Rating YOUR ratings?!

[ImpracticalDino]

Hello-o-o, Mu-u-ud Brotherrrs!

Yesterday, @StardustSoldier gave this fishy the inspiration to talk about a topic that I think is quite interesting. This involves any movies, books, or any type of medium really that can be reviewed and rated upon. When rating something we invest our time in, the point of that is to gauge how much we liked/enjoyed the thing we indulged in already. To have a tangible, quick basis on how we measure our like/dislike for something, we usually score something numerically or by quantity.

It can be something like, rating an LBT film from a numerical range of 0-5, 0-10, 0-100, with 0 being the worst dislike and the highest number being the best enjoyment/like, for example. You can also rate something numerically by quantity of something tangible, like from 0-5 stars. More uncommonly (though commonly in academics), things can be rated based on the alphabet from a scale of A to F, with A being the best and F being the worst quality letter grade.

With that out of the way, this leads me to something that I've kinda pondered for awhile now. What exactly do any of the ratings given out mean to us personally? What makes a film a 5/10, 7/10, 9/10, and so on? There are certainly a lot of nuance and biases to take into account when we assign a numerical value or letter grade to something that we've watched, read, used, etc.

For example, we all have varying opinions on what a number rating from 0-10 can actually mean. For some, a 5/10 simply means average. Not bad, not good. Some start at that rating as a base line. Some can also use that rating for something that may be pretty bad but just want to be nice about it. And as for being nice, 7/10 is usually considered "good" but nothing more. Usually used as a safe rating by many reviewers that do not want to give something a higher or lower rating for some reason, perhaps this rating is a baseline for some as well. And sometimes, the same ratings can mean something different depending on your personal varying standards or comparison to something else you've already rated.

What does everyone here think about the way they review and rate certain things? When giving out specific ratings, like 5/10 or 7/10 for example, why was that rating assigned personally in the first place? What standard or line of thought led to that? Can it be justified? Let Mo-o-o know! I'm super interested in the insight and reflections about this.

[StardustSoldier]

A long time ago, I used to write and post reviews on Amazon, where you had to assign a rating from 1 to 5 stars. I've seen the letter grade system (A-F) too before.

Generally though, I prefer to rate things out of 10. For me, it goes like this...
- 10/10: Incredible
- 9/10: Fantastic
- 8/10: Great
- 7/10: Good
- 6/10: Decent
- 5/10: Okay
- 4/10: Unpleasant
- 3/10: Bad
- 2/10: Terrible
- 1/10: Horrendous

I don't actually have a 0/10 rating, even though it would make sense to have one. I guess because it's rare for me to dislike something so much that I'd even hand out a 'horrendous' rating, so on the rare occasions when I see something that bad, a 1/10 serves the purpose well enough as it is.

[Sneak]

I have a special system:
When I rate anything, at first, I give a rate from 1 to 5:

1 - worst / shame / disaster
2- bad / weak / disappointing
3 - normal / average / not as expected
4 - good / likable / surprising
5 - perfect / adoring / masterpiece

and then, I convert it to 10-grade system.

1 -> 1/2
2 -> 3/4
3 -> 5/6
4 -> 7/8
5 -> 9/10

where a lower number means there're some issues that lower the rating a little, and likewise, good moments increase the rating a little. And for the last, in some cases, if I can't decide what number between two rates should I give, I simply add fraction (.5) to a lower number.

[ImpracticalDino]

O-o-o-oh... Mo-o-o see. So far, from what I've gathered from both of you, giving something literally no points is not something that's really done generally. Or at least, I believe its because there is nothing out there that probably would deserve a 0. Some exceptions could be something that is done horribly on purpose or something that could literally be harmful to you or other people potentially?

A long time ago, I used to write and post reviews on Amazon, where you had to assign a rating from 1 to 5 stars. I've seen the letter grade system (A-F) too before.

Lol, even though Amazon wouldn't allow people to rate anything lower than a 1, imo it's warranted in a few occasions. For example, if an item literally doesn't work at all with zero redeeming qualities about it, then it would probably deserve a 0, right? Though that would probably be reserved for quite rare occasions. What do-o-o yo-o-ou think? I'm curious about your Amazon review past.

I have a special system:
When I rate anything, at first, I give a rate from 1 to 5:

1 - worst / shame / disaster
2- bad / weak / disappointing
3 - normal / average / not as expected
4 - good / likable / surprising
5 - perfect / adoring / masterpiece

Mo-o-o kinda like what your going with as you describe each tier of your ratings from 1 to 5. Three different adjectives to describe each layer of points that can be given to whatever your reviewing. Your intention with those three adjectives (though I'm probably overreaching here ) was to give yourself a different metric of why you gave something, like a book or film piece, the rating that you did. Like for example, giving The Land Before Time movie a 5/5, and based on the adjectives for that rating, you probably would say that it was a perfect movie which is why it deserved a 5/5. However, another reason could be, while you didn't think it was perfect or a masterpiece entirely per say, but you really loved and adored the movie personally and gave it a high rating for that, right? Let me know your thoughts about that.

[Sneak]

I am not sure I understood your question.

'perfect' / 'masterpiece' is about my personal liking.
I am not into movies critique, or rating how movie was made from technical point of view.

I try to understand what emotions did movie give me with its general combination of drawing style, atmosphere, plot, storytelling, characters, etc. AND - I also take into account a 'background' information, especially if the movie is part of the series, or it was based on a different source.

[ImpracticalDino]

@Sneak: Ah, okay. So it is generally about personal liking/enjoyment of something. Thank yo-o-ou! Yep, yep, yep. Your explanation here does answer my concerns about how you view your rating scale there.


And Mo-o-o is quite the same actually. I'm quite glad to not have been lured into the overly seriously, overly cynical, potentially nitpicky world of "professional" film/media/book critique. Not that those type of reviews don't have any merits at all, but in my opinion that can just really ruin the overall experience of letting go, enjoying, and indulging into a series or film. In many cases it can help you really appreciate and love something that you already like in the first place, but in other cases it can lead to you just being overly critical, negative, nitpicky, and downright ruins your chances of being able to like something that you could probably enjoy in the first place if those "critical" analysis glasses were just taken off. It reminds me of a channel called CinemaSins. At first it was sort of funny to me, then I quickly realized how the channel was really souring the enjoyment and perception of some things that I was watching (plus the people "sinning" some of the films they choose on their channel, literally shows that they have zero clue or research on what they're talking about for many things. And if your curious more about it, there are some debunking videos of CinemaSins out there).

Though in the end, I suppose its all about the balance. Being able to enjoy something despite being able to also see the flaws of a technical or professional aspect is a great mindset for professional reviewers to have. It should be a way to keep those people level-grounded and appreciate what they are analyzing in front of them no matter the end product.