Objectivity

[mx]

Just to explain - your score is calculated based on how close your average rating given is to 3. An average rating of 3 would be a 100% score. Just an incentive for people not to just be fanboyish, and to see how even handed they really are. Don't correlate the scores to 'school' scores, an F here is equivalent to 0%, not 60%

NOTE: This feature was introduced to help making user ratings more balanced. What it doesn't mean is that you should go and rate albums from a genre you don't like a '1' to balance things out. It means that you should adjust your existing ratings to be more even handed. Are you rating things to high? Is your scale based around a '4' and not a '3'? Just remember to PLEASE not neg all sorts of things just to get a better score.

[Shadows]

I just noticed this several minutes ago. I thought it was old and I had missed it. :p I really like this. It shows just how fair people rate things. My objectivity is nearly 90%. :cool:

[masada]

On my current non-Eliminator account it's 53%. I haven't rated a lot on it though.

It's 86% on this one. Neat.

[mynameischan]

It kinda makes me want to rate things lower.

[mx]

It should - Sputnik (including me) has a tendency for very high ratings. This will hopefully help.

[masada]

So if we rate something that's a classic a 5, it's just going to lower our objectivity ratings? And wouldn't that infringe upon some people's objectivity in a way?

[mynameischan]

well alright then

[Hep Kat]

69%


Hmmm...

[mynameischan]

54%. I suck at life.

[mx]

So if we rate something that's a classic a 5, it's just going to lower our objectivity ratings? And wouldn't that infringe upon some people's objectivity in a way?

It shouldn't, as long as you don't rate everyting a 5

[FlawedPerfection]

36%. Only because I don't really rate albums I don't like, because I get a taster for the music before I get the album and if I don't like it I don't get the album.

[nutty_bar]

Pretty good idea. I think there are a few bad things about it, but it is a way to get more people basing their ratings around 3 rather than 4 as you said.

60% for me... but part of that is because I normally only rate CD's I really like.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

What's this? I've got 87% yo. Hey mx, check out Bron's super fly idea in the Feature Suggestion thread sometime, as I've no idea if it's worthwhile or not.

[Shadows]

Have you thought about adding some text with the percentage explaining the rating? For example...

0-20%: User X is a biased user
21- 40%: User X must learn to tolerate
41-60%: User X is an objective user
61-80%: User X is fair and unbiased
81-100%: User X is an exemplary user

You get the idea.

[JohnXDoe]

70%

Not bad. I try to be as objective as I can :(

[mx]

Great idea SF

[Jom]

81%?

Sexy.

[The Sludge]

Average Rating: 3.58
Objectivity Score: 71% (Fairly Balanced)

I like it :D

[masada]

My average rating is 3.28

I beat you chubs.

[Jom]

I was looking through some of my favorite reviewers, and there were some entertaining results:

Med: 80%
Moz: 77%
Damrod: 77%
Iai: 73%
Liberi: 66%
mx: 62%
.
..
...
....
.....

Robert Crumb: 51% :lol:

[711]

Average Rating: 3.93
Objectivity Score: 53% (Somewhat Balanced)

Hem...

I guess I usually just rate things I like. I have pretty much never rated an album below a 2.5 :lol:

[masada]

Crumb hasn't rated that much though, Moj.

[morrissey]

I was looking through some of my favorite reviewers, and there were some entertaining results:

Med: 80%
Moz: 77%
Damrod: 77%
Iai: 73%
Liberi: 66%
mx: 62%
.
..
...
....
.....

Robert Crumb: 51% :lol:
78% now :cool:

This is a really cool feature.

[Zebra]

80%

coolness.

[Shadows]

Average Rating: 3.23
Objectivity Score: 89% (Well Balanced)

Can you say "pwnage"? :cool:

[JohnXDoe]

Alright, here are my official numbers:

Average Rating: 3.60
Objectivity Score: 70% (Fairly Balanced)

I think that is pretty good. It's "fair" I suppose. And "balanced". Unlike the FOX News Network, lol

EDIT: As a Staff Writer I expect better of myself :(

[masada]

I'm more fair and balanced than you.

[JohnXDoe]

Eliminator Jr. for STAFF!


:upset:

[masada]

Staff is ffats backwards.

I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING :angry:

[Jom]

Just remember to PLEASE not neg all sorts of things just to get a better score.

Precisely.

Guys, I'm just saying, just because this new feature has been implemented doesn't mean that you're supposed to start trying to balance your ratings out. This isn't a contest.

I think it's a natural feeling for people to rate things high because, throughout their reviews, they want to exemplify why that album is so spectacular. In parallel, not a lot of people like to review albums that suck.

Some users do it, some don't. I'm just saying, don't let yet another number have an adverse reaction to your reviewing. Don't let this objectivity thing be the next Top 15 disaster, because that was crap.

Bottom line: don't look into the rating too deeply so that it negatively affects your time on the site. Don't start reviewing terrible albums because you feel you HAVE to.

But then again, if you have something like 4% objectivity, there might be a problem there.

[masada]

If anything, we need more disasters on Sputnik.

I say we make skarox007 a supermod.

[Robert Crumb]

So this is based on all your album ratings? I pretty much only review things I like. So that, coupled with the fact that I've pretty much rated albums I like... oh. :(

I'm going to see if I can get like a 10%. That would be pretty awesome.

[Sepstrup]

I think a lot of people rate more albums they like than albums they don't like. I feel I need to know an album well before I rate it, and I don't take the time to get to know albums I don't really like.

EDIT: I just repeated what Crumb said. Didn't read the whole thread before commenting.

EDIT2:

In some random users profile it says:
Average Rating: 1
Objectivity Score: 0% ( Balanced)

[Kyle the 2nd]

My main account has like 52% which kinda sucks I guess. I think it's because I don't generally use this site to talk about bands I don't like, I use it as an outlet to talk about the bands I love. I think I'm more objective than my score suggests, I just don't bother rating the albums that I don't like.

edit: Yeah, another victim of not reading the whole thread.

[Te Karanga]

I don't really listen to albums I dislike much, so I don't really rate them. Don't want to rate an album I don't 'get'. So I'm not really surprised about my rating. Pretty cool feature and all that jazz.

[Egggo]

hey what happens if you just review really awesome albums and nothing else hehe

[Sepstrup]

Everyone on the second page of this thread basically said the same :)

[AlienEater]

48%...

Excellent.

[gaslight]

Doesn't that system kind of fall down if a user has only given ratings to albums that they really love, for that reason?

[br3ad_man]

Mine is pretty low, probably because when I'd just started reviewing I only reviewed stuff I thought was 5/5 so I've got lots of those ratings. It shouldn't bother me too much, but it kind of does. Oh well.

[gaslight]

Yeah, that's basically what I was getting at.

[Crazy and Stupid]

It would make more sense to have the objectivity based on the users rating of an album compared to the average rating for that album.

[gaslight]

I can't see any way for it to make sense, honestly.

[Kyle the 2nd]

It shouldn't bother me too much, but it kind of does. Oh well.Haha, same here.

[Kurrpt]

you are basing subjectivity on subjectivity. what does that have to do with objectivity?

[DeafForever]

Man, my account on south of heaven 11 has one of 56%....

I cant help it. I buy albums I know I'm going to love, and I do 95% of the time love them!

[Steerpike]

Right now my objectivity is 32%.

This might have something to do with the fact that I don't review albums I don't own, and I use filesharing to test the waters as it were before I actually invest in an album. If I don't like what I hear, I don't buy the album.

And since I didn't buy the album, I can't in good conscience rate it.

[masada]

I don't see why people don't talk about things they don't like on sputnik.

[nutty_bar]

People talk about them, just don't rate them. If you look on the lists some moron posted a "3 Worste Genres" list.

I don't know if I will start rating different, I haven't decided yet. If I start now, in comparison to my old ratings it would say that I rated a cd I liked lower than one I didn't like as much. Going back and changing ratings would be a pain...

[Iluvatar]

Right now I have an 89%, but I've been meaning to re-rate albums for a month or so now. My volatile tastes just change ever so frequently.

[Te Karanga]

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/uservote.php?memberid=194122

Heh.

[masada]

I love that person.

[mynameischan]

That was awesome.

[Against Miik!]

Mine will no doubt be low because I only rate albums I like...for the most part.

[Drunken Viking]

Christ that must of taken a while.

[Dave de Sylvia]

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/user/SeriousSound

[La Revolucion]

Ooh, that's impressive.

[Killtacular]

76%

3.48 average rating.

i r teh winz.

[masada]

So far Shadows and I are the most fair and reasonable.

[Drunken Viking]

I'm not as reasonable as Eliminator Jr. :O I think suicide is the only clear option now.

[JohnnySixGuns]

Average Rating: 3
Objectivity Score: 100% (Very Balanced)


That's right, posers

[Jim]

I'm 34%. Dang. It's a nifty feature, and probably a good way to promote debate on the site, but I don't rate albums low because I don't listen to or care for albums I don't like. It kinda just makes me wanna go on a low scoring rampage.

I think it should stay, though. I just won't take any notice of it. ;)

[Apocalyptic Raids]

I just noticed this, it's cool. My score is 74% :cool:

[gaslight]

Average Rating: 3
Objectivity Score: 100% (Very Balanced)


That's right, posers

Whoa... you're back?

[Drunken Viking]

I like the whole objectivity idea, but like some people say it shouldn't be how close you are to an average rating of 3, but how close your rating is to the actual rating of the album. Because if you vote that Iron Maiden's Number of the Beast you get counted down, when the majority of users think the same.

[mx]

Who says the 'actual ratings' are accurate? They tend to be inflated.

A 3 average doesn't mean that you need to rate everything around 3. A few fives and ones won't affect the rating to any considerable degree, after all it's an average.

If you have 200 ratings, one rating has almost no effect on your cumulative objectivity. But if 150 of those ratings are 4....

[lightbulbsun]

88%

not bad for someone who's been unfairly permabanned for nearly a month.

[Drunken Viking]

Who says the 'actual ratings' are accurate? They tend to be inflated.

A 3 average doesn't mean that you need to rate everything around 3. A few fives and ones won't affect the rating to any considerable degree, after all it's an average.

If you have 200 ratings, one rating has almost no effect on your cumulative objectivity. But if 150 of those ratings are 4....
Yeah I guess that makes sense.

[DFelon204409]

I'm 34%. Dang. It's a nifty feature, and probably a good way to promote debate on the site, but I don't rate albums low because I don't listen to or care for albums I don't like. It kinda just makes me wanna go on a low scoring rampage.

I think it should stay, though. I just won't take any notice of it. ;)

Anybody who reference a metal band / mythical beast / summon from FF is bound to have incredibly biased album ratings and noticed by mx in that thread back in the day.

[Cygnus Inter Anates]

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/uservote.php?memberid=234342

Another 0%er

[Zesty Mordant]

73%

Not bad I guess. But there I just saw some dude who had a rating of -50%. What the hell does that mean (other than the fact that he's just a plain retard)?

[John Paul Harrison]

I'm 34%. Dang. It's a nifty feature, and probably a good way to promote debate on the site, but I don't rate albums low because I don't listen to or care for albums I don't like. It kinda just makes me wanna go on a low scoring rampage.

I think it should stay, though. I just won't take any notice of it. ;)

Agree with all. I don't rate albums unless I own them or have extensive knowledge of them, and even then I usually only rate albums that I know I like and will like for a long time. But hey, whatever.

[Pete]

I'm sure this has been brought up, but here's the case with me;

I mainly (to an extent of perhaps 90%) listen to music I actually like. I don't know, maybe an exemplary person listens to music they dislike 50% of the time, just to keep their "objectivity". But hey, I must be weird, since I like to listen to music I enjoy. So chalk me up as an abomination.

So, given that I like almost everything (by almost everything, I mean everything) that I listen to, and I feel I can only fairly judge music that I actually listen to. So, naturally, the albums I rate get high ratings. Rest assure, I know very well the difference between an album deserving a 1 and an album deserving a 3. Or between an album deserving a 5 and one deserving a 3. Same goes for any combination of numbers between 1 and 5 that you can come up with. But for the simple reason of me not liking, for example, Taking Back Sunday's latest album upon the first listen, I never listened to it again. Is it really fair that I vote it a 1 when that's also the total of times I've heard it? Because if it is, then I can go around and vote lots of stuff 1.

But wait. You said I shouldn't. So, the only solution is I start spending time listening to music I dislike?

Way to go being a music community. Power to the crappy music.

=/

[Shadows]

If you listened to an album and think it desreves a 1 then give it a 1. There is no rule saying that you must listen to an album x amount of times before rating it.

[Pete]

So I should give uneducated ratings based on the fact that I thought something was bad upon a first brief listen? Yes?

[Iluvatar]

My recent album ratings have brought me up to 92%. Wow I'm amazingly awesome.

[Pete]

Sidebar;

The way I vote is;
5. The pinnacle of it's genre.
4.5 Extremely good.
4. Very, very good.
3.5 Very good.
3. Good.
2.5 Average.
2. Inadequate.
1.5 Bad.
1. Disasterous.

The "Average" on my scale is basically 2.5. So I guess you can go ahead and lower my "objectivity" even more. That'll really get me chasing them 1's.

This is, by far, the stupidest and most alienating system ever put to use on anything MX-related.

[morrissey]

So I should give uneducated ratings based on the fact that I thought something was bad upon a first brief listen? Yes?
Some people can listen to an album once and feel confident in their assessment of the album. Some people take fifty rotations before they can confidently rate something. You can choose where in this spectrum you rest. Objectivity is a really difficult thing to pin down, and we all measure it in different ways. Is the new TBS album really a 1 or 5? I wouldn't think so. Is your sixth favourite album by Band A really a 5? Probably not. It is just trying to minimise extremism in ratings. Some people naturally do this, some people don't. This will be reflected in their objectivity rating. It isn't really a big deal, you can choose to take the rating to heart or not.

[Pete]

Some people can listen to an album once and feel confident in their assessment of the album. Some people take fifty rotations before they can confidently rate something. You can choose where in this spectrum you rest. Objectivity is a really difficult thing to pin down, and we all measure it in different ways. Is the new TBS album really a 1 or 5? I wouldn't think so. Is your sixth favourite album by Band A really a 5? Probably not. It is just trying to minimise extremism in ratings. Some people naturally do this, some people don't. This will be reflected in their objectivity rating. It isn't really a big deal, you can choose to take the rating to heart or not.
But it clearly states that I'm just 50% objective. I dare you to find more than one or two instances in my comments or reviews where I'm being subjective (except for perhaps when making a point, and then I make use of subjectivity in such a way that it's clearly not to be taken serious). So should I, in all fairness, be discredited on sputnik because I don't listen to bad music? Or should I make uneducated ratings?

If "none of the above", then what the hell is the purpose of the system?

editorial note: the use of the terms "objectivity" and "subjectivity" in this post is very subjective, as they refer to the way opinions are presented in a forum - please use the phrase "opinions are always subjective" as reference

[pixiesfanyo]

Some people can listen to an album once and feel confident in their assessment of the album.

That's bullshit.

[Wildhoodlum]

That's bullshit.

No, it actually isn't.

[Cygnus Inter Anates]

I don't think it is.

[Shadows]

But it clearly states that I'm just 50% objective. I dare you to find more than one or two instances in my comments or reviews where I'm being subjective (except for perhaps when making a point, and then I make use of subjectivity in such a way that it's clearly not to be taken serious). So should I, in all fairness, be discredited on sputnik because I don't listen to bad music? Or should I make uneducated ratings?

If "none of the above", then what the hell is the purpose of the system?
This system isn't the definitive measure of users' objectivity. It's not like a low objectivity rating is going to get you banned from the site or anything, it's just a way to display people's average rating. There's no need to place this much emphasis on it.

[pixiesfanyo]

No, it actually isn't.

Art takes time to apperciate. We aren't eating **** when we listen to music, we are listening to somebody's self expression. To be able to completely define your opinion on an album after one listen, either means ONE your opinion is ****, or TWO you have some predetermined view of the band/artist and are associating that with the album, thus making your opinion ****.

I don't care what you guys say, writing a review or rating an album after one listen is completely uneducated and stupid.

[Iluvatar]

Objectivity is just like your reviewer ranking, post count, approval rating, and what have you. It really doesn't mean anything, it's just another little fun statistic for people to know. I wouldn't get too hung up on it.

[pixiesfanyo]

Objectivity is just like your reviewer ranking, post count, approval rating, and what have you. It really doesn't mean anything, it's just another little fun statistic for people to know. I wouldn't get too hung up on it.

Little fun statistics help define a site's enjoyability. Thus, we are critiquing Jeremy in hopes of promoting what we feel will increase the feelings we have towards the site in a positive way.

[Wildhoodlum]

Art takes time to apperciate. We aren't eating **** when we listen to music, we are listening to somebody's self expression. To be able to completely define your opinion on an album after one listen, either means ONE your opinion is ****, or TWO you have some predetermined view of the band/artist and are associating that with the album, thus making your opinion ****.

I don't care what you guys say, writing a review or rating an album after one listen is completely uneducated and stupid.

You've never listened to anything and disliked it instantly? So let me get this straight: you analyze every piece of music until you can determine whether it's good or not. So, by that line of thinking an album by your favorite band could come out, and you wouldn't like it until you've listened to it, what? 30, 40 times? People are inherently biased by nature. I've listened to albums that I hated instantly, and then rated them appropriately on Sputnik. You have to remember that what you have, other people will love. If we all had the same opinion, and the incredible patience to sit there and listen to music we hate for the point of being able to judge it better, then the world would be a really stupid place to host an opinion.

[Pete]

This system isn't the definitive measure of users' objectivity. It's not like a low objectivity rating is going to get you banned from the site or anything, it's just a way to display people's average rating. There's no need to place this much emphasis on it.
Please refer to my final statement.

Do you honestly think people won't check the objectivity of people they disagree with? Do you honestly think the Sputnik elite won't under-score some albums because they won't want to be seen with an objectivity of under 95%? Do you honestly think the benefits (well, that's moot, as there are none) outweigh the problems?

There is but one way to determin objectivity; by having a board of democratically elected members, let's call them The Academy, investigate each and every person individually and base their rating on that - and then hand their report over to another group of people that MX appoint (let's call them The Supreme Court) and have them approve the rating. Then people can appeal if they don't agree with their own/someone elses rating. Does this system sound good?

No, because it's as asinine as the system that's been implemented.

[morrissey]

Perhaps we can find a better way to phrase it, because I definitely understand the argument that if you only review "5" albums (say your three reviews are London Calling, Revolver and My Aim is True), your objectivity rating will suck even though objectively speaking these albums are 5s (or close to it). So it isn't accurate in that sense, which I definitely get. So maybe mx will look at revising the term or something. But in the interim I wouldn't get wound up about it. You're not being discredited nor is your opinion being sidelined, so don't take a low objectivity rating as a scarlet letter to bear or anything.

edit: some people do feel that one listen is enough, it doesn't make them right or make their opinion solid, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[Shadows]

Please refer to my final statement.

Do you honestly think people won't check the objectivity of people they disagree with? Do you honestly think the Sputnik elite won't under-score some albums because they won't want to be seen with an objectivity of under 95%? Do you honestly think the benefits (well, that's moot, as there are none) outweigh the problems?
Do you honestly think people won't realize that these numbers aren't set in stone, they're just statistics generated by the site based on numbers? Maybe it's just a difference of opinion here, because I don't think anyone's going to place as much emphasis as you seem to. And there's nothing wrong with giving out low album ratings to albums that you genuinely dislike.

[pixiesfanyo]

You've never listened to anything and disliked it instantly? So let me get this straight: you analyze every piece of music until you can determine whether it's good or not. So, by that line of thinking an album by your favorite band could come out, and you wouldn't like it until you've listened to it, what? 30, 40 times? People are inherently biased by nature. I've listened to albums that I hated instantly, and then rated them appropriately on Sputnik. You have to remember that what you have, other people will love. If we all had the same opinion, and the incredible patience to sit there and listen to music we hate for the point of being able to judge it better, then the world would be a really stupid place to host an opinion.

I listen to every album five times before I feel I can talk about it on a "opinion based level".

Most of the time people hate music because they don't give it time to digest and they just go with some gut feeling about either the genre or the scene it's from.

[Iluvatar]

Little fun statistics help define a site's enjoyability. Thus, we are critiquing Jeremy in hopes of promoting what we feel will increase the feelings we have towards the site in a positive way.
But the criticism is due to one members dissatisfaction with a facet of the site, thus lending an air of...shall we say subjectivity to their criticism, when the vast majority (including those with low approval %'s) have expressed how neat it is.

I'm just saying, of course. It probably can be touched up, but it's only the first phase of the feature, andno time has been given to mx to touch it up on his own.

[pixiesfanyo]

But the criticism is due to one members dissatisfaction with a facet of the site, thus lending an air of...shall we say subjectivity to their criticism, when the vast majority (including those with low approval %'s) have expressed how neat it is.

I'm just saying, of course. It probably can be touched up, but it's only the first phase of the feature, andno time has been given to mx to touch it up on his own.

We are helping him touch it up. That's what forums like this are for.

[YDload]

My objectivity rating is like 67% because I rated some albums 0 back when that was still possible. I'm such a bad person :(

[Pete]

Do you honestly think people won't realize that these numbers aren't set in stone, they're just statistics generated by the site based on numbers? Maybe it's just a difference of opinion here, because I don't think anyone's going to place as much emphasis as you seem to. And there's nothing wrong with giving out low album ratings to albums that you genuinely dislike.
Are you readin anything I'm writing? How can I know if I genuinely dislike an album I've only listened to once? Are you saying that I should listen to an album I instantly dislike a lot, just so I can fairly rate albums low? Or should I give out gratituous 1's to stay "objective"?

And don't kid yourself with the whole "oh it's just a number it doesnt matter" - what you'll have is a situation like with the postcount or rep in the Pit. Or for that matter, the way things are turning out with "approval"-ratings - people get pissed when you call them on a bad review, and people vote "not well-written" on reviews solely for the fact that the reviewer has a differing opinion. And ulitmately, everyone on here is a petty c'unt, and the numbers (wheter it's postcount, joindate, approval or objectivity) have last say in everything. You know it if you've been a part of this community for long enough. Adding another set of numbers to judge the people who try to contribute is exactly what SM doesn't need.

[Pete]

My objectivity rating is like 67% because I rated some albums 0 back when that was still possible. I'm such a bad person :(
Hehe, your subjectivity would be through the roof.

[Shadows]

Are you readin anything I'm writing? How can I know if I genuinely dislike an album I've only listened to once? Are you saying that I should listen to an album I instantly dislike a lot, just so I can fairly rate albums low? Or should I give out gratituous 1's to stay "objective"?

And don't kid yourself with the whole "oh it's just a number it doesnt matter" - what you'll have is a situation like with the postcount or rep in the Pit. Or for that matter, the way things are turning out with "approval"-ratings - people get pissed when you call them on a bad review, and people vote "not well-written" on reviews solely for the fact that the reviewer has a differing opinion. And ulitmately, everyone on here is a petty c'unt, and the numbers (wheter it's postcount, joindate, approval or objectivity) have last say in everything. You know it if you've been a part of this community for long enough. Adding another set of numbers to judge the people who try to contribute is exactly what SM doesn't need.
Like morrissey said, some people can get a strong feel for the album after one full listen. I don't have to listen to St. Anger at least 5 full times to know that I don't like it. In the past I've listened to albums I didn't like several times so I could write about it knowledgably and I don't see why that's such a stupid thing to do.

And calling everyone a "petty c'unt" is a pretty cynical way to view the site. I'd rather assume that people will do things the right way; maybe that's why I see things differently than you.

[pixiesfanyo]

Like morrissey said, some people can get a strong feel for the album after one full listen. I don't have to listen to St. Anger at least 5 full times to know that I don't like it.


Well this is why your opinion is basically exactly the same as every other metal fan I've met.

That was me saying it's bad.

[Shadows]

Thank you for having such understanding of other people's opinions.

[Pete]

This is me agreeing with pixiesfanyo.

Just because some people choose to not let their bias influence album ratings negatively (I mean, I dislike electro - should I rate every electro album low?) but rather promote music they think is good, should they be punished with a lower rating?

This system is counteractive and only hurts the users.

Calling everyone a petty c'unt may be cynical. As cynical as calling everyone a moron. But it doesn't make it less true - 90% of people on MX/SE are petty morons*. Why do you think the Pit was closed?

*90% of people worldwide are petty morons

Thank you for having such understanding of other people's opinions.
It's not an opinion - it's an unsubstantiated bias. Sure, build a review site around lack of substance, good idea. You really know what's up.

[Shadows]

An opinion is an opinion despite how many times you've listened to an album. If you've got the arrogance to call someone's opinions flat-out wrong because they don't go about listening to new music the same way you do, then that's your problem.

[Iluvatar]

Yeah, but it's also meant to be a sharing of ideas. If you dislike electro, and you have listened to an album from said genre and find it to be poor, why wouldn't you rate it? I see your point, I just think you're taking it a bit far.

[pixiesfanyo]

An opinion is an opinion despite how many times you've listened to an album. If you've got the arrogance to call someone's opinions flat-out wrong because they don't go about listening to new music the same way you do, then that's your problem.

Not really. If we are to judge people's tastes based on the albums they rate, we'd judge yours as typical metal head, because all you do is review metal albums. Whenever you don't there is always a tendency to review the albums as not as good as metal albums. Therefore you are stuck in a genre and not open minded, I mean you aren't as bad as the tools who review pop albums to show how diverse they are, but.. still. Try some diversity.

Iluvatar, FatPete is just saying that reviewing a genre that you have a bias against is pointless. Kind of like reviewing a KidzBop cd is pointless. We know it sucks, we don't need to be told. And if you think something sucks, it's kind of stupid to go reviewing a bunch of things that suck just because you don't dig the genre.

[Shadows]

I listen to non-metal music. I don't see why you'd assume I hate anything that isn't metal just because 99% of the things I rate and review on sputnik is metal.

[Iluvatar]

It's not pointless, as there are undoubtedly others who feel the same way about the genre, and would appreciate a review from someone with the same mindset as them. Thats how I feel, at least. While I enjoy reviews from,lets say, Zebra on an indie album, I'd rather read a review by someone with the same general outlook on the genre as me, as it gives me a clearer indication of whether I want to listen to the album.

and stfu aboot kidz bop it was a pointless exercise in self-indulgence kk?

[Storm In A Teacup]

Okay, yeah, uh, MX is really getting annoying with all of the petty arguing going on. People's opinons are whatever they want to be; Shadows is obviously intellegent enough to develop a fair opinion on anything so please just let stuff like this go.

[pixiesfanyo]

Probably because I don't see you do anything but post about metal, and neg on other genres.

I remember the random review game where you were like, I can't review this because I don't like it's genre or some ****. And I was like "oh well, that's pretty expected."

[pixiesfanyo]

It's not pointless, as there are undoubtedly others who feel the same way about the genre, and would appreciate a review from someone with the same mindset as them. Thats how I feel, at least. While I enjoy reviews from,lets say, Zebra on an indie album, I'd rather read a review by someone with the same general outlook on the genre as me, as it gives me a clearer indication of whether I want to listen to the album.

and stfu aboot kidz bop it was a pointless exercise in self-indulgence kk?

Somebody who dislikes a genre, is basically pointless in my opinion. Disliking a genre is just based on not being educated. I have yet to find a genre I can't find music I relate too.

[pixiesfanyo]

Okay, yeah, uh, MX is really getting annoying with all of the petty arguing going on. People's opinons are whatever they want to be; Shadows is obviously intellegent enough to develop a fair opinion on anything so please just let stuff like this go.

I'll keep on petty arguing. Oh well.

[Shadows]

I don't neg on other genres. I remember the album I had for that game and I'm sorry people had the misconception that I would hate it just because it wasn't metal, but that isn't true.

[Pete]

Yeah, but it's also meant to be a sharing of ideas. If you dislike electro, and you have listened to an album from said genre and find it to be poor, why wouldn't you rate it? I see your point, I just think you're taking it a bit far.
Because the average of that particular album would be lowered based on the fact that I don't like electro. Is that the point of the site? To have everyone review every album? Or is it for people interested in, say, Mayhems albums to see which is the best Mayhem album? Or for people interested in jazz to see which the best jazz album is?

Because with your idea of "objectivity", everyone shoul eb required to rate every single album on the site (and eventually, every single album ever recorded), and unless every album got an average of 3, we could all agree on which albums are the best and which are the worst. And we could live happily ever after in beautiful objectivity.

Alas, I digress, this system is useless and stupid. Asinine, vacuous, inane.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Just a note, the 0 point as regards objectivity is 3, to account for the fact people review things they like. I don't really see the point of it either, but I don't think it's supposed to be taken very seriously either.

Either way, I might just be a special case but I have a 75% record based only on albums I've listened to extensively (10+ times), which includes only a handful of low scores and only one album outside my area of expertise.

[pixiesfanyo]

Just a note, the 0 point as regards objectivity is 3, to account for the fact people review things they like. I don't really see the point of it either, but I don't think it's supposed to be taken very seriously either.

Either way, I might just be a special case but I have a 75% record based only on albums I've listened to extensively (10+ times), which includes only a handful of low scores and only one album outside my area of expertise.

Yeah I'm basically the same way and I have a 67%.

[Pete]

Okay, yeah, uh, MX is really getting annoying with all of the petty arguing going on. People's opinons are whatever they want to be; Shadows is obviously intellegent enough to develop a fair opinion on anything so please just let stuff like this go.
Okay, yeah, uh, MX is really getting annoying with all of the petty ranking going on. People's opinons are whatever they want to be; I am obviously intellegent enough to develop a fair opinion on things I know well so please just let objectivity go.






Get my point? Also, please don't belittle people. (by adding that "Shadows is intelligent" when we're arguing against him on this particular subject, you imply that we're less intelligent because we share a different view on how music is supposed to be reviewed)

[Pete]

Banning people who obviously rate out of fanboyism would be discouraging.

This just discourages me from taking part in this site, as clicking "4" on albums I really, really like makes my stats look like I'm some band aid with cum on my collar.

[Iluvatar]

I haven't seen anyone even care about objectivity as of yet, except in the joking "hey look I've got 60% objectivity hahah." Really, no one else cares. It's a miniscule little feature that really shouldn't have this big a fuss about it.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's pretty easy to tell whether a low rating is due to your reasons or due to the person being an idiot. For instance, compare your ratings to this idiot's:

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/uservote.php?memberid=44112

[Pete]

I'm fussing for the sake of making a point (read a previous post of mine explaining how I do that sometimes, or just get to know my online me to understand). That doesn't make me less right, nor does it nullify my point; if it's a feature that doesn't mean anything, that no one should care about and that should be disregarded, then why is it there? If it's supposed to be an accurate measurement of a posters objectivity, it doesn't work.

How are you not getting this?

[Storm In A Teacup]

Okay, yeah, uh, MX is really getting annoying with all of the petty ranking going on. People's opinons are whatever they want to be; I am obviously intellegent enough to develop a fair opinion on things I know well so please just let objectivity go.

I agree with you. I love statistic, but objectivity is pretty silly if you ask me.






Get my point? Also, please don't belittle people. (by adding that "Shadows is intelligent" when we're arguing against him on this particular subject, you imply that we're less intelligent because we share a different view on how music is supposed to be reviewed)

I'm sorry you took it like that I meant you weren't smart, but let me assure you I didn't mean it that way.

I don't see why we have to argue about it.

[Iluvatar]

I'm getting it perfectly fine, I just think its far less of a problem than you think it is. It's supposed to be a fun feature. You're not supposed to worry about it, you're just supposed to go "Oh hey, thats how I stack up then?" Again, it can be touched up upon, but I see nothing fundamentally wrong with it, besides the fact that different users use the site differently. I use it express my opinion on all the music I listen to, good or bad, for example. You use it differently, and thus the way we look at this objectivity feature is different. Thats all.

[Pete]

Whoopie, I just checked my own profile and saw that I had given my bands' albums all 5's.

Well, carry on then, I'm subjective.

[Pete]

I'm getting it perfectly fine, I just think its far less of a problem than you think it is. It's supposed to be a fun feature. You're not supposed to worry about it, you're just supposed to go "Oh hey, thats how I stack up then?" Again, it can be touched up upon, but I see nothing fundamentally wrong with it, besides the fact that different users use the site differently. I use it express my opinion on all the music I listen to, good or bad, for example. You use it differently, and thus the way we look at this objectivity feature is different. Thats all.
Again, I'm basically arguing harshly for the sake of arguing, because it's the funnest way to argue. But I am opposed to MX/SM adding more numbers and comparative statistics, as the forums have notoriously always been a pissing contest, whether it's about flexing your postcount or bypassing the swear filter or getting a longer usertitle or hacking users or whatever. I see nothing constructive coming out of this feature.

[BJ_maddog]

If a performance indicator can be self-determined, it isn't going to be helpful at all.
NOTE: This feature was introduced to help making user ratings more balanced. What it doesn't mean is that you should go and rate albums from a genre you don't like a '1' to balance things out. It means that you should adjust your existing ratings to be more even handed. Are you rating things to high? Is your scale based around a '4' and not a '3'? Just remember to PLEASE not neg all sorts of things just to get a better score.
I'm sure people wouldn't dream of abusing it....

Can objectivity be made to apply only to your specified main genre, perhaps?

[superpeer]

50% :upset:

[Kurrpt]

this makes me want to rate albums even less...

[Storm In A Teacup]

:lol:

86% :cool:

[masada]

Dude you went and lowered a bunch of your ratings so you could get that.

[Storm In A Teacup]

Yes, but I'm just updating my ratings. Some have gone the opposite way, like the Beach Boys going from superb to classic.

By the end of the day it will be 90%, haha.

[masada]

Oh sure.

You know Lost And Found is a classic. Don't deny your nu-metal heart.

[Storm In A Teacup]

Okay, uh, let's not talk about me having once thought that right now.

/ashamed :upset:

[Sepstrup]

Somebody who dislikes a genre, is basically pointless in my opinion. Disliking a genre is just based on not being educated. I have yet to find a genre I can't find music I relate too.

That sounded very pretentious. It's not necessarily your fault that you can't relate to something, even if it's an entire genre.You'll always be biased towards certain genres. I really hate it when people try to prove how diverse and objectively they listen to music. For instance, I think there might be lot of people who listen to a jazz masterpiece like Kind of Blue, "conclude" that it's fantastic (because they find it enjoyable), but then never really listen to it again. Saying "_____ is not music" is fairly uneducated, maybe, but everyone enjoys some genres over others.

I'm biased. I like Tom Waits albums more than albums by most other artists, and I'd probably never count a metal album among my favorites. Heavy music just doesn't appeal to me that much. Neither does very spicy food. What's the problem with that?

[pixiesfanyo]

The problem is, I'm sure some album labelled metal will relate too you.

I by larger think metal is one of the most boring genres in term of interesting material vs. noninteresting material. Still I probably have a least twenty metal albums I feel comfortable with saying are very good, and that I listen too alot.

Thing is most people like say you are willing to say "metal just isn't for me". It's called being lazy, and maybe I'm being pretentious, but I don't have time for lazy people when it comes to music/music apperciation.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Even hair metal?

[pixiesfanyo]

Neh. That's getting to specific.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Sounds like laziness to me.

[superpeer]

As if hair metal is metal. :o

[Dave de Sylvia]

Don't make me come over there :angry:

[superpeer]

Sorry, sir. :upset:

[mx]

Some people are taking this too seriously

[DFelon204409]

But definitely not Storm in a Teacup.