is this a shitty structure for ratings? should i switch the bad

only true patricians rate things out of 3.

for instance.. the new arcade fire single is a solid 2.1/3

>>70522007

0.5 Offensively bad
1.0 Really Bad
1.5 Bad
2.0 Not good
2.5 Mediocre
3.0 Decent
3.5 Good
4.0 Really good
4.5 Great
5.0 Absolutely incredible

File: 9lC1cU9.jpg (81KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1200x900px

i prefer to devote the least amount of stars to negative ratings. if something is bad, EXACTLY how bad it is isnt important to me.

on a typical scale of 1-10, 1-5 is bad, 6 is ok, which leaves 7-9 for the good albums. that's only three spots.
i prefer to condense the really horrible 1s and just pretty bad 5s all down to 1.
so on my scale, 1 encompasses all bad albums, 2 is ok, and 3-9 is left for the good albums. this makes it easier to place higher value on 8s, 9s and 10s, whilst leaving room for good albums that arent quite up there, but also arent mediocre.


so my advice for you is fewer space for bad albums, more space for good ones. hopefully this made sense.

.5 Disgusting
1.0 Very bad
1.5 Bad
2.0 Generally negative
2.5 Indifference
3.0 Generally positive
3.5 Good
4.0 Great
4.5 Amazing / Classic
5.0 Near Perfect

I only rate things that I enjoy. So I never rate anything under a two.

0.5 - legitimately awful or so bad it's good
1 - really bad
1.5 - bad
2 - subpar
2.5 - average
3 - good
3.5 - great
4 - fantastic
4.5 - classic
5 - perfect or so bad it's perfect

File: ratingsystem.png (6KB, 152x512px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 152x512px

>>70522007

>>70522446
so this would be a 5 right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amy-4jDlYgo

>rating music

>>70522446
>>70522394
>>70522095
when an album is bad, it's just bad. that can range from terrible to just poor. i think there's varying degrees to good i.e good, great, decent

>>70522027
I was hyped for about 10 seconds but then I actually listened to it and it kinda sucks.

File: IMG_7017.png (62KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x1136px

I only listen to albums that I think I will like (like any sane person), so I average around a 3.5/5.

I also think there is always something redeemable about every album, so nothing is a 0.5.

>>70522487
why did you reply to me though
>>70522490
I would rate things 0/5 if I could but no rating system allows for this

5.0 Good
4.5 Decent
4.0 Indifferent
3.5 Bad
3.0 Unpleasant
2.5 Awful
2.0 Shocking
1.5 Abhorrent
1.0 Horrendous
0.5 ITAOTS

>>70522618
good post

File: Screenshot (195).png (58KB, 922x558px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 922x558px

>>70522410
same, it skews the shape of my graph however.

>tfw mildly irritated

File: e.png (155KB, 1552x660px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1552x660px

>>70522730
I suppose that for me, 2 is good, 3-4 is excellent, and 4-5 is excellent+. I don't spend that long deciding on a rating, just whatever feels right after listening though.

>>70522007
5.0- Personal Favorite
4.5- Great
4.0- Very Good
3.5- Good
3.0- Alright
2.5- Mediocre
2.0- Decent at best
1.5- Bad
1.0- Very Bad
0.5- Personal Least Favorite

>>70522841
>I don't spend that long deciding on a rating, just whatever feels right after listening though.

Yeah, I'm pretty much the same. I just rate for subjective enjoyment. So there's really no point in mulling over it all.
For me 3.5 is good, Whereas 3 is mildly enjoyable but just not enough to repeat... I just like too many things I suppose.

>>70522478
Why is patton oswalt in this video

>>70523067
Patton does some patrician cameos
He was even in 5secondfilms once

File: meffert.png (50KB, 191x193px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 191x193px

>he doesn't have his RYM ratings as his favourite sodas

fuck this board

5.0 - does not exist
4.5 - does not exist
4.0 - does not exist
3.5 - absolute perfection
3.0 - beyond god tier
2.5 - all time favorite
2.0 - life-altering
1.5 - essential classic
1.0 - 5 out of 5
0.5 - pretty fucking great

0.5 one of the worst albums ever done
1.0 really bad
1.5 bad
2.0 kinda bad, but not totally irredeemable
2.5 bland, ordinary
3.0 decent, adequate
3.5 fairly good
4.0 very good
4.5 awesome
5.0 all-time masterpiece

btw the 0-10 scale is the real patrician one.

>>70522007
5.0 Perfect
4.5 Amazing
4.0 Great
3.5 Good
3.0 Decent
2.5 Average
2.0 Below Average
1.5 Not Good
1.0 Bad
0.5 Worst

actually caring about number scores is so fucking stupid. you guys really have too validate your opinions with 5.7 and 3.4, give me a fucking break, definitely worst thing about music criticism.

It's bad, it's good.

There you go OP I erased the arbitrary

>>70522007
5.0 A high point in artistic human acheivement.
4.5 Fucking fantastic
4.0 pretty great
3.5 an satisfying experience
3.0 Solid
2.5 mediocre and forgettable, but passable
2.0 poor, but not unlistenable
1.5 bad
1.0 shockingly bad
0.5 fills me with pure spite and hatred.

File: rates.png (62KB, 1312x596px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1312x596px

I am happy with mine. The only thing I want to change is 3.0, but I can't think of a positive equivalent for "Something's missing" and I don't like going for below and above average for 2.5 and 3.0

>>70525581
>btw the 0-10 scale is the real patrician one
this

>>70527164
>but I can't think of a positive equivalent for "Something's missing"
Something was found

File: jpg.jpg (55KB, 246x464px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 246x464px

>>70522349
Yeah, this is what I ended up doing, I use a 10 point scale for actual ratings but on RYM, I realized quickly that it was hard to differentiate my favorites with just five stars so I lumped up a lot of the bad ratings and spread out the good ones.

>>70522410
You're everything wrong with the site's rating system, it's because people only rate music they love that you get such terrible shit at the top of the charts

File: 1463324489243.jpg (23KB, 250x372px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 250x372px

>>70527218

>>70527164
Glass half full