|
|
 |
February 9th, 2006, 04:25 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
__
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The starry attic
Posts: 11,008
|
UM's Review Rating Scale (updated 12/30/06)
We’ve decided from this point onwards to stop numerically rating albums; the average score was climbing above five, and since we introduced the system it has become clear there are extensive personal and cultural differences in how these ratings are viewed.
February 2006 - December 2006
We have recently changed UM's review rating system; being the nice guys and gals we are, our average score had slipped up to seven out of ten. We realise, however, that having numerical rating and not having the average at half the top score, however, is a bit counter-intuitive. So, after much debate, we have come up with a new set of score which we will endeavour to stick to:
0 - 1.5: Awful . . . don't bother.
2 - 3.5: Below average . . . only buy if you wipe your bum with large bills.
4 - 6: Average . . . buy if you really like this style.
6.5 - 8: Above average . . . definitely worth checking out.
8.5 - 9.5: Excellent . . . nearly essential for all fans of extreme music.
10 Classic . . . if you don't own this you should be crucified.
All reviews posted since the beginning of February adhere to this system, as will all in the future.
Feel free to post comments below.
Last edited by circus_brimstone : December 30th, 2006 at 08:25 PM.
|
|
|
February 28th, 2006, 02:04 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sudbury, Canada
Posts: 520
|
It perhaps makes more sense having an average mark nearer to the middle of the number scale, but I typically would've rated an average album like 6.5/10 before. I can dig the new scale, however.
|
|
|
March 12th, 2006, 05:32 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Houses Ov Mercury
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Encased Within A Mile-Deep Pit Of Feces (or, Lowell, MA)
Posts: 17,101
|
Fuck grade school rating!
|
|
|
March 12th, 2006, 06:34 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,182
|
How about throwing out the numerical rating system alltogether? I think most would agree as to the ridiculousness of objectively rating music with numerical values. How about taking a Digital Metal or even a NY Times approach, and let the prose of ones review act as a subjective rating? It is far more fair, and it allows the writer of such a review, to abscond themselves from any silly rating arguments that always ensue.
|
|
|
March 13th, 2006, 12:10 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
Jason Jordan
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 5,013
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by speed
How about throwing out the numerical rating system alltogether? I think most would agree as to the ridiculousness of objectively rating music with numerical values. How about taking a Digital Metal or even a NY Times approach, and let the prose of ones review act as a subjective rating? It is far more fair, and it allows the writer of such a review, to abscond themselves from any silly rating arguments that always ensue.
|
We spent weeks fine-tuning this system, and on the whole, most of the staff voted to keep the numerical ratings in place. I, for one, like them for several reasons, though I don't feel like relaying them here unless you absolutely want me to. 
|
|
|
March 13th, 2006, 05:19 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,182
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by circus_brimstone
We spent weeks fine-tuning this system, and on the whole, most of the staff voted to keep the numerical ratings in place. I, for one, like them for several reasons, though I don't feel like relaying them here unless you absolutely want me to. 
|
No, its your system and there is some juvenile rage to rate and rank things in our society these days. I think its idiotic, but...
|
|
|
March 15th, 2006, 12:07 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
__
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The starry attic
Posts: 11,008
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by speed
No, its your system and there is some juvenile rage to rate and rank things in our society these days. I think its idiotic, but...
|
I myself am not a fan of numerical rating systems either, but the reason we introduced them is because we found without people would skim read the first paragraph of a review and often never get to the end. With a numerical score as a guide often people will look at this first and then on the basis of that read the review, and we find that more people have checked out our reviews since we introduced the ratings system. So - juvenile or otherwise - that's how we're keeping it for the moment. Thanks for the comment tho, it's always good to hear other opinions.
|
|
|
April 8th, 2006, 08:02 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
Beyond the Realms of Life
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The end of the world
Posts: 2,583
|
I don't consider a 6.5 rating an album I should definately check out, now an 8 I probably would make some effort but this is a strange rating scale.
|
|
|
July 28th, 2006, 04:15 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
QUIM!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Leeds, centre of the universe
Posts: 1,463
|
cool, i just marked all of this very first batch that i've done by my own thoughts and then looked at this, and it matches it.. glad we're on the same wavelength mr russell. i generally don't mark with numbers, i never have done on raw nerve, so when i first did that with zero tolerance it was a bit odd/difficult, but getting the hang now.. marking out of 10 shout be the least people mark out of.
|
|
|
November 2nd, 2006, 08:25 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by V.V.V.V.V.
Fuck grade school rating!
|
Just ignore the rating then! I however think its good if u want to no whats good before hand... instead of spending money on sumthing u might not like.
XDne
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.
|