#309

Nothing can be perfect, nothing can never be improved upon.
Thats why 5 shouldnā€™t and doesnā€™t mean perfect to most people. I consider people who look at 10s and 5s that way as people impossible to please that will never be satisfied.

3 Likes
#310

so in my opinion nothing should get a 5 or a 10, in a 100 point system I could see someone making a case for a 95 or something for the greatest achievements in human history maybe, the smaller the scale the more nuance is squashed into the same ranking.

5/5 by very definition means something that is impossible to be improved upon, or at least as plainly as 2+2 = 4

#311

Iā€™d like to see where you found the definition of 5/5

Perfect scores only mean perfect on something that cane be objectively scored as ā€˜perfectā€™ for example 100% on a test would be perfect or 5/5 on a test would be perfect because you fulfilled a certain set of criteria.

You cannot put the same rules into something subjective as there is no criteria to meet. Itā€™s more of a ā€˜how much did I like this thingā€™ anything external doesnā€™t matter. The rest of human achievements dont matter, if you LOVE something then you love it. It shouldnā€™t be put alongside anything else, really, you cant benchmark music. Itā€™s impossible. So you shouldnā€™t try, it sucks all the enjoyment out of it to grade it analytically like that.

1 Like
#312

so what you are saying is that you cannot rank it at all, which is fine!

if you put something at the top of a 5 point scale, you are saying itā€™s impossible for it to be any better. If it could be any better then you have no way of expressing that and as such you made an error. Iā€™m not sure scales or grades can be assigned outside of their relationship to other things anyway or they would be meaningless.

Like say for instance you said ā€œhow good is everything?ā€ thatā€™s kind of a meaningless statement as you need to be able to measure everything against something which isnā€™t possible as there is nothing external to rate against.

#313

Nah a 5 just means I love it. I love not setting up ceilings to my enjoyment :slight_smile:

That is where my opinion on a 5 begins and ends - do i love it? IF yes then its a 5 and a full-hearted recommendation for anyone who asks me for recommendations. 4 is something I enjoy a lot but donā€™t fall in love with and 3 is varying degrees of meh.

1 Like
#314

I think this is a good system. If you make the criteria for a 5 unattainable, thereā€™s no point having it there and you may as well just have marked out of 4. For me, 1 is 0-20%, 2 is 21-40% etc. so a five just means that in my subjective opinion, itā€™s in the top quintile of music.

It also doesnā€™t need overthinking - itā€™s just a framework to hang some interesting chat on. Not life or death.

2 Likes
#315

well itā€™s fine for you to feel like you donā€™t want to dissect something further but if people believe something is great but can be improved upon (which I feel about all music) then they are committing to doing that extra critique and shouldnā€™t be giving something a 5/5 because they have already admitted to themselves that there is room for improvement. This is why 5/5 does not mean ā€œgreatā€

#316

In your opinion, there is no set definition.

Its a 5 point scale without any defined meaning to the numbers.

#317

Iā€™ve explained why there is a set definition but I donā€™t think youā€™re going to agree so ok

#318

There isnā€™t though? Thats why when you get a questionnaire it usually has two words on either side of the scale

#319

Like literally the only person who can define the meaning of the scale we vote on is @anon19035908 because hes the one creating the poll shrugs

This is why rateyourmusic.com asks you to ideally put a text assigned to each star rating you give because there is no UNIVERSAL definition to the star rating system

#320

yeah I think thatā€™s slightly different though because ā€œhow much do you like x from 1 - 5 where 1 is strongly dislike and 5 is strongly likeā€ is not the same as saying something is 5/5. The numbers in the scale might be the same but the defined relationship between them is different

#321

But I mean Iā€™m pretty sure Funkhauser is asking us how much we like something? We ainā€™t here studying the band and deciding what their score is. I doubt anyone here, except you maybe, is actually rating the way you appear to be. Iā€™m 99.99% sure that literally, everyone else here is scoring an artist by how much they LIKE them. Otherwise, what the fuck are we doing here, itā€™s certainly not scientific.

#322
  • How much you like them
  • Science!

0 voters

#323

fucking hell

7 Likes
#324

look Iā€™m only replying to what you said in relation to it being stupid and your scoring system and explaining why the terms of the scoring system imply this is not the case

#325

this is a false dichotomy too

#326

like if you rate 3 artists a 5/5 on a 5 point system where they are all rated against each other then you are saying there is no distinction in the quality between these and that there cannot be something which would score higher. If you are saying there is nothing that cannot be improved upon youā€™re saying that you can imagine an artist that has improved upon the 5 you have given. If that happens you have no way to express this and they remain a 5/5 with no distinction.

Am I going mad? Seems to make sense to me

#327

the point isnā€™t the criteria which you are assessing, e.g how much you enjoy listening to something, an objective or moral value or whatever, the point is that regardless of whatever metric you have placed it at the top of a scale

#328

I donā€™t think your definition applies to me
https://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Thelordofduckness/r5.0