Tendency to 5 star rate....?

 

 

I would favor the "normal curve" approach, and maybe for those who want it, some statistical analysis of personal ratings...simply because I know that when I start putting up more reviews, it will be almost a competition to be stingy.  In other words, to have a lower average rating than most reviewers.  So I agree with Finnforest.  With the normal curve, 5-star and 1-star ratings are quite rare, and 3-star reviews are the most common which makes sense once you've heard a lot of albums.  I understand perfectly the tendency to rate/review albums you LIKE, naturally...but after some time it should level off, and some criteria should be established to level off the ratings.  If you find yourself giving 5 stars to half of your reviews, then I think you need to become more tight-fisted and analytical.

 

 

 

edit:  I'm also a big fan of the half-star rating (I believe Ivan was shot down repeatedly...?).  That 4.5 option could relieve a lot of pressure from the full 5 and encourage people to give more thought to their rating as Jim said.

 

 

While on PA, I have only done 20+ reviews, because I try to do these as full scale reviews, which takes more time and effort, and more "intimacy" with an album.  The one thing that I have tried to be fairly consistent with on my reviews on PA is to base my star ratings on this site's guidelines and I generally explain that in my conclusion paragraph.  I suppose this probably shouldn't be necessary since the star rating should say exactly that, but I find in reading the reviews that sometimes the ratings seem to conform more to a 1 to 5 scale with one being the worst and 5 being the best, rather than what the stars are designated to mean on this site.  Based on my interpretation of the site guidelines, a prog related album should never have a 5 star rating because how can a non prog album be a prog rock masterpiece.  On Mike's site, I can give Led Zeppelin albums 10 ratings, but on PA, the best I can give would be a 4 star.  This doesn't mean I don't think it is a masterpiece, but it is not a prog rock masterpiece.  If it were a prog rock masterpiece, then the band should not be included in the prog related category.  On the flipside, the same thing applies to 1 and 2 star ratings.  2 star ratings are for collectors and fans only.  With my reviews, depending on the words this could be a good thing or a bad thing.  For example, I gave Rush's Feedback 2 stars here, but a 9.0 on Mike's site.  Yes, I am a Rush fanboy, and I love that album.  It is a fun album.  But as good as I think it is, it still is only something that I feel would appeal to fans of Rush and collectors of Rush.  I suppose I could have given it 3 stars for good, but not essential but it just didn't feel like it applied.  On the other hand, I have given both Opeth's Blackwater Park and Meshuggah's Catch 33, 2 stars.  I really can't stand either of them, because of the growls, etc., but I can't say that they are poor and for completionists only, but to me I think that they are definitely for fans only.  (Which again is kind of a catchall for most acts, since obviously if you are a fan than yes, their albums will probably appeal to you.)  My point being that both what I consider a good album and what I consider bad albums both received 2 star designations, but the meaning of these 2 star ratings was differentiated by what I had to say within my reviews.  On the other hand, the Fantomas album just got 1 star because I found it to be the most awful rubbish that I ever laid ears on, but I suppose technically I am contradicting myself because based on what I just said, it does appear to appeal to fans of that band, so I should have gave it 2 stars.  I'm not going to change it though, because it was just that horrible for me. 

 

 

Plus, as noted in the first post, there is the understandable human tendency to want to share that which gives us great pleasure.

 

it will always be this way. When you really like an album, the only real choice in rating it is four or five stars.

 

Of course, i have long wanted PA to drop the numeric ratings altogether, but that's not going to happen (the vast majority find ratings useful), and it's really another issue in any case.

 

 

 

 

I thought, though, that you were a trifle -over-analytical about some of my points, which still seem to me to be broadly applicable, and pretty much common sense. Fan site = lots of high ratings. Predictable, & unavoidable.

 

If I worked for a music magazine, I'd be sent lots of crap albums for free (and PAID to listen to them, & review them), and of course I'd rate them accordingly.

 

I simply don't own very many CDs I don't like. My music purchases are almost always informed ones.

 

And again, i have always had problems with trying to work within those ratings descriptors -- I find them to be much too prog-specific, and too limiting. I really dislike them (though I know why they are there).