Rating scale manifesto

Lemonade

Lemonade

WOOPAGGING
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
It seems like this is the best place to discuss this. Rating scales out of 10 are rarely effective and therefore dumb. 9.3????? 7.5????? Why the hell are you giving these people high differentiated scores when you have 5 WHOLE number below (5 being generally the lowest rating found on a 10 scale). It's like why the hell are you having a scale where half the numbers you use 1/100 times?!?! To make people feel better or something? Suck it up.

Therefore, a 6 scale is usually the most optimal. Of course, No decimals are allowed. The scale is even because the odd scales don't force you to decide if something is good or not; you can just put the middle score when you aren't sure. 4 doesn't provide enough range, and 8 is too close to ten; there will be a concentration. 6 scales, people, and actually give 1-6 distributed evenly. (also note 6 is 2 times 3, the optimal count for the holy hand grenade, while 4 and 8 also make this multiplicative connection.)

Congratulations, you have now read a manifesto. You are now a communist. ( I am being serious for most of this)
 
lmao-434.jpg
 
Dear OP:

I will use girls as my example as you strike me as an upset 3 or possibly 2 girl and can relate as a quite likely ugly dumptruck yourself. 'Average' girls work at it and thusly become 6 or hopefully 7's and up. I'm sorry you're too ugly, lazy or ugly and lazy to crack the 5 barrier. No matter what number system you use, it's bipolar- WOULD YOU FUCK THIS YES OR NO. From there it's a simple matter of semantics..."8.9 vs 9.5" to me is really personal preference. What isn't personal preference, to me, is below a 6.5 (with a personality).

I'm so sorry for your misfortune. On the bright side, you can look forward to winning the heart of a man with 'personality' and 'character', not caring about how you look but more about your 'moral fibre' (and fully appreciative of your overt Doritos consumption).

Try not to die at the age of 35 from massive heart failure,

Morm
 
I usually rate girls based on the 1-10 system. Is this so wrong? It usually works and I find my friends are typically as shallow as I am. (yay)
 
cept when your friend engaged to a dumperoo thinks a legitimately attractive woman is ugly

then shit gets dicey
 
1-10 is kinda easier still.

Also if that ^ (morm's post) happens can't you just invert their score?
You don't have to tell them
 
This thread is bad, on a scale of

Fuck You / Don't Post Again / Really Bad / Bad / Whatever / Needs Improvement / I'm liking this / Good / Really Good / Awesome / Fantastic / Orgasmic


Natalie is

Fuck You / Don't Post Again / Really Bad / Bad / Whatever / Needs Improvement / I'm liking this / Good / Really Good / Awesome / Fantastic / Orgasmic
 
The tiny highschool I graduated from had an 11 point grading scale.

11.0 = A

It was a headache at times.

Oh, and also, I was in the top 10 students in my graduating class! Out of 24.
 
The issue with assigning decimal points in 10-point scales is that you're essentially transforming the scale into a 100-point scale. This is problematic in that even at the 10 point level it's hard to differentiate between two scores that are 1 level apart. What makes a score of 8 different than a score of 7 (and, even more extreme, how do you differentiate between a 97 and a 96)?

I find that when constructing my own rating scales, I like to use a 5-point scale. It's easy enough to differentiate between the different scores while (in my opinion) encompassing enough subtlety to be exhaustive. For example, I could have a scale consisting of

1 (strongly disagree) - 2 (disagree) - 3 (neutral) - 4 (agree) - 5 (strongly agree)

Others in psychological research like to use a 7-point rating scale, and I also have no problems with this scale.

One of the things to keep in mind with such scales, however, is that there are certain assumptions that you can't make. First of all, you cannot assume that a score of 4, for example, is twice as much as a score of 2, or even that the gap between a score of 5 and 4 is the same as the gap between 3 and 4. For example, if I were to ask "How important is religion to you?" on a 5-point scale, I would expect the "true" values of scores of 2, 3, and 4 to be much closer than the scores of 1 and 2, and 4 and 5, respectively.

Another thing to keep in mind is that such scales are entirely subjective, and that you cannot expect every person's scores to mean the same thing. To use a video games example, someone who plays primarily RPGs is going to score a platforming game differently than someone who is an avid platformer, even if they think the game is of the same general quality. I like the system that Nintendo Power used to use (and may still use; I haven't read the magazine in years), where below each review they would list which games the reviewer tended to play the most.

One issue that tends to come up when rating video games (and to a lesser extent movies) is that there are economic ramifications for these ratings. A system has been set up where, similar to the American academic grading system, the bare minimum for success is somewhere around a score of 7, with scores below that being seen as "bad". Reviewing companies will feel pressure from video game companies to inflate scores above that 7 score, whether overt (bribes) or subtle (advertising space, such as with the Kane and Lynch debacle).
 
I actually use a 19 point system: I go from 1-10, and I have .5s as my decimals. I used to inflate the scores, but I realized I was doing it, and scaled it back a bit. I still have it going on a little, such that average is probably 6.5 rather than 5.5. I have a thing about being really precise, though, which is why I can't go down to a 5 point system, or even a 10 point system. I usually try to pin things to whole numbers, but sometimes I can't decide whether a thing is a 6 or a 7, for example, so I just go with 6.5.

A thing I don't like about reducing the number of ratings is that things that deserve the top rating won't stand out, because other things will be up there too. On a 6 point scale, lots of things get a 6. On a 19 point scale, nothing gets a 10. Things that people might give a 10 are usually 9.5, and honestly, not much gets 9.5. Or 9.

A big problem with this scale is that I rate much harder on the top of the scale then on the bottom. With stuff that I don't like, I generally don't want to put a lot of thought into the rating, so usually 2/3/4 is sufficient for stuff that is bad (similar to 10, not much is so bad that it gets a 1). So in practice, it's really only a 15 point scale.
 
wer said alot of things that I was going to, but I've been thinking about the merits of the 6 point scale actually. The problem with 5 points is that most games fall under a 3, where there are alot of games that are definitely not great (4), but are above the average. The flipside is that most games that would be less than average are bad (2) anyway. So on this scale you would have Awful, Bad, Mediocre, Good, Great, and Amazing.
 
There should be a scale of 108, why?
  • Divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, 27, 36, 54 and 108!
  • Sounds cool.
  • Sum of numbers in LOST.
  • Number of souls in Spiritomb.
  • The distance between the Earth and Moon is 108 times the diameter of the Moon.
  • The atomic number of hassium.
  • Number of cards in UNO.
  • An official major league baseball baseball has 108 stitches.
  • Other stuff!!

This thread for example is 54/108!
 
Morm said:
Dear OP:

I will use girls as my example as you strike me as an upset 3 or possibly 2 girl and can relate as a quite likely ugly dumptruck yourself. 'Average' girls work at it and thusly become 6 or hopefully 7's and up. I'm sorry you're too ugly, lazy or ugly and lazy to crack the 5 barrier. No matter what number system you use, it's bipolar- WOULD YOU FUCK THIS YES OR NO. From there it's a simple matter of semantics..."8.9 vs 9.5" to me is really personal preference. What isn't personal preference, to me, is below a 6.5 (with a personality).

I'm so sorry for your misfortune. On the bright side, you can look forward to winning the heart of a man with 'personality' and 'character', not caring about how you look but more about your 'moral fibre' (and fully appreciative of your overt Doritos consumption).

Try not to die at the age of 35 from massive heart failure,

Morm
Click to expand...

So as long as I'm not a girl your argument has no worth?
 
It was an example, fuckstain, just add money to the mix and you get womens rating scale in the same damn post.
 
You didn't really add any money to the mix. All you did was tell your dumbass story. tell me why the fuck your story shows six scales don't matter since it seems you are sincerely trying to insult me. Or why don't you go through every single rating scale.

Learn to address the issue at hand. You seem to be perfect politician material.


Morm said:
virgin
Click to expand...


I forgot the problem with being a high school girl and not having had sex before. Remind me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top