Album Rating: 3.5
To me, 2.5: Okay
3.0: Decent
3.5: Good
4.0: Great
|
| |
For me, 3.0 is ok and then it goes up from there.
2.5 and below is varying levels of crap. I give 2.5 when something is crap but I'm trying to be nice about it
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
This album is when the band really started to, pardon the expression, hang themselves.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
bloc for me that's a 2
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
What's wrong with the ratings being what they are already? I've always been comfortable with 4 being excellent, 3.5 being great etc etc
|
| |
Everything is wrong
|
| |
(;
|
| |
"What's wrong with the ratings being what they are already? I've always been comfortable with 4 being excellent, 3.5 being great etc etc"
Sometimes you feel like you've been on this site for so long that instead of arguing about ratings you literally argue about THE ratings
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
We're closing in on 10 years, buddy
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
So the conclusion of this thread is that the rating system is outdated, you learn sth new everyday.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
'Sometimes you feel like you've been on this site for so long that instead of arguing about ratings you literally argue about THE ratings'
Fair enough.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Because wtf is the difference between Excellent and Superb anyway? It's redundant
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Maybe it should be 'spectacular'.
|
| |
I think "classic" should change to "flawless" or something along those lines, because am I the only one who thinks it's kinda weird when you call an album that's just a year old (or sometimes even less) a classic?
I bet that's half the reason why people shit on other people's 5s
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Or something that's just a huge hit and old that you would call a"classic " even if it's not a personal 5/5
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Flawless or perfect sounds good.
Maybe 'classic' shouldn't be a numerical rating at all and just be a standalone rating. Something doesn't necessarily need to be perfect to be a classic.
|
| |
"Or something that's just a huge hit and old that you would call a"classic " even if it's not a personal 5/5"
Exactly. Something could be shit but if it's old and somewhat well known it could be called a classic too.
I think the best thing to do is keep the ratings as numbers, and avoid the tag words that go with each rating. Numbers are absolute. Everyone knows a 4/5 is a pretty damn good score on an exam or something, and 2.5/5 is just passing. The words just make it more open to interpretation and arguing.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
I think that the rating system is subjective and I don't care what they represent. I rate things how I believe they should be rated. I think, as a whole, this album was decent. There was filler, yes, but it wasn't a necessarily bad entry. There isn't, as far as I know, an acoustic version of "What I've Done" but I play the song acoustically often. It was one of the first acoustic songs I learned, so I play it every day as a warm up.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Been listening to a LOT of Linkin Park recently, and while nothing will top their first 3 albums this one is pretty fucking good. Given Up, Leave Out All the Rest, Shadow of the Day, What I've Done, so many great songs on here.
|
| |
Album Rating: 1.5
I think this might be one of the most scattered and unfocused albums ever tbh
|
| |
|
|
