, can anything the former does be considered as "essential" as the latter?  For example, since Marillion is clearly influenced by Genesis (and probably would not have existed otherwise), can one give the same five stars to "Misplaced Childhood" that one gives to "Foxtrot?"  Is there not something odd about this?  Just a query for discussion.

Peace.

I will have to agree with the notion that not all five star ratings are the same. I see many five star ratings, to the extent that an overwhelming majority of ratings are five star or more (at least from my subjective opinion). I believe, like most people in this thread, that five stars should only be given out to albums with the utmost musical and historical significance. That said, I offer no regret to my five star rating of Caress of Steel.

semismart wrote: I've never seen this done but how about letter ratings like grades in school. It might go something like this; S = Superior  , E = Excellent  , VG = Very Good  , G = Good  , A = Average  , F = Fair  , P =Poor. This gives you seven ratings instead of five and is self descriptive.

Good point here but we have to live with more than 5000 rating already done with a 1 to 5 scale . How can we radicaly change thoses ratings... Do you have a suggestion ? Thanks

 Hi guys! I guess its time that I "weighed in" on this issue. I've read both threads on this issue, & had time to reflect upon the many thoughtful viewpoints and suggestions offered here. I've also thought about the current rating system often in the past, when writing reviews.

 I feel that any rating system, where works of art are made to fit into one of 5 (or 6, or 7) qualitative categories, is a somewhat artificial way of looking at things. In art, edges blur -- sometimes, language itself (let alone a numerical scale) is inadequate to express what we "find" there. As others have suggested, it's what the critic writes (rather than "rates") that provides a better description of the music. A rating system could be looked at as being almost like a child's shape-sorting box (imagine five different holes: star, pentagon, square, triangle, circle), except that we have to try to pound an almost infinite variety of shapes (albums) into a very limited number of holes. Edges and subtlety of shape/sound/feel get "rounded off" or lost in translation. What makes a "masterpiece?" How many years old must a recording be to qualify for "classic" status? (Do you hear what I hear? Do you see the colour blue the same way that I do? What past experience do you "bring" to your review? Did one critic first "make out" to the sounds of ELP, while another was kept awake all night by a hated stepfather playing their music at top volume?) Ratings remain highly subjective things. In a detailed review, the words give a better understanding of the writer's individual perspective.

OK, I'll try to be more concrete. I think there are several options for dealing with this complicated issue -- each with advantages and disadvantages. Here are some:

1) Do nothing -- Keep current system PROS: No work required; some like it  CONS: Many reviewers have expressed dissatisfaction; system seems inadequate to express what is meant; differing interpretations of a given rating

2) Adopt a new rating standard (Of those suggested, I like Richardh's idea best, but would also like to add the no-star or "bomb" rating, as Vibe proposed.) PROS: This system could better clarify what a given rating meant. CONS: People will still click on the stars to rate an album without much thought. People (especially non-regular reviewers) tend to review albums that they like. Their thoughts might be along the lines of "I really like this CD. I listen to it a lot! Five stars! Wait, I like this other one a lot too! Five stars!" I doubt that most reviewers will tend to carefully consider the "definition" behind a rating (I'll also bet that if a guy owns five CDs, he'll automatically give his favourite a five-star rating.) Terms in definition hard to define to satisfaction/equal understanding/interpretation of all. What to do with existing reviews? 

3) New system, plus half stars (Maani has frequently expressed a desire for the half-star increment option, and I've often felt that a given album was, for example "better than a three, but not yet a four." PROS: Will allow for greater accuracy and subtlety of meaning in the numerical system. CONS: Could actually add to confusion; won't necessarily decrease incidence of extreme "end of spectrum" (1 or 5 stars) reviews. Problem of existing reviews remains.

4) Keep "star" rating system (new or old), but let "official" reviewers opt out of the "star system."  (I like this one. I don't like having to use the "star system," and have sometimes wished to change an earlier rating. For example, I gave VDGG's H TO HE  five stars = highest possible rating, but now, after recently hearing more from the band, find that I like PAWN HEARTS better. I can't give 6 stars to PH, so I find myself wanting to take one away from H TO HE, which is still a great album! I would prefer to simply express my preference in words, ala: "I like Pawn Hearts even more than the excellent H to He....") Pros: A "level playing field." Many excellent and informative album (book/concert, etc.) reviews are written without the artificial "rating system" being superimposed upon them. It's all in what the reviewer writes; less likely to produce arguments; doesn't strive to reduce unique works of art to quantifiable "absolutes;" perhaps a "win-win" option. Cons: Not many. Perhaps some readers will be less likely to read "unrated" reviews ( a risk I'm willing to take); casual visitors to the site can still "rate and run" without a review, thus unjustifiedly "skewing" an album's overall rating. (This can be countered by removing the option to rate without reviewing. A minimum-character limit could also be imposed.) Don't need to worry about existing reviews (though I'd like the option to remove/alter my star ratings).

5) Drop the star rating system altogether PROS: Not as radical as it may sound. As I've said, a numerical rating system is not necessary for describing one's reaction to a piece of art. (Imagine using a five-star system to rate paintings! "Oh yeah, Guernica is a four, the Mona Lisa a five, but that Jackson Pollock is only a two." "What does that mean? Who says?"); Fewer arguments; No more "rate it and run" non-reviews; Could make more reviewers more creative and descriptive in their writing.  CONS: In this "post Sesame-Street" age of soundbites, remote controls, fast foods and short attention spans (not to mention worsening reading and writing skills!), people may expect a "star" rating system. We have been conditioned to want "instant gratification." (Many seem to judge an album on the basis of just a listen or two, when often some of the most "lasting" and rewarding art is initially some of the hardest to acquire a taste for.) The average modern music listener (yes, even prog fans) may not read a review that doesn't thus instantly reveal where its writer stands. This might decrease the Archives readership, so is perhaps not a viable option. Problem with existing reviews is removed -- but only if Max can easily remove the stars!

In conclusion: If we can't have/don't like #5, I like option 4 best. I'd love to escape the artificial pressure and constraint of assigning a numerical rating that seeks to compare "apples to oranges," and each album to all others:

"How can you say that Foxtrot is better than Dark Side of the Moon?"

 "I didn't say that! I didn't even mention Dark Side in my Foxtrot review. I really like both albums!"

 "Well, two months ago you gave Dark Side four stars, but yesterday you gave Foxtrot five...."

This is a big issue (for us)! Thanks for hearing me out, prog fans!

 

Edited by Peter Rideout

I think the possibility to give no stars for very poor would be great!

And about the value of 5 stars: I always see an album in its context. An album from Dream Theater, that gets 3 stars, would have had 2 stars if Yes made, if you know what I mean. I always compare an album to other albums the band recorded. Only when it's excellent, I compare it to great offerings from other bands. I think, now Max has changed 'highly recommended' into 'exceptional/masterpiece' the system seems a bit crooked. I liked the term 'highly recommended' (I gave Doremi Fasol Latido five stars because it is highly recommended when you're a fan of Hawkwind or space rock in general, of course it isn't a masterpiece like Dark Side)

To everybody: Is it so important? If you also read the review, a lot of time the voter explains himself.

Stay cool!

Edited by Joren