 |
Forum ~ Polls ~ What do you think of the ratings here? |
 |
 |
|  What do you think of the ratings here? [POLLS] | |
|
 |
a98
  Artist
Topics: 32
Replies: 2725
Registered: 26.Oct.03 |
Cooth wrote on 21 Mar. (19:00) :
In case you really mean it... think about it - if 4 is the lowest, it'll mean the same as 1 means now - so only a completely bad song would have to get it, hence -> it'd be used as rarely as 1-3 now. This way we can gradually gome to the ideal, 10-10 scale. 
|
no what my point is, that even though the review scale is 1-10, most people are rating like it's 4-10... if you get a 5/10 you immidiatly think it's bad, even though it's half way of the scale
http://www.anssihohti.tk (2081 hits) |
|
psy
 Member
Topics: 10
Replies: 99
Registered: 06.Mar.04 |
I m new here but anyway i ll say what i think.
Usually i write what i think about the tune in musical terms. 1st of all we listen to mp3 files (128kbps which s an average quality and if we r lucky a 192kbps which s quite good). 2nd of all the speakers every person has. I remember i reviewed one of Virgil s songs with my speakers n wrote shit about the bass. Later i listened with headphones n it was another story.
Unless the mix s really bad, i prefer not to talk about it.
I think that those tunes that ve been rated 9 or 10 are the only ones i probably agree. I mean i also think they r really good tunes. Usually i m disappointed with 7/8 range. Here s where the problem starts.
I agree with Cooth. Maybe it would b better to rate 1/5 coz there s a bigger range. So it would really difficolt to see a 1 and a 3/4 in the same tune (i guess).
PsyXel http://www.psyxel.ctgmusic.com |
|
acecream
 Staff / Moderator
Topics: 391
Replies: 3361
Registered: 27.Dec.02 |
 |
a98 wrote on 21 Mar. (19:13) :
Cooth wrote on 21 Mar. (19:00) :
In case you really mean it... think about it - if 4 is the lowest, it'll mean the same as 1 means now - so only a completely bad song would have to get it, hence -> it'd be used as rarely as 1-3 now. This way we can gradually gome to the ideal, 10-10 scale.
|
no what my point is, that even though the review scale is 1-10, most people are rating like it's 4-10... if you get a 5/10 you immidiatly think it's bad, even though it's half way of the scale
|
I think all what we would gain with this is higher average rating which would at same time mean less acurate ratings since most of songs would be rated with 8 or more (now average rating is 7), so this would most probaly just make it harder to find those "great" songs out of all of the good rated songs.
I belive the system we have now is just fine, it offers 20 different ratings which should be enough. And we have bad review sytem which should sort out all the "non appropriate ratings".
Also i think ratings should stay part of reviews since as it was suggested that people could only review and only admins could rate this would simply mean whole rating system would depend on just some little group of people which surely could not cover all the range of genres and tastes, not to mention that we cant really belive there are people who would be preapered to listen all the songs and rate them.
 |
|
a98
Artist
Topics: 32
Replies: 2725
Registered: 26.Oct.03 |
|
acecream wrote on 21 Mar. (19:20) :
I think all what we would gain with this is higher average rating which would at same time mean less acurate ratings since most of songs would be rated with 8 or more (now average rating is 7), so this would most probaly just make it harder to find those "great" songs out of all of the good rated songs.
I belive the system we have now is just fine, it offers 20 different ratings which should be enough. And we have bad review sytem which should sort out all the "non appropriate ratings".
Also i think ratings should stay part of reviews since as it was suggested that people could only review and only admins could rate this would simply mean whole rating system would depend on just some little group of people which surely could not cover all the range of genres and tastes, not to mention that we cant really belive there are people who would be preapered to listen all the songs and rate them.
|
well you can't really tell, i seriously doubt you me or anyone would start giving 8s or 9s to songs we normally have given 7, since the scale is kinda fucked up already. this would probably just mean that everytime someone is giving a 1 2 3 rate he would give 4 and a 5 to something that is better than those... etc
http://www.anssihohti.tk (2081 hits) |
|
acecream
Staff / Moderator
Topics: 391
Replies: 3361
Registered: 27.Dec.02 |
a98 wrote on 21 Mar. (19:24) :
well you can't really tell, i seriously doubt you me or anyone would start giving 8s or 9s to songs we normally have given 7, since the scale is kinda fucked up already. this would probably just mean that everytime someone is giving a 1 2 3 rate he would give 4 and a 5 to something that is better than those... etc
|
Well we would have to change descriptions about ratings if we would shorten down the scale. 5 would not be average anymore instead 7 would be average so yes i still belive this would raise the ratings. 
|
|
a98
Artist
Topics: 32
Replies: 2725
Registered: 26.Oct.03 |
acecream wrote on 21 Mar. (19:28) :
Well we would have to change descriptions about ratings if we would shorten down the scale. 5 would not be average anymore instead 7 would be average so yes i still belive this would raise the ratings.
|
well the problem is the whole word average, the average in the rating scale isn't nessasery average in ctg, since there might be more good songs than bad songs
http://www.anssihohti.tk (2081 hits) |
|
PPH
Member
Topics: 48
Replies: 843
Registered: 13.Jul.03 |
I think all my songs are seriously underrated 
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"
-John Galt, "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand |
|
PPH
Member
Topics: 48
Replies: 843
Registered: 13.Jul.03 |
Reply is hidden.
Reply was moderated by RAVE-n on 21. Mar 2004 (23:42)
Reason: Doublepost
|
|
|
|
Dreamz
Artist
Topics: 12
Replies: 141
Registered: 08.Feb.04 |
i dont have an issue with the scale - just the way people use it - and if its `not that important` then ditch it.
at the moment, it gives false impressions to anyone who does download based on scoring - i bet half the people that visit don't even read the review fgs - especially those bibles written by some people  |
|
Cooth
Member
Topics: 59
Replies: 3588
Registered: 02.Jan.03 |
|
a98 wrote on 21 Mar. (19:13) :
Cooth wrote on 21 Mar. (19:00) :
In case you really mean it... think about it - if 4 is the lowest, it'll mean the same as 1 means now - so only a completely bad song would have to get it, hence -> it'd be used as rarely as 1-3 now. This way we can gradually gome to the ideal, 10-10 scale.
|
no what my point is, that even though the review scale is 1-10, most people are rating like it's 4-10... if you get a 5/10 you immidiatly think it's bad, even though it's half way of the scale
|
Yes I know, but still the result would be more or less like I said.
Ratings 1-4 are a margin, we save them for really bad songs. Even if they, objectively speaking, should be used more often, they won't, mostly because there aren't THAT many songs we think are totally bad.
The fact people use practically the 5-10 scale doesn't mean it's not necessary to have the 1-4, just a some room for your elbows if you know what I mean . There are no objective reasons for forbidding 1-4 ratings just because they are used rarely.
About average: come on guys... we all should be aware by now, average is not average. I once suggested changing the 5-description from average to, eg. mediocre, but there was no response. There is no such thing as an average song. There's an average rating and it is counted mathematically from all ratings.
"It is only an auctioneer who can equally and impartially admire all schools of art." - Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Topics
![[80.248.106.5]](pics/ip.gif){kind=small}
