[QUOTE=dgg;46854975]"I have this really great comeback that will totally destroy your arguments but I won't share them because it's late and everyone will dislike me"
Yeees...[/QUOTE]
Fuck it. Back in ten minutes.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
I said it because I disagree with you extremely strongly and would/will give a long response, but now I've been provoked.
[QUOTE=JesseR92;46854922]What is this rating site?[/QUOTE]
Here you go: [url]http://mal.oko.im/[/url]
[QUOTE=Reds;46854981]Fuck it. Back in ten minutes.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
I said it because I disagree with you extremely strongly and would/will give a long response, but now I've been provoked.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I'm extremely intimidated by long responses, that's why I make them myself.
[QUOTE=dgg;46855056]Yes, I'm extremely intimidated by long responses, that's why I make them myself.[/QUOTE]
I'm not worried about you, it's everybody else who has to sit through it.
[QUOTE=Reds;46854741]I don't want to watch EoE because in the regular Evangelion ending, he works out his issues. In EoE, he masturbates to Asuka's comatose body which I cannot see Shinji doing other than Anno going "GUYS THIS IS YOU I DON'T LIKE YOU GUYS VERY MUCH STOP MASTURBATING TO 14 YEAR OLD GIRLS".
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
"NOW BUY FIFTY MORE STATUES AND ASSORTED MERCH, UNCLE ANNO NEEDS TO BUY ANOTHER ISLAND"[/QUOTE]
EoE and the ending of the series are both sides of the same coin, they're different perspectives on the same events though. The message from one doesn't invalidate the other; EoE was made to expand the narrative of the last two episodes of Eva, not to replace it outright like what Rebuild is supposed to do.
[QUOTE=Reds;46855106]I'm not worried about you, it's everybody else who has to sit through it.[/QUOTE]
It's easy to see that there is a big bunch of text that they can just scroll past.
also, when you see this, you think that everything there seems good and should be watched except Annie?
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3655193/ratingsspectrumimdb.jpg[/t]
I interpret it thusly:
I should definitely watch Game of Thrones
I would most likely have a good time with Gone Girl
The Interview might be worth watching
Exodus is probably not good
Annie is shit
I wouldn't compare imdb scores with say mal or something. If you were to not watch movies and such that have a 6 or 7 score on imdb you would most likely miss out on a lot of good movies but same can't really be said about mal imo.
the ratings i use are butts, the more butts the better (trap butts are worth 3-8 butts, depending on the trap)
[QUOTE=Charm6000;46854849]thats my mal ratings in a nutshell
[IMG]http://mal.oko.im/export/Darklight10k/eyJ0eXBlIjoxfQ/image.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pLCVW8S.png?1[/IMG][/QUOTE]
This is just wrong.
You basically rate everything 7 or 8.
[editline]4th January 2015[/editline]
Also, i see we are back to good old FA: Discussing ratings.
Fourth day into 2015 and we did it.
EDIT:
[img]http://a.pomf.se/lhcyzl.Png[/img]
My scale is centered around 7 because i usually just drop anything i'd rate under 6 before finishing, and don't rate them at all.
[QUOTE=dgg;46854949]It's not ridiculous at all, you have 3 increments of even higher enjoyment over a 7. Do you see those feelings behind those numbers? (average) (fine) (good) (very good) (great) (masterpiece)? They perfectly represent my way of rating shows.
[/QUOTE]
Having that many options is very important for recommendations. The problem is that it renders everything below that pointless. Thus the reviewer scale. Anything below "really good" becomes "trash" automatically. In an ideal world, "six" becomes "competent but your enjoyment varies depending on the viewer" while seven is a concrete good. But this is just getting into the "nobody can agree on a rating scale" thing again.
Keep in mind that from this point on my opinion on the rating scale is not the ideal objective one, it's from a practical viewpoint. When "don't watch" starts at six, there is no practical difference having 1-5 other than to "it only sucked a bit" to "IT REALLY SUCKED". I look at it from the practical viewpoint of "watch it or not". But I would also like to say that when I say "the reviewer's scale" i talk about how rather than the full scale be used everything gets shoved into 6-7-8-9-10 with seven being treated as average. That's poor use of the scale as a result of "average" being equated to bad.
[QUOTE=dgg;46854949]
When I want to entertain myself I don't want to entertain myself with something that is literally exactly like everything else (5, everything about anything is completely dead average, bland, boring, uninspired).
7 is the rating most shows ends up in, because most shows are made by competent people that know how to write, animate, create sound, voice act, etc etc. But they still safe their shows (or the source material is safed) to fit a broad audience, taking little to no risks, but delivering good jokes/action/drama/whatever here and there, making it a show you enjoyed watching, but also not very memorable because nothing about it was anything special, it just did what it did well.
A 7 is for anything that was good enough for you to not regret watching, giving you some good moments often enough to keep the show interesting, but never really breaking any new boundaries or delivering anything excellent. This is why it ends up being the average rating, representing the average shows (because most shows are good, and good isn't good enough, the bar goes much higher than just good).
[/QUOTE]
Then that's a six. Fine, competent, but not memorable. Nothing to recommend. Nothing that makes it stand out. Seven then gives a firm "this is good and worth watching", with two more to show just how good it is before you get to "you absolutely must watch this". And again this ties into the reviewer's rating scale. Plenty to show just how much you like it, everything six and under might as well be a zero because while you can use it to show degrees of bad, it effectively doesn't matter because it's looked at from a "watch it or not" perspective. And by making seven the six, you have a four point scale. Don't watch, don't watch but not awful, good and worth watching, and really good.
[QUOTE=dgg;46854949]
The 5 star system is completely trash and lacks any form of nuance, I detest it so much. The 10 scale system is the minimum requirement for getting anything out of the ratings.
With the 5 star system I'm forced to rate 10/10 and 9/10 shows together as 5 stars, which completely and wholly misrepresents what I feel about the shows.[/QUOTE]
On an objective scale yeah, it's sure as hell not ideal. But when you give each star a strict category rather than treating it as a shrunken ten point scale it makes a lot more sense.
[QUOTE=dgg;46854949]
The 5 star system is completely trash and lacks any form of nuance, I detest it so much. The 10 scale system is the minimum requirement for getting anything out of the ratings.
With the 5 star system I'm forced to rate 10/10 and 9/10 shows together as 5 stars, which completely and wholly misrepresents what I feel about the shows.
I would have used Anilists 100 scale point system if I didn't have to adjust every damn thing I've watched to it (which is impossible since the ratings would be in retrospect).
[/QUOTE]
100 point system is probably the best since you get the most accurate results, and it would help with the awkward area between 6 and 7. But it doesn't solve the problem below six even if we get the ideal use of six and five as "average" without average automatically meaning bad.
[QUOTE=dgg;46854949]
Also where the fuck do you get the idea that "everything below eight is trash"? That's not what we're saying at all. Everything below eight isn't [B]recommendable[/B], it's shows you can watch and enjoy, but you won't enjoy them far as much as you could have enjoyed watching something else.[/QUOTE]
I believe I should have explained it by now. I believe that seven is the average "good and would recommend" in general taking the misuse of the scale in the general public eye into account.
[QUOTE=dgg;46854949]
There are literally thousands of fucking shows out there, why would you want to waste your time on deciding to watch anything that doesn't give you a lot of enjoyment? Why would you [B]want[/B] to watch something that is merely "good" instead of something that is "very good", "great" or "excellent"?[/QUOTE]
Because you're talking to the guy who watches a ton of obscure shit. Once you get out of the area of popular and well known stuff or cult classics with small but dedicated followings that insist something is good, you have a murky area where six and seven are unclear and you can only rely on them as loose guidelines to see if you'll like the show or not. Things that truly fall into the "watch it and decide for yourself" area. If we had an actual scale with a "your milage may vary" option and options like "this is not objectively really good but if x appeals to you you will like it a lot, and if you don't you'll think it's not very good" being taken into account. I'll note that the rest tends to be more specific than "watch if you like X genre".
There is a middle ground. You don't have to watch only amazing shows or the immediate options. You shouldn't boot out everything but the ones that rise to the top because you might find a gem dug into a corner by people not rating it highly enough initially or maybe it's something that appeals to what you like but rated poorly because it got rated by people who didn't care for what it was and became not particularly prominent. If I can watch a show and go "yeah, that was good, i enjoyed it" without jumping out of my seat then that's fine with me. Note that this part is something I'm explaining extremely poorly and may have to specify or change shit due to "wait shit i didn't mean what my words are saying". Because what I'm saying appears to be "it doesn't have to be really good to be really good". I suck at this.
Does that make any sense at all? Probably not. You've robbed me of an hour of sleep, you bastard. Not like I would have used it anyway. And I got interrupted halfway through for like 10-15 minutes anyway.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=dgg;46855127]It's easy to see that there is a big bunch of text that they can just scroll past.
also, when you see this, you think that everything there seems good and should be watched except Annie?
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3655193/ratingsspectrumimdb.jpg[/t]
I interpret it thusly:
I should definitely watch Game of Thrones
I would most likely have a good time with Gone Girl
The Interview might be worth watching
Exodus is probably not good
Annie is shit[/QUOTE]
That right there is a prime example of the "everything below 7 is shit" scale. Plus that type of "score" is only good for "dont watch/good/really good/amazing" style which is what you get when you average out what six hundred people think. You have presented exactly what not to do.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
The editor is broken so don't expect me to edit or correct any of that.
lmao @ fast anime arguing about ratings again
[QUOTE=Orkel;46855238]lmao @ fast anime arguing about ratings again[/QUOTE]
People who complained about the Endless Eight haven't seen shit.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=dgg;46855127]It's easy to see that there is a big bunch of text that they can just scroll past.
[/QUOTE]
It's kind of hilarious how this is the logical and mature thing to do, but in practice "just ignore it" in any sort of discussion thread has never been an actual option.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
I'll respond to whatever dgg says in his next post in in ten hours when nobody gives a shit.
I propose that we introduce a new anime ranking scale based from
-10 to 10, where each number represents a (or fractions of a) standard deviation from the mean on a normal distribution.
That way 0 is absolute average, everything below a 0 is increasingly worse and everything above is increasingly better. 90th percentile can be set as the "good" boundary as per Sturgeon's Law at around a 3 or a 4 to represent the average quality of anime people actually bother finishing.
In practice the average for a person's watchlist would float around a 3 or so since it's assumed most people avoid watching shows that are shit, so most people's ratings wouldn't align entirely with the actual rating mean. That said since it's based on a bellcurve numbers over a 7 or 8 or below a -7 or -8 would be nearly impossible to find since they would be extremely rare. A 10 would be like a once in a life time show or something.
Effectively the current 5 is the actual average, the current 7 is the practical average since people tend to watch above average anime (since there's too much average anime to watch), and you get a full range of 10 to describe either how terrible or how good a show is.
[editline]4th January 2015[/editline]
there problem solved go home
I rate Charm moe
[QUOTE=Shogoll;46855309]I propose that we introduce a new anime ranking scale based from
-10 to 10, where each number represents a (or fractions of a) standard deviation from the mean on a normal distribution.
That way 0 is absolute average, everything below a 0 is increasingly worse and everything above is increasingly better. 90th percentile can be set as the "good" boundary as per Sturgeon's Law at around a 3 or a 4 to represent the average quality of anime people actually bother finishing.
In practice the average for a person's watchlist would float around a 3 or so since it's assumed most people avoid watching shows that are shit, so most people's ratings wouldn't align entirely with the actual rating mean. That said since it's based on a bellcurve numbers over a 7 or 8 or below a -7 or -8 would be nearly impossible to find since they would be extremely rare. A 10 would be like a once in a life time show or something.
Effectively the current 5 is the actual average, the current 7 is the practical average since people tend to watch above average anime (since there's too much average anime to watch), and you get a full range of 10 to describe either how terrible or how good a show is.
[editline]4th January 2015[/editline]
there problem solved go home[/QUOTE]
I rate your rating system: too complicated/7
i started reading yotsubato and before i realized it im 7 volumes in
help
[QUOTE=Shogoll;46855309]I propose that we introduce a new anime ranking scale based from
-10 to 10, where each number represents a (or fractions of a) standard deviation from the mean on a normal distribution.
That way 0 is absolute average, everything below a 0 is increasingly worse and everything above is increasingly better. 90th percentile can be set as the "good" boundary as per Sturgeon's Law at around a 3 or a 4 to represent the average quality of anime people actually bother finishing.
In practice the average for a person's watchlist would float around a 3 or so since it's assumed most people avoid watching shows that are shit, so most people's ratings wouldn't align entirely with the actual rating mean. That said since it's based on a bellcurve numbers over a 7 or 8 or below a -7 or -8 would be nearly impossible to find since they would be extremely rare. A 10 would be like a once in a life time show or something.
Effectively the current 5 is the actual average, the current 7 is the practical average since people tend to watch above average anime (since there's too much average anime to watch), and you get a full range of 10 to describe either how terrible or how good a show is.
[editline]4th January 2015[/editline]
there problem solved go home[/QUOTE]
man how about mal just gets decimals and we calll it a day.
[QUOTE=Shogoll;46855309]I propose that we introduce a new anime ranking scale based from
-10 to 10, where each number represents a (or fractions of a) standard deviation from the mean on a normal distribution.
there problem solved go home[/QUOTE]
This is just a 20 point rating scale where 10 is the average instead of 5. No reason to have the minus scale.
[QUOTE=Nintendo-Guy;46855174]I wouldn't compare imdb scores with say mal or something. If you were to not watch movies and such that have a 6 or 7 score on imdb you would most likely miss out on a lot of good movies but same can't really be said about mal imo.[/QUOTE]
You look up information on movies with a score of 7 because there is potential there if you like the synopsis of the movie. A 7 on IMDB is far from a secure winner, the average rating seen on IMDB is just as with MAL, a 7.
No real difference between the two. They are both sites that tracks public ratings on shows on a 10 scale rating system.
[QUOTE=Reds;46855197]Having that many options is very important for recommendations. The problem is that it renders everything below that pointless. Thus the reviewer scale. Anything below "really good" becomes "trash" automatically. In an ideal world, "six" becomes "competent but your enjoyment varies depending on the viewer" while seven is a concrete good. But this is just getting into the "nobody can agree on a rating scale" thing again.[/QUOTE]
No, anything below "really good" becomes "uninteresting" automatically unless you're interested in what the show is about. A really high rating on something that doesn't interest you in the first place can tip you over to watching it and enjoying it because it's just really good.
A lesser rating on something that interests you means there is still hope for it to be just your thing and you should check it out, but if it doesn't even interest you in the first place it's probably safe to dismiss and pick a different show to watch, there are hundreds other shows with safer enjoyment bets to choose from.
[QUOTE=Reds;46855197]Keep in mind that from this point on my opinion on the rating scale is not the ideal objective one, it's from a practical viewpoint. When "don't watch" starts at six, there is no practical difference having 1-5 other than to "it only sucked a bit" to "IT REALLY SUCKED". I look at it from the practical viewpoint of "watch it or not". But I would also like to say that when I say "the reviewer's scale" i talk about how rather than the full scale be used everything gets shoved into 6-7-8-9-10 with seven being treated as average. That's poor use of the scale as a result of "average" being equated to bad.[/QUOTE]
"Don't watch" starts at 5, "you probably shouldn't watch this" is 6, "if you like what you hear, go for it" is 7.
Average is bad. I honestly for the life of me can't understand why anyone in the whole wide world would ever consider "average" as a positive word. Being average is a really bad thing, if you're average you're indistinguishable from anything else on the planet, there is nothing that makes you different from anything else, you're just a compiled bunch of standards, mindless predictable re-cycled trash. You do absolutely nothing to distinguish yourself from everyone else, everything is replaceable and nobody would give a damn if you did.
Not even managing to be average is just downright terrible, being average should be the default place you end up when making something, when everyone is just trying their best at mimicking the stuff they've seen is popular or the stuff they like, where you do everything by the book. Managing to do worse than the expected, worse than what you'd think any feasible person trying to enter the industry should be capable of doing, then you go below average. You go below *yet another superhero movie*.
Just like you have a nuance of "good" you have a nuance of "bad"
I use the whole rating spectrum, but luckily most shows are more than competent enough to have lesser or greater amounts of variations in their production quality that distinguishes them from the expected. Being worse than a 5 isn't something that should ever happen in a professional product, but it does happen, but most people are competent and good enough at their job to deliver at least subpar products, rather than trash.
[QUOTE=Reds;46855197]Then that's a six. Fine, competent, but not memorable. Nothing to recommend. Nothing that makes it stand out. Seven then gives a firm "this is good and worth watching", with two more to show just how good it is before you get to "you absolutely must watch this". And again this ties into the reviewer's rating scale. Plenty to show just how much you like it, everything six and under might as well be a zero because while you can use it to show degrees of bad, it effectively doesn't matter because it's looked at from a "watch it or not" perspective. And by making seven the six, you have a four point scale. Don't watch, don't watch but not awful, good and worth watching, and really good.[/QUOTE]
That's not what I described. I described a competent show with highpoints, moments that genuinely makes you care for it whilst watching, not so much when done, but during the run it's good, it just doesn't have anything that sticks with you. In the end, because nothing really stuck with you about the show it ended up as a timewaster (timewaster is not as negative a term as it sounds, it basically means the show had potential to be really good), you can watch it and enjoy it and not regret watching it, but ultimately you could have watched something better.
A 6 is a competent show, a show that shows some effort to rise above, but doesn't really succeed at it, it doesn't really have those highpoints, you hardly ever laugh at the jokes or find the action that interesting, it does happen but it's far and few between. It was a waste of time to watch in the end because it never really delivered, but you could see that it could have been something.
[QUOTE=Reds;46855197]On an objective scale yeah, it's sure as hell not ideal. But when you give each star a strict category rather than treating it as a shrunken ten point scale it makes a lot more sense.[/QUOTE]
I want to inflict my opinions into the ratings, otherwise rating makes no sense. Ratings are cancer in the first place, no need to strip them off feelings as well.
It's especially dumb how most 5 star rating systems operate in half-stars based on the average but doesn't let you personally rate it half stars. A really shitty middle-ground. "here is that rating you want to give that you can't give"
[QUOTE=Reds;46855197]100 point system is probably the best since you get the most accurate results, and it would help with the awkward area between 6 and 7. But it doesn't solve the problem below six even if we get the ideal use of six and five as "average" without average automatically meaning bad.[/QUOTE]
I still don't understand why you think it's a problem that most shows are so good they peak above 5.
[QUOTE=Reds;46855197]I believe I should have explained it by now. I believe that seven is the average "good and would recommend" in general taking the misuse of the scale in the general public eye into account.[/QUOTE]
I think both of those "general" were unnecessary and made your point really hard to decipher because I couldn't (can't?) make sense of what you're saying.
Yes I think most people would recommend 7/10 shows because they are solid shows that will most likely entertain you, personally I wouldn't because I don't think that is enough. The Simpsons can be entertaining as well, but it's clearly just brainless entertainment junk food, I could tell people to give it a try, but recommend it? When we have shows like Archer? Never in a million years.
I would only recommend something that is truly really good, something that you would be likely to enjoy even when you don't like the synopsis, setting or whatever, shows that have leeway to be liked less than I do and still be enjoyed. This is where the 8/10 = recommendable comes in, here the show is so enjoyable it's worth giving a shot even if it doesn't quite seem to taste, only if you hate what it's about should you not bother.
[QUOTE=Reds;46855197]Because you're talking to the guy who watches a ton of obscure shit. Once you get out of the area of popular and well known stuff or cult classics with small but dedicated followings that insist something is good, you have a murky area where six and seven are unclear and you can only rely on them as loose guidelines to see if you'll like the show or not. Things that truly fall into the "watch it and decide for yourself" area. If we had an actual scale with a "your milage may vary" option and options like "this is not objectively really good but if x appeals to you you will like it a lot, and if you don't you'll think it's not very good" being taken into account. I'll note that the rest tends to be more specific than "watch if you like X genre".[/QUOTE]
I don't understand, this is how you should percieve ratings at all times, not exclusively because you're looking for obscure shit.
If you're not inputting any form of personal input when looking at ratings then you're doing something incredibly wrong. If it sounds good and to your taste and the rating isn't absolutely terrible, give it a shot.
[QUOTE=Reds;46855197]There is a middle ground. You don't have to watch only amazing shows or the immediate options. You shouldn't boot out everything but the ones that rise to the top because you might find a gem dug into a corner by people not rating it highly enough initially or maybe it's something that appeals to what you like but rated poorly because it got rated by people who didn't care for what it was and became not particularly prominent. If I can watch a show and go "yeah, that was good, i enjoyed it" without jumping out of my seat then that's fine with me. Note that this part is something I'm explaining extremely poorly and may have to specify or change shit due to "wait shit i didn't mean what my words are saying". Because what I'm saying appears to be "it doesn't have to be really good to be really good". I suck at this.[/QUOTE]
And I've never argued against this? This is exactly what I believe as well.
[QUOTE=Reds;46855197]That right there is a prime example of the "everything below 7 is shit" scale. Plus that type of "score" is only good for "dont watch/good/really good/amazing" style which is what you get when you average out what six hundred people think. You have presented exactly what not to do.[/QUOTE]
Everything below 7 is probably uninteresting or not well done enough for me to waste time on.
That's the damn point of ratings though, it's a guideline for when you can't be arsed looking up reviews or actual feedback. The whole point of ratins is quickly summarizing popular opinion.
It's almost like you want the rating system to be something it can't be, nor was ever intended to be.
lmao a 4K couldn't even handle this shit
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/111996868/2015-1/Anime/Fast%20Anime.png[/t]
Speaking of "ratings"
My Bones binge has fully begun after Xam'd. I currently have two shows vying for sixth place in line, RahXephon and Skull Man.
Provide opinions, so that I may decide which comes first.
Man, this argument probably wouldn't even exist if people didn't use average to describe both a rating for a show and the median of ratings. There's also the problem of the average show [I]that exists[/I] and the average show [I]that you should watch.[/I]
[QUOTE=dgg;46854949]It's not ridiculous at all, you have 3 increments of even higher enjoyment over a 7. Do you see those feelings behind those numbers? (average) (fine) (good) (very good) (great) (masterpiece)? They perfectly represent my way of rating shows.
When I want to entertain myself I don't want to entertain myself with something that is literally exactly like everything else (5, everything about anything is completely dead average, bland, boring, uninspired).
7 is the rating most shows ends up in, because most shows are made by competent people that know how to write, animate, create sound, voice act, etc etc. But they still safe their shows (or the source material is safed) to fit a broad audience, taking little to no risks, but delivering good jokes/action/drama/whatever here and there, making it a show you enjoyed watching, but also not very memorable because nothing about it was anything special, it just did what it did well.
A 7 is for anything that was good enough for you to not regret watching, giving you some good moments often enough to keep the show interesting, but never really breaking any new boundaries or delivering anything excellent. This is why it ends up being the average rating, representing the average shows (because most shows are good, and good isn't good enough, the bar goes much higher than just good).
Also where the fuck do you get the idea that "everything below eight is trash"? That's not what we're saying at all. Everything below eight isn't [B]recommendable[/B], it's shows you can watch and enjoy, but you won't enjoy them far as much as you could have enjoyed watching something else.
There are literally thousands of fucking shows out there, why would you want to waste your time on deciding to watch anything that doesn't give you a lot of enjoyment? Why would you [B]want[/B] to watch something that is merely "good" instead of something that is "very good", "great" or "excellent"?
a 7/10 is a hollywood cookiecutter movie, they are all enjoyable, following all the guidelines on how to make a good movie, giving you just the amount of enjoyment you need to enjoy watching it, and then when you're done it's like "it was good" and then you forget entirely about the movie's existence because you've basically seen it done 5423 times before.[/QUOTE]
If "good" for you is something you [I]forget about[/I], then it's not "good".
Doesn't it seem ridiculous to say 8 is "you'll actually remember something about it"? To say that 7 is [I][B]forgettable[/B][/I]?
The average show is a 5. That's the fucking definition of average, the middle. The average show [I]that you would recommend watching[/I], on the other hand, is a 7, because you don't recommend anything that's 5 or below. It's a 7 instead of an 8 because shows work on a bell curve, there's not an equal amount of shows at each rating. A 5 not being recommendable doesn't mean it's bad. That doesn't mean it's good, either, though. It means it's [I]neutral[/I]. Okay. Forgettable.
Now, people only have so much time, they can't watch everything. If you're only looking for the best stuff and only look at ratings rather than premises, then you would cut that "recommendable" list in half and look at the upper half, only looking at 8, 9, and 10, with 7 as a "maybe". However, 7 now being a "maybe" [U]does not[/U] mean that it is merely "okay" or "forgettable". It means "it's pretty good, but I only have time for [I]the best[/I], so I'll save this for a rainy day". If you forget about a 7, then you either have bad memory or should rate the show lower than a 7.
[QUOTE=Die_Hard;46854539]tbh I'm just in title only Reds and Joe are the true mechafags ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ[/QUOTE]
i'm honored
[QUOTE=Last or First;46855968]
The average show is a 5. That's the fucking definition of average, the middle. [/QUOTE]
not really me getting into the discussion, but the average isn't the middle
(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10)/10=5.5
:eng101:
This entire page gave me a headache and my scrolling finger hurts
[QUOTE=SuperHoboMan;46856058]my scrolling finger hurts[/QUOTE]
a man invented this thing called the middle mouse button, that allows you scroll without using the wheel
[QUOTE=Taggart;46856085]a man invented this thing called the middle mouse button, that allows you scroll without using the wheel[/QUOTE]
I didn't expect an entire page filled with gigantic posts so I was scrolling normally and didn't know when it was going to end so I didn't want to just scroll past everything without looking
Also sorry for having arthritis
[QUOTE=Skwee;46856041]not really me getting into the discussion, but the average isn't the middle
(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10)/10=5.5
:eng101:[/QUOTE]
yes, well
you're a 5.5
I guess I should have said "the mean" or "median" rather than the middle.
But 5.5 is much closer to 5 than it is to 7.
And I'm just truncating the decimal.
To be honest, if I want to be [I]perfectly correct[/I] then I would have to rephrase what I said [I]drastically[/I], but for now, I think my point should be clear enough.
Basically: average show there is =/= average show you watch
[QUOTE=Last or First;46856130]yes, well
you're a 5.5
[/QUOTE]
hey man that was mean (see what I did there)
Even ignoring the math, dgg's scale isn't very practical. He leaves 3 ratings for something being recommendable, 1 for "maybe" and 6 for "this is crap why would you watch this". It's much more useful to have a wider variety ratings for stuff you recommend than to have a wider variety for [I]shit you're not even going to watch in the first place[/I]. With a scale where 5 is "the average show", you have 4 ratings for stuff you wouldn't recommend, 1 for maybe, and 5 for stuff you would recommend. That way, people can prioritize their "plan to watch" list a lot easier.
It's the difference between "hmm, both of these are an 8, which do I watch first..." and "this one's a 7 and that one's a 6, I'll watch the 7 first".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
