What do you think is the ideal numerical rating system?

[CharlesAznable]

Personally, I think I'm really starting to like just having binary options. I think the less numbers you have the better. Once you go over 5, I feel like most people stop using the full scale, which imo defeats the purpose of having all those values.

 

[Deleted member 16908]

5/7

 

[Woolley]

I miss when Netflix used stars so I'm gonna go with the 5 star rating.

 

[SteveWinwood]

when i started doing stuff on letterboxd i just stuck with 5 stars, no halves

seems to work well

although a four star ends up being a pretty big range (as does a 3 to be honest)

heres the distribution

having more fours than three makes sense to me because i dont watch every movie ever, im not a reviewer

i gravitate towards things that are good and ill like and enjoy and usually im right so it all works out

 

[Septimus Prime]

I think 10, but then people add BS decimal values to it. Might as well use 100 then, jerk.

 

[Soda]

Out of 100, but allowing up to two decimal places e.g. 78.23/100.00.

 

[samoyed]

No rating system needs 3 digits of accuracy. There is no functional difference between an 89/100 and 88/100 except for online nerds who need to log off to bicker about.

 

[SteveWinwood]

maybe i should adopt a system thats out of 1,000,000 so i can get tons of granularity there

 

[Acetown]

A five point scale is good. Beyond that ratings become difficult to quantify, which leads to score inflation.

 

[Curler]

Why I can see how 10 scale would work, I have a hard time weighing anything below a 5. 5 to me is "meh", 1 is "complete trash" but anything 2-4 is just hard for me to grade. I often find stuff "meh" (5) or "ok" (6), but the rest takes too much thought.

5 is just easier to scale for enjoyment, for me personally.

 

[Vilam]

I like the nuance that a scale of 100 provides.

 

[Mortemis]

A scale of 10 works well for most things, so long as you don't use decimals. If you do, you might as well move to a 100 scale.

 

[Heart of Poumn]

x/10 and % are flawed because you can't train people to not see them like school grading, rendering half of your values worthless.

 

[Servbot24]

100 is objectively the best because it allows people who want to use nuance to use nuance, while people who prefer rounded numbers are still free to use rounded numbers.

maybe i should adopt a system thats out of 1,000,000 so i can get tons of granularity there

Click to shrink...

If you got the skills then by all means! Don't let Gamers tell you what to do.

 

[Gernau Morat Gurgeh]

Base 8

 

[halcali]

★★★★★★★ (Masterpiece)
★★★★★★☆ (Classic)
★★★★★☆☆ (Good)
★★★★☆☆☆ (Average)
★★★☆☆☆☆ (Mediocre)
★★☆☆☆☆☆ (Bad)
★☆☆☆☆☆☆ (Terrible)
☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ (Unwatchable/Unplayable)

--or--

S
AA
A
BB
B
CC
C

 

[ninnanuam]

I can deal with 10 but I think 5 is where it's at.
Awful, meh, ok, good, great.

It's not as granular at 10 but I usually don't have the time to get super granular these days anyway.

 

[samoyed]

S
AA
A
BB
B
CC
C

Click to shrink...

Ah the Japanese fighting game tier list which collapses down to S and A most of the time.

 

[questionmark]

Other:

 

[halcali]

Base 8

Click to shrink...

Yes, I like this the best. For example, a score of 3.5 stars out of 4 is too great a range to differenciate the quality of certain films.
For example, Jurassic Park is a 3 out of 4 star film, but so is Toy Story 2. It would be a bit more helpful to have a total of 8 marks: Jurassic Park = 6 out of 8 stars; Toy Story 2 = 5 out of 8 stars. =p

 

[Avitus]

A simple yes/no is best with enough sample size, like Steam.

 

[bionic77]

Anything numerical is stupid because it leads to comparisons, which makes no sense when talking about art.

Something like thumbs up is great and then the critic has to explain what was good or bad about whatever it is that they are reviewing.

 

[halcali]

Ah the Japanese fighting game tier list which collapses down to S and A most of the time.

Click to shrink...

lol. Hey, i could've gone full FGC:

X
SS+
SS
S
AA
A
BB
B

etc. etc.

 

[CONCHOBAR]

I personally use a 5 point scale, with half points (so ratings of 3.5 are possible). You might think that's just a ten point scale, and you'd be right, but it's all in the presentation; a 3/5 reads a LOT better than 6/10.

 

[halcali]

Anything numerical is stupid because it leads to comparisons, which makes no sense when talking about art.

Something like thumbs up is great and then the critic has to explain what was good or bad about whatever it is that they are reviewing.

Click to shrink...

it's stupid, yes. However, it leads to discussion and debate, which I like. =p

 

[TAJ]

I miss when Netflix used stars so I'm gonna go with the 5 star rating.

Click to shrink...

The stars weren't what was good about Netflix's system. Stars are garbage by themselves.
The most useful system is Terrible/Bad/Ok/Good/Great, with stars used only as shorthand.

 

[hiredhand]

I voted 5 stars. 10/10 is okay too but that amount of granularity feels like an overkill in the lower end of the scale (basically everything below 4).

 

[halcali]

10/10 is the worst scale imaginable because of the "average" definition being different for every individual.

 

[FerrisBueller]

Dislike/like/love

For me that would cover everything perfectly. Numerical scores, or grades just seem awkward and annoying/stupid to me. If I don't like something then it doesn't need to be more specific than that.

 

[Unknownlight]

Letter grade system, but with an S and no +'s or -'s.

S
A
B
C
D
F

Basically, it's three positive values and three negative values. "Amazing, Great, Good" | "Mediocre, Bad, Awful". The 5-star scale is slightly too limited for me personally.

 

[Keyser S]

 

[Burly]

A color scale between infrared and ultra violet. I give the Last Jedi a dark salmon.

 

[nullref]

"Good/bad" doesn't encompass the full range of reactions; x/10 is pointlessly granular. Out of 4 or 5 makes the most sense.

when i started doing stuff on letterboxd i just stuck with 5 stars, no halves

seems to work well

although a four star ends up being a pretty big range (as does a 3 to be honest)

Click to shrink...

I do the same, but yeah, 3/5 gets a lot of use. Truly terrible movies are pretty obvious and easy to avoid, so that's the rating for anything basically enjoyable, but nothing special.

 

[halcali]

Letter grade system, but with an S and no +'s or -'s.

S
A
B
C
D
F

Basically, it's three positive values and three negative values. "Amazing, Great, Good" | "Mediocre, Bad, Awful". The 5-star scale is slightly too limited for me personally.

Click to shrink...

This is a bit too simple, perhaps, because it follows the American education system of grading. (A, B, C, D, F)
Looks/feels like a teacher is grading these media. =p

 

[halcali]

Unbridled Hatred/Dislike/like/love

For me that would cover everything perfectly. Numerical scores, or grades just seem awkward and annoying/stupid to me. If I don't like something then it doesn't need to be more specific than that.

Click to shrink...

fixed. =p

 

[TAJ]

Letter grade system, but with an S and no +'s or -'s.

S
A
B
C
D
F

Basically, it's three positive values and three negative values. "Amazing, Great, Good" | "Mediocre, Bad, Awful". The 5-star scale is slightly too limited for me personally.

Click to shrink...

'Mediocre' is too close to 'ok' for your scale. I'd replace it with 'subpar'.
That said, I don't like your scale because there's no middle ground, no room for 'meh'.

 

[Ultimate Bear Cub]

I grew up with 10/10, but for everyday sorting and minimalism I use a 3-system. Keep it, sell it, throw it away. It also folds well into rock-paper-scissor decisions.

‏‏‎ ‏‏‎ ‏‏‎ ✊
🖐✌

 

[LazyLain]

Voted 5, but I actually think 6 (0-5 instead of 1-5) is better. I don't like there being a perfect midpoint between the good and the bad ends of the spectrum, it feels like a bit of a copout... a score should lean in one direction or the other, if only slightly.

Personally my preferred scoring method which I use on Letterboxd, which really only works on an individual basis, is to use the entire spectrum of possible scores equally and to rate things relative to the other things I've seen. Effectively a tier list, with the caveat that I must use each tier equally and not just lump everything into the high tiers.

 

[Lord Azrael]

10 point system is the best, as long as people use the whole scale and use 5 to mean middle of the road/wholly mediocre

 

[HououinKyouma]

0) Terrible
1) Poor
2) Mediocre
3) Average
4) Good
5) Excellent

 

[halcali]

Voted 5, but I actually think 6 (0-5 instead of 1-5) is better. I don't like there being a perfect midpoint between the good and the bad ends of the spectrum, it feels like a bit of a copout... a score should lean in one direction or the other, if only slightly.

Personally my preferred scoring method which I use on Letterboxd, which really only works on an individual basis, is to use the entire spectrum of possible scores equally and to rate things relative to the other things I've seen. Effectively a tier list, with the caveat that I must use each tier equally and not just lump everything into the high tiers.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, 4, 6, 8 are better than 5, 7

(for the reasons you mentioned)

 

[halcali]

0) Terrible
1) Poor
2) Mediocre
3) Average
4) Good
5) Excellent

Click to shrink...

This is basically perfect! Simple n clean. <3

 

[Deleted member 4212]

5 stars makes the most sense to me

1 - bad
2 - not good, but has some merit
3 - average
4 - above average
5 - very good

 

[Unknownlight]

'Mediocre' is too close to 'ok' for your scale. I'd replace it with 'subpar'.
That said, I don't like your scale because there's no middle ground, no room for 'meh'.

Click to shrink...

That's on purpose. When it comes down to it, there's no media I can think where I haven't been able to decide whether my feelings toward it leaned toward positive or negative. A "meh" would get a C. If it wasn't that interesting, then I think it deserves to be on the negative half of the scale.

 

[Van Bur3n]

It's all arbitrary nonsense, so I suggest we utilize a skunk. We face the skunk towards the mirror and if it recognizes itself, the game is good. If it does not then the game is still good. However, if it squirts, the game is bad.

 

[gforguava]

The best system is the "gif out of 10" system, where you make a gif from the film in question that encapsulates your feelings on the film/is just a moment you want to highlight...and then you write "out of 10" because grading systems for art are stupid.

The Birthday:

out of 10

Dark Waters:

out of 10

 

[feline fury]

20-80, baseball scouting style

50 is average, 10 point increments above/below for each standard deviation from the mean

 

[jett]

5/5 is more than enough.

100/100 is idiotic.

 

[TAJ]

That's on purpose. When it comes down to it, there's no media I can think where I haven't been able to decide whether my feelings toward it leaned toward positive or negative. A "meh" would get a C. If it wasn't that interesting, then I think it deserves to be on the negative half of the scale.

Click to shrink...

Really? I can think of three in the MCU alone.

 

[TripleBee]

10

5 stars creates this zone of 3-4 where everying just blends together imo. Since most people reserve "Perfect" scores to only a few items, and 1-2 is generally considered trash.