If your ratings don't look like a pyramid of hierarchy you

Or maybe we don't care about appealing to strangers on the internet and like music for music's sake.

>>73976631
music is fucking terrible, what are you on about

>not adhering to standard deviation
disgusting and edgy

>>73976616
as you peruse you might hear more of what you like over 10 years than what you dont

judging music on a curve is for retards

retard

fuck you OP

0.5 is a meme rating

>>73976616
people with normal distributions have more voting power for chart rankings.

File: Untitled.png (22KB, 782x451px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 782x451px

If you're curve isn't at 3.0 or 3.5, you're doing something wrong.

>>73976616
>If your ratings don't look like a pyramid of hierarchy
You probably have a happy, well-adjusted lifestyle. Who spends the vast majority of their time listening to and then rating/reviewing music they DON'T like?

File: guTc54g.jpg (76KB, 1058x975px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1058x975px

>Guy with Pyramid Hierarchy rating scale
>His highest rated albums are fucking scaruffi-core

>>73976684
that's a stupid post
you're a stupid person

File: s.jpg (85KB, 1980x484px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1980x484px

>>73976616
I got you senpai

>>73976695
>>73976651
>>73976650
>>73976702
>>73976684
>Missing the point

Look at the rating names

what the fuck is the point of having 4-5 ratings of "meh" to "shit"?

>>73976616
the mode will never be that far below the median in a strong and true mathematical model

File: how you like me now.png (45KB, 1022x524px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1022x524px

>>73976616
What if I like music, and only rate/listen to music I like or think I will like?

File: 340.png (545KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 640x640px

>rape
>bad
shit website

>>73976865
You have 4 ratings that mean the same thing, it's fucking stupid.

>>73976908
As opposed to notable and distinctive.

>>73976925
It is better to give more room for works that are good than have 4 ratings for things that are essentially worthless

>>73976829
>2.5 and 3.0 are good scores
wtf why do people use the rating system like this.

>>73976951
Because >>73976949
>>73976908

>>73976908
Pray tell what means the same thing.

Here's further explanation 1/2

9.5-10/10 (5 Stars) -All Time Favorites:
These are the songs I have the most pure enjoyment of, that I have the least qualms with, that impact me the most greatly, and generally as the name suggests, are my favorites.
Example: The most delicious dish you've ever eaten.

8.5-9.25/10 (4.5 Stars) - Essentials & things I love: These are songs that I wouldn't want to do without, that are close to being among my favorites. Some with minor flaws that subtract from my enjoyment, or just don't connect with me quite as fully as my favorites.
Example: Your favorite homecooked meals

7.5-8.25/10 (4 Stars) - Excellent: The songs and albums in this section denote music that I listen to frequently and enjoy a lot. But also typically I don't have any deep emotional connection to (or conversely I have a connection with emotionally but not so much musically). I see these as the bottom end of what I keep in my frequent listening rotations.
Example: Thanksgiving Dinner surrounded by family & friends.

6.5-7.25/10 (3.5 Stars) - Very Pleasant: These are songs that I enjoy but starting around this stage in my ratings (though there are exceptions both above & below) that begin to have more noticeable flaws to my personal listening tastes, but still have solid overall bases that make these detractors easily to overlook.
Example: The meal your mother loved to make that wasn't quite perfect and could've been seasoned slightly better, but was still pleasurable to your palate.

5.5-6.25/10 (3 Stars) - Modest Enjoyment/Agreeable: These are songs that I generally have a positive view of or make pleasant background noise but don't have any particularly exciting or invigorating factors to give them any special spark to my ears. I like these songs more then I dislike them.
Example: Your quick & easy go to meal that you like when you need something fast, but doesn't have any special factors about it.

>>73976951
3.0 is above average

>>73976969
The lower 4
You can merge them into one and it would not matter at all

>>73976969

4.5-5.25/10 (2.5 Stars) - Neutral/Mixed Feelings: These are songs that I either have no opinion of negative or positive, or simply their redeeming factors are nearly equally balanced by their detracting factors. Wouldn't complain or be upset if someone else played these, but I wouldn't be happy either.
Example: Leftovers (excluding pizza!) in the fridge that you eat when you're too lazy but hungry to make anything else.

3.5-4.25/10 (2 Stars) - Slight dislike:
These are songs that I have a slightly more negative view of then I do a positive one. Some of these songs may even have elements I enjoy, but the detracting factors on these tracks aren't quite enough for it to be positive leaning as a whole. Typically would prefer not to hear these songs but would be willing to listen to them in most environments without saying anything in the pursuit of not creating drama.
Example: The subpar sandwich you ordered at your favorite restaurant when decided you wanted to try something new and exciting, and ended up being slightly disappointed that this was being served as is.

2/3

>>73976974
Most albums ever released aren't good enough to be 3.0, it's not "average" numerically but quality perhaps

You guys know even Scaruffi's scores have a curve, right? Most of his ratings fall in the 4-6 range.

>>73976616
>>73976865
>unrated
How do you rate an album unrated

>>73976982

2.5-3.25/10 (1.5 Stars) - Dislike a lot: These are songs that are annoying or noticeably bad but still have some redeeming qualities about them, that if forced to listen to, you can focus on. The type of song to make you cringe if you hear it playing in a store, but still being able to block out & not let it ruin your day/activities.
Example: The vegetables you disliked your mom wanted you eat, that in the interest of not getting grounded, you would comply with her instructions regarding.

1.5-2.25/10 (1 Star) - Hated: Songs that have few if any redeeming qualities about them. The type of song you would make a negative verbal statement about, even if the girl you were crushing on was playing it.
Example: Ever went over a friends house to eat
And the food just ain't no good? I mean the macaroni's soggy, the peas are mushed,
And the chicken tastes like wood.

0-1.25/10 (0.5 Stars) - Worst I've ever heard:
The most deplorable, unimaginative, and awful thing you've ever had the displeasure of hearing. The type of song to cause you to become physically ill from how bad it is. (one of) the worst things you've ever heard.
Example: Eating explosive diarrhea
>>73976979
It does matter because I feel differently about those songs.
Some I almost have mixed feelings on, ranging all the way to hate.

Plus my autism wouldn't let me give comparatively lower scores to things I like to bring down the overall score of a work, even if only slightly.

It's just as important to me to differentiate what I dislike, as it is for what I like.

Even if there is less of them.

>>73977008
If it is/was included in your collection but you haven't rated it it's counted as unrated.

>>73977009
There's like 15 albums in those 4 ratings, and you have 700+ ratings

come on

>>73977008
Not him, but I use the unrated section as a sort of list of things I want to get to. Mostly random RYM album.

File: rGHuK85bM.jpg (8KB, 182x173px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 182x173px

There's a certain point where if an album is bad, then it is just bad. There's not exactly a point in distinguishing HOW bad it is.

OP is my nigga

https://rateyourmusic.com/~Rhodesian_Warrior

>>73977026
Actually I think every single one of those ratings (2 and lower) are singles.

Probably 65-75% of my ratings are singles.

But none the less, I don't have the same feelings on all those songs.
Few though they may be.

I like music.

I feel just as different about the two star ratings compared to the half star as I do when comparing a 3.5 to a 5.

>>73977014
>>73977029
I'm still lost, where do I click to make an album unrated/ownership?

>>73977046
Mediocre things aren't worth the space they take, should just be piled into one spot

>>73977064
Let's agree to disagree.

I wouldn't want to combine songs under the same rating if I didn't feel they were more or less on par with one another.

"waste" of space or not.

>>73977057
Put it in your collection, but don't rate it.

>>73977076
Do you really feel all your 5/5 are the same tier?

>>73977084
I see, thanks.

>>73977105
Yeah, more or less.

I differentiate further between ratings by tagging my rates with a system out of 10, using increments of 0.25.

9.5, 9.75, 10, etc.

So there's a slight difference between a 9.5 and a ten for me, but if I rated it a 5, it's one of my favorites of all time and I listen to it (or at least did at one point) frequently.

I listen to an album 3-4 times before rating it, why in hell would I listen to something I hated 3 or 4 times? I Just don't rate it

>>73977154
This is the reason why rating after your first listen is the correct way to do it, if its good, it will click, if its not, you rate it low.

>>73977183
But what if an album isn't nearly as good after the first listen?
What if you were in a good/bad mood that day and that affected how you perceived the album?
Listening to an album a single time isn't a totally accurate way of determining how you feel about an album, multiple listens (even if it is just 2) rounds out how you actually feel about a piece of work.

>>73977183
It just doesn't make any sense