"So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying."
... fredphoesh, you need a new hobby.
Maybe it's a fun hobby: contemplating ordinal and interval ratings scales and the semantics involved - one could make a living doing such things. Plus, how often do you get the use the word "puerile" twice in one diatribe, make that the first post in a newly-created forum thread, and then paste that same diatribe in the comments sections for two different songs?
I am finding the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived and annoying.
I like the idea of a rating system, but strongly dislike the way RP has given puerile and barely distinguishable descriptions to each of the 1-10 scores. There are three chunks of scores which are almost impossible to separate, and it therefore weakens the use of a scoring system instead of making it more fun/insightful.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same 10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too 7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
"So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying."
Those adjectives better apply to you, I think. This post reminds me of (former?) RP member rdo.
You assume that people actually adjust their rating of a song according to the description RP provides for each number in the rating. I don't think most people look at those descriptions. People raise or lower their rating of a song based on their mood or the average rating of other members or...who knows. The rating system is not a rational or reliable yardstick. It's diversive fun that might in aggregate be slightly useful to Bill and Rebecca when they review their playlists.
I am finding the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived and annoying.
I like the idea of a rating system, but strongly dislike the way RP has given puerile and barely distinguishable descriptions to each of the 1-10 scores. There are three chunks of scores which are almost impossible to separate, and it therefore weakens the use of a scoring system instead of making it more fun/insightful.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same 10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too 7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Nothing stopping you from using a 1-3-6-9 rating system.
Or whatever else you like. The only difference it makes is when you click the Play Something I Like stream.
Other people's ratings depend on their personal strictness, and everyone else is full of shit, anyway.
I am finding the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived and annoying.
I like the idea of a rating system, but strongly dislike the way RP has given puerile and barely distinguishable descriptions to each of the 1-10 scores. There are three chunks of scores which are almost impossible to separate, and it therefore weakens the use of a scoring system instead of making it more fun/insightful.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same 10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too 7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Location: right behind you. no, over there. Gender:
Posted:
Apr 23, 2019 - 2:25pm
fredphoesh wrote:
I am finding the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived and annoying.
I like the idea of a rating system, but strongly dislike the way RP has given puerile and barely distinguishable descriptions to each of the 1-10 scores. There are three chunks of scores which are almost impossible to separate, and it therefore weakens the use of a scoring system instead of making it more fun/insightful.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same 10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too 7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Well, you're just a little ray of sunshine, ain't ya?
I am finding the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived and annoying.
I like the idea of a rating system, but strongly dislike the way RP has given puerile and barely distinguishable descriptions to each of the 1-10 scores. There are three chunks of scores which are almost impossible to separate, and it therefore weakens the use of a scoring system instead of making it more fun/insightful.
Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same 10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.
Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too 7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.
The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.
Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....
So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
