Album Rating: 4.5
hmm. i'm actually not sure if i rate on quality... well, maybe. i rate purely on enjoyment--on how the music affects me. a few weeks ago we were talking in the New Bermuda thread about what rating is warranted when 50% of the songs are bad, and people were saying 2.5 but i tend to disagree with that, because if i feel deeply enamored by the 50% that i do enjoy, that could potentially engender a 3.5-4 rating for me. i don't even try to be objective with my ratings i guess lol.
|
| |
I remember that thread yeah. I don't think I have ever heard an album where I had a deep connection to 50% of the music but felt hatred or apathy for the other half. There are many albums where i love some songs and just like most of the others.
|
| |
I would agree though, theoretically if 50% were bad(not torture inducing though) and 50% godly then >2.5 yeah
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
yea those sorts of albums are pretty anomalous i guess, 50% hate 50% love, anyway. though i do find a lot where i really like a few songs and feel indifferent about the others. those are usually 3-3.5 hehe
|
| |
Well on Sput there is only nine possible ratings that non-staff can give an album. Technically 3.0 is the average rating in spite of what the labels say.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
"I rate based on what I think the quality of each album is" Who doesn't do this???
What I mean is that I'm not usually comparing to other albums or trying to fit the album into the overall distribution of my taste. I consider the album's merits in their own right and decide how many points it earns.
I see no reason not to use 2.5 as "your" average. It helps people looking at your rates to see your taste. (a greater range is used) I assume you have 4s you consider to be allot better than other 4s. A wider range would help make your taste clearer.
The problem here is the imprecision of the word "average" when used to describe quality. Mathematically, the average is the value that is most representative of the set, be it the mean, median, or mode of the set. When applied to quality, the average gives you a reference point for relative quality, not "objective" quality. If the average score on a test is 95/100, then the average student did well objectively, and someone who got a 75 scored relatively poorly; if the average score is 50/100 the average student did objectively poorly, and someone who got a 75 scored relatively well. In both cases the student who scored 75 got the same score, but in one case it was a much better score than the other relative to the other students.
The same goes for albums; 5/5 is the highest "objective" quality attainable, and the average album I listen to is worthy of a 3.5/5. I really like these "average" albums. But in Sputnik's system, a 2.5/5 is average, less than good. It doesn't make sense for me to represent an album that is average relative to the rest of the albums I know as less than good. So that's my reason for not using 2.5 as my "average". (Accordingly, on my RYM profile, I have set 2.5 to be "passable"; still a somewhat imprecise term, but one that gives a better sense of overall quality than "average".)
|
| |
If I'm not entertained for the entire runtime the score will suffer
Consistencys certainly a big factor in what I consider to be an engaging listen
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
To clarify a bit, I really don't think about albums too objectively but rather rate based on what level I "objectively" enjoy them.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
Not to be lame since it doesn't change your point at all but it's nice to clarify, the average refers to specifically the mean. The term for mean, median and mode is measures of central tendencies.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Fair enough, I thought any of those could be used as an average depending on the context, though of course the arithmetic mean is by far the most commonly used.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Nerds
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
(As a side note, I didn't mean for any of that to sound as pedantic as it might, I just thought that was the clearest way to explain what I was trying to get at.)
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
@ zip - take that back
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Suk it, Nyerdd
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
@zipp we may be nerds but at least we
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Ya!
|
| |
Hunter
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
the ol 5 bump m/
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
It never fails to baffle me that people still use the word "fag" derogatively.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
4 is the proper rating for this.
If they'd edited it down to a single album length it might be a 5 though.
|
| |
|
|
