tvol: Rating Descriptions

Azazzel 06.27.12	I suppose it's not a perfect translation scaled like that. I would consider a 3.5 more like 75-80%. a 4 anywhere from 80-90%. 4.5 would be an A 90-95% etc.
Weesnaw 06.27.12	^yeah i feel the same. for me 4 is great, and 3.5 is pretty good
rasputin 06.27.12	1/5 - 1.5/5: Not worth your time. 2/5: Mediocre, average. 2.5/5 - 3/5: Decent to good, worth a listen if you're a fan of the genre/band. 3.5/5: A great album, must listen for fans of the genre/band. 4/5: Essential. 4.5/5 - 5/5: Albums you should have already heard.
tvol 06.27.12	So you pay more attention to the number than the description? I just always feel weird calling mediocre albums "great"
tvol 06.27.12	Wow ras. That's more aggressive rating than I do. I'd say 4 is a must for fans, 4.5 is worth a listen regardless of preference, 5 is something everyone knows.
rasputin 06.27.12	everybody leans to heavily towards the positive ratings. when you have a full spectrum an acceptable album should logically be right in the middle. you said it yourself, a 3.5 is 70 percent, 70 percent is very high in any other rating/ranking
Deviant. 06.27.12	What Rasp said. People on this site seem to have this weird compulsion to write off an album when it's reviewed at a 3. That means we think it is good
KSK1 06.27.12	Yeah I don't thin I really use the system properly. Anything I rated below a 3 I probably never listen to.
Weesnaw 06.27.12	I'd say 4 is a must for fans, 4.5 is worth a listen regardless of preference, 5 is something everyone knows. [2] that being said, my rankings and the way i should rank is probably a bit skewed. kind of off topic but while we're talking about ratings, sometimes i wish there were .25 margins between each score. i know it would complicate things but i have a lot of high 4's/low 4.5's that would fit perfectly at a 4.25, just as an example
KjSwantko 06.27.12	The rating system is fine; you're over-thinking it. It would be better if we could rate in .25 intervals though.
guitarnater 06.27.12	It really depends on my mood. Sometimes I'll rate things on a grade basis (similar to the 3.5 to 70%) and other times I'll use the descriptions. The problem is, since coming to this site, I don't really check out anything that has
Eclecticist 06.27.12	If Willie rates it a 3.5 or bloc rates something a 4.5 it is likely to be a 2.5. The lower Willie's rating the lower my rating is likely to be, the lower bloc's rating is the higher my rating is likely to be.
taylormemer 06.27.12	The above posts just prove that it's pointless to be concerned about the scale. People need to get over the way ratings should be interpreted. You can't quantify music with just numbers alone, which is why using .1 or .25 increments is stupid. Just in case no one has realised it yet but there is not one single user on here who can actually be considered an ultimate source for a correct interpretation of the scale because guess what: the whole thing is arbitrary! Holy shit, who could have thunk it. Bottom line: interpret it in the way you were meant to; rating music is as much as an individual experience as is listening to it. Your interpretation of "great" is likely to be within .5 of a degree from the other person next to you so who cares.
Eclecticist 06.27.12	lol or if you pay attention to those who rate the same albums as you eventually you will be able to test the convergent validity by comparing the sites overall rating with that of a user who you know has a tendency to rate things higher or lower than you would
tvol 06.27.12	Decent point. I tend to only pay attention to higher rated music because it takes me a while to fully digest an album and I know there's a ton of good stuff I want to get around to, so there are a lot of 4.0+'s to work through before I circle around back to the 3s.
Trebor. 06.27.12	I don't compare, it's own thing ya know
FromDaHood 06.27.12	2.5 down is stuff I wouldn't listen to more than once 3 is an album that is barely memorable 3.5 is a good album I'll have in rotation 4 is a very good album 4.5 is a must listen 5 is for my favorite albums and may or may not actually reflect the quality of the album itself
rasputin 06.27.12	'What Rasp said. People on this site seem to have this weird compulsion to write off an album when it's reviewed at a 3. That means we think it is good' yeah. there's a difference between something being 'essential' for a fan of a particular genre, and something being 'essential' for music lovers in general. logically, the latter should have a higher rating. i could talk about this for hours actually. also want to say that there is absolutely no need to have smaller increments in the rating scale. you already have 10 different scores to give an album, you definitely do not need more.
rasputin 06.27.12	oh and taylormemer is 100 percent correct. it's completely arbitrary. though i will argue that my ratings and my taste is the be all and end all of music.
Emim 06.27.12	i have no rhyme or reason to my ratings because they mean absolutely nothing to anyone but me.
Adabelle 06.27.12	My way is 5-flawless. 4.5-superb. 4.0-fantastic. 3.5-very enjoyable. 3.0-enjoyable. 2.5-reasonable. 2.0-poor. 1.5-weak. 1.0-superweak.
Adabelle 06.27.12	Wait, *2.0-weak. 1.5-superweak. 1.0-lolbad.
InertiaCreeps 06.27.12	"I just spending way too much time thinking about this?" Yes.
Shuyin 06.27.12	1- Above the Graves 2- Waking the Cadaver 3- Opeth 4- Isis 5- Cannibal Corpse
Havey 06.27.12	i rate albums on a scale of Rest to Phil Elverum
Shuyin 06.27.12	0.5 silentpotatos obsession with shuyin. i dont date guys, i told you before.
ChuckyTruant 06.27.12	Lol dude 3.5 is great, not mediocre, just use the rating system as it is intended and you won't be giving yourself anymore headaches, iight?
BirthRite 06.27.12	5. spectating two sweaty fags going at it