Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 8 released June 27th)
Polls: 2010s (Results), 1974 (Results), 2019 awards (Jul 11th)
Challenges: Canada, Low Rated, Director
Film of the Week: Vinyan, August nominations (Jul 31st)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2E: Georgia vs Ukraine (Jul 16th)

What do numerical ratings mean?

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4267
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

What do numerical ratings mean?

#1

Post by Onderhond » April 15th, 2014, 3:57 pm

Gershwin on Apr 15 2014, 09:09:12 AM wrote:Not being blown away by them is fine, but I'd guess you should acknowledge that they aren't really "0.5/5.0"s.
They pretty much go from 0.5* - 2.5* ... the ones I gave 0.5* are the ones that I felt deserved them, only a select few go from 3.0*-4.0* (Wakamatsu, Godard - Stalker, THX, Cranes are Flying)
Last edited by Onderhond on April 15th, 2014, 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30595
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#2

Post by mightysparks » April 15th, 2014, 4:12 pm

I don't think there's any movie that I'd consider 'crazy' to rate 1/10. Different experience for each person, so meh. Ghostbusters is probably the weirdest one just coz it's such a harmless film.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31741
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#3

Post by joachimt » April 15th, 2014, 4:18 pm

mightysparks on Apr 15 2014, 10:12:01 AM wrote:I don't think there's any movie that I'd consider 'crazy' to rate 1/10. Different experience for each person, so meh. Ghostbusters is probably the weirdest one just coz it's such a harmless film.
I don't agree. It's not all personal experience. I think the rating 1/10 should be given to the worst of the worst ever made. So rating The Godfather 1/10 for example is stupid, even if you were really bored by it.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30595
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#4

Post by mightysparks » April 15th, 2014, 4:25 pm

joachimt on Apr 15 2014, 10:18:17 AM wrote:
mightysparks on Apr 15 2014, 10:12:01 AM wrote:I don't think there's any movie that I'd consider 'crazy' to rate 1/10. Different experience for each person, so meh. Ghostbusters is probably the weirdest one just coz it's such a harmless film.
I don't agree. It's not all personal experience. I think the rating 1/10 should be given to the worst of the worst ever made. So rating The Godfather 1/10 for example is stupid, even if you were really bored by it.
This is just going into subjective vs objective territory again :whistling: Perfectly reasonable to rate The Godfather 1/10 if you felt it was the worst of the worst ever made. The Godfather doesn't deserve special treatment unless we're talking about film history, in which case it would be stupid to dismiss its importance (I gave it a 10/10 btw). I only give out 1/10s to the films I consider the worst of the worst ever made, films that caused literal pain. I do often give bonus points to films for having 'objective' criteria which is why I give out so many 4s and 5s (a lot would be less if not for 'objective' factors), but 1/10 is a film I see absolutely no good in and just makes me hurt to think about.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

Noirville
Posts: 648
Joined: Mar 29, 2014
Contact:

#5

Post by Noirville » April 15th, 2014, 4:37 pm

Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4267
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#6

Post by Onderhond » April 15th, 2014, 4:37 pm

mightysparks on Apr 15 2014, 10:25:40 AM wrote:
joachimt on Apr 15 2014, 10:18:17 AM wrote:
mightysparks on Apr 15 2014, 10:12:01 AM wrote:I don't think there's any movie that I'd consider 'crazy' to rate 1/10. Different experience for each person, so meh. Ghostbusters is probably the weirdest one just coz it's such a harmless film.
I don't agree. It's not all personal experience. I think the rating 1/10 should be given to the worst of the worst ever made. So rating The Godfather 1/10 for example is stupid, even if you were really bored by it.
This is just going into subjective vs objective territory again :whistling: Perfectly reasonable to rate The Godfather 1/10 if you felt it was the worst of the worst ever made. The Godfather doesn't deserve special treatment unless we're talking about film history, in which case it would be stupid to dismiss its importance (I gave it a 10/10 btw). I only give out 1/10s to the films I consider the worst of the worst ever made, films that caused literal pain. I do often give bonus points to films for having 'objective' criteria which is why I give out so many 4s and 5s (a lot would be less if not for 'objective' factors), but 1/10 is a film I see absolutely no good in and just makes me hurt to think about.
You can give some extra points for intersubjective criteria, but that's basically granting a film some extra points because it has some qualities that are appreciated by a majority of people. I really don't see the point in that. I merely look at what a film does to me. If I'm bored beyond tears I don't care for above average acting, technically difficult camera work, expensive visual effects or dialogue borrowed from Shakespeare, hence I won't give extra credit for that.

Music is a bit more extreme and experimental and intersubjective criteria are harder to find. It used to be the case that false notes were considered ugly ... then artists started to incorporate them specifically into their music. Noise/statis/glitches ... same story. Bye bye intersubjective criteria.
Last edited by Onderhond on April 15th, 2014, 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20257
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#7

Post by Pretentious Hipster » April 15th, 2014, 4:44 pm

Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
I guess it just depends on your mindset. I have a more logical thinking style. Which makes me strange because I pretty much have the thinking style of an average "nerd" but while the stereotype of them is usually into the more technical aspects (CGI, video games, masturbatory metal) I'm more into the experimental. I think anything could be compared in the same medium and can be judged with numbers. But then again I'm in math so of course I would do that.

That's probably why I'm barely click with anyone. With the people with a thinking style closer to mine, I can talk with them fairly easily but I have to hide my taste in everything because it could actually reach the point where I lose them as friends. With the more experimental kind of people, I can talk about the artistic mediums that I'm into with them, but when it comes to just standard small talk you can tell that the conversations feel forced.
My father didn’t have the skill of a professional cameraman. The result? Avant-garde cinema.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4267
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#8

Post by Onderhond » April 15th, 2014, 4:47 pm

Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid.
That's why I think the rating represent not the artwork itself, but the way someone experienced the artwork.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10854
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#9

Post by St. Gloede » April 15th, 2014, 4:57 pm

Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.
Why? How? It only suggests that you can simplify your personal appreciation of a film to a (hopefully) easily understood number. If you think it's science that I though a movie is "good enough" which translates to "6/10" or "brilliant" which translates to "9/10" you think it's a measurable science, if you don't think me finding a film "good enough" or "brilliant", etc. then numerical ratings do not suggest it's a measurable science.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30595
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#10

Post by mightysparks » April 15th, 2014, 5:02 pm

Onderhond on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:52 AM wrote:You can give some extra points for intersubjective criteria, but that's basically granting a film some extra points because it has some qualities that are appreciated by a majority of people. I really don't see the point in that. I merely look at what a film does to me. If I'm bored beyond tears I don't care for above average acting, technically difficult camera work, expensive visual effects or dialogue borrowed from Shakespeare, hence I won't give extra credit for that.

Music is a bit more extreme and experimental and intersubjective criteria are harder to find. It used to be the case that false notes were considered ugly ... then artists started to incorporate them specifically into their music. Noise/statis/glitches ... same story. Bye bye intersubjective criteria.
I don't give them points for what other people appreciate, I give points for what I appreciate :P If the story bores me to tears or I'm not involved or whatever, but I like the acting or I like the camera work, then that's still other aspects I like but it's obviously not giving me a tremendous experience. Couldn't care less what anyone else thinks about those things.

I agree with the above point about giving ratings to art, but I also agree with 'That's why I think the rating represent not the artwork itself, but the way someone experienced the artwork.'. That's what my ratings represent. Though I also love numbers so I have to rate EVERYTHING, but ratings are just ways of categorizing in my head how I felt and not really for other people.

Also, I just realised how similar this discussion is to the one about the pretentious article dude. Presuming that everyone watches a film the same way as you. Nobody watches the same film or takes away the same experience, so you can't start throwing out films that can't be 1/10 or can't be 10/10. What this argument always looks like in my eyes is like trying to say people can be objectively attractive. You can point out that there are features generally considered attractive, having symmetry or not having an offensive looking face, but that doesn't mean you're going to find these people attractive. Maybe this person likes their eyes, but another person hates their eyes, or one person finds them funny and another thinks they are a douchebag. It's not as simple as saying 'a film/person/whatever has this widely considered good aspect, therefore it must be liked'.

Whenever these arguments come up, I'm always picturing in my head someone trying to convince me that an arrow to the knee isn't painful or basically just separating from the film aspect, so it annoys me :P AN ARROW TO THE KNEE WILL NEVER BE PLEASURABLE AND NEITHER WILL JUNO OKAY
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13057
Joined: May 26, 2011
Contact:

#11

Post by bal3x » April 15th, 2014, 5:15 pm

Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24713
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#12

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 15th, 2014, 5:28 pm

bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:
Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
What's not to understand? It's just increased granularity.
You start with two ratings Thumbs up and down, then realize there are some films in between so you get three ratings. But then some films you hate and some you merely dislike, while others you like and others you love so now you have a 5 point rating system. But then you find there are significant differences there and keep going further.

At 5000 films that's 500 films per rating on a perfectly even 10 pt rating scale. Since most people's rating scales are not perfectly even, that means having 800 or 900 films with the same rating. It was very natural for me to find distinctions between those, even back when I had only rated about 1000 films. Even now on criticker with a 100 pt scale I still have ratings with 100 or more films and could definitely subdivide further.

User avatar
jvv
Donator
Posts: 8626
Joined: May 28, 2011
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#13

Post by jvv » April 15th, 2014, 5:29 pm

bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:
Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
Well, ICM actually has the 3 point scale. :P

User avatar
Lammetje
Donator
Posts: 3776
Joined: Oct 04, 2013
Location: Poland
Contact:

#14

Post by Lammetje » April 15th, 2014, 5:36 pm

My ratings always reflect both my subjective and objective view. I agree with mighty that even the biggest masterpiece could be rated 1/10, because certain aspects could annoy you, make you cringe or even infuriate you to such an end that the film's qualities become totally insignificant to you. I'm just glad that didn't happen to me yet. :)

Since the subjective part is the most important for me when rating a movie, I am happy with a ten point scale and I could easily use a twenty point scale (deciding between two ratings would be harder of course). If you have just four choices, how could you ever make a ranked favorites list consisting of more than a dozen films?
iCM | IMDb | Last.fm | Listal

Image
OldAle1 wrote:stupid double post bullshit crap shit fuck
More memorable quotesShow
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:Active topics is the devil. Please use the forums and subforums as intended and peruse all the topics nicely sorted by topic, not just the currently popular ones displayed in a jumbled mess.
maxwelldeux wrote:If you asked me to kill my wife and pets OR watch Minions, I'd check the runtime and inquire about sobriety requirements before providing an answer.
flaiky wrote::o :satstunned: :guns: :down: :facepalm: :yucky: :mw_confused: :pinch: :ph43r: :ermm: :sweat: :folded: tehe :cowbow: :think: :finger: :rip:
monty wrote:If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. iCM ain't for sissies.
mightysparks wrote:ARGH. RARGH. RARGH. DIE.
Kowry wrote:Thanks, Art Garfunky.
Rich wrote:*runs*

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7118
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#15

Post by Gershwin » April 15th, 2014, 5:59 pm

Lammetje on Apr 15 2014, 11:36:01 AM wrote:(...)

Since the subjective part is the most important for me when rating a movie, I am happy with a ten point scale and I could easily use a twenty point scale (deciding between two ratings would be harder of course). If you have just four choices, how could you ever make a ranked favorites list consisting of more than a dozen films?
That's exactly the point! I love The Big Lebowski and Il gattopardo, but how could I even start comparing these, ranking one higher or lower than the other? Both are just favourites, two thumbs up, not an 8.5 and a 9.6. :shrug:

I've expressed likewise before, but I'm totally with Noirville here.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31741
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#16

Post by joachimt » April 15th, 2014, 6:05 pm

The 10 point scale works best for me, because I'm so used to those numbers. In The Netherlands this scale is used in schools, so the numbers have a meaning to me. In schools a grade 6 is sufficient to pass, so I won't rate a movie 5 if I think the movie was "alright" (whatever that means).
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24713
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#17

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 15th, 2014, 6:07 pm

Gershwin on Apr 15 2014, 11:59:59 AM wrote:
Lammetje on Apr 15 2014, 11:36:01 AM wrote:(...)

Since the subjective part is the most important for me when rating a movie, I am happy with a ten point scale and I could easily use a twenty point scale (deciding between two ratings would be harder of course). If you have just four choices, how could you ever make a ranked favorites list consisting of more than a dozen films?
That's exactly the point! I love The Big Lebowski and Il gattopardo, but how could I even start comparing these, ranking one higher or lower than the other? Both are just favourites, two thumbs up, not an 8.5 and a 9.6. :shrug:

I've expressed likewise before, but I'm totally with Noirville here.
If you could only watch one ever again in your life which would it be?

I mean yeah, there will always be movies that you can't rank higher or lower than the other, but the question isn't "are there two movies you can't judge between" but rather "are all 280 of your favourites really completely interchangeable?" Could you really not split them into 2 groups or 3 or 4?

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10854
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#18

Post by St. Gloede » April 15th, 2014, 6:37 pm

bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:
Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
Level of greatness. Sometimes even a 10 scale feels limited in regard to expressing how I feel about the film. I just like to be "accurate". :D

1-4 would just make me feel claustrophobic. How could I show the variations of greatness? I couldn't even separate between absolute masterpieces, and slightly less absolute masterpieces. :lol:
Last edited by St. Gloede on April 15th, 2014, 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kasparius
Posts: 24612
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#19

Post by Kasparius » April 15th, 2014, 6:37 pm

Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
For me the number is about rating my experience with the film, not the film itself. I would never pretend to give an "objective" rating to a film. Whatever that means

Kasparius
Posts: 24612
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#20

Post by Kasparius » April 15th, 2014, 6:39 pm

St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 12:37:46 PM wrote:
bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:
Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
Level of greatness. Sometimes even a 10 scale feels limited in regard to expressing how I feel about the film. I just like to be "accurate". :D
What's your current Shriek If You Still Know What I Did on Friday the 13th? 9.76/10?

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10854
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#21

Post by St. Gloede » April 15th, 2014, 6:41 pm

Kasparius on Apr 15 2014, 12:39:31 PM wrote:
St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 12:37:46 PM wrote:
bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
Level of greatness. Sometimes even a 10 scale feels limited in regard to expressing how I feel about the film. I just like to be "accurate". :D
What's your current Shriek If You Still Know What I Did on Friday the 13th? 9.76/10?
6/10 after my last rewatch in 2010. I get less specific the less I care about the film. At one point, when I used a percentage scale, I used .5 decimals though. I.e. I separated between 99.5/100 and 100/100. :whistling:

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10854
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#22

Post by St. Gloede » April 15th, 2014, 6:45 pm

Gershwin on Apr 15 2014, 11:59:59 AM wrote:
Lammetje on Apr 15 2014, 11:36:01 AM wrote:(...)

Since the subjective part is the most important for me when rating a movie, I am happy with a ten point scale and I could easily use a twenty point scale (deciding between two ratings would be harder of course). If you have just four choices, how could you ever make a ranked favorites list consisting of more than a dozen films?
That's exactly the point! I love The Big Lebowski and Il gattopardo, but how could I even start comparing these, ranking one higher or lower than the other? Both are just favourites, two thumbs up, not an 8.5 and a 9.6. :shrug:

I've expressed likewise before, but I'm totally with Noirville here.
If you like them equally they should be the same rating. ;)

So either 8.5 or 9.6, or some other rating.

:happy:

Kasparius
Posts: 24612
Joined: Sep 14, 2011
Contact:

#23

Post by Kasparius » April 15th, 2014, 6:47 pm

St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 12:41:55 PM wrote:
Kasparius on Apr 15 2014, 12:39:31 PM wrote:
St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 12:37:46 PM wrote:Level of greatness. Sometimes even a 10 scale feels limited in regard to expressing how I feel about the film. I just like to be "accurate". :D
What's your current Shriek If You Still Know What I Did on Friday the 13th? 9.76/10?
6/10 after my last rewatch in 2010. I get less specific the less I care about the film. At one point, when I used a percentage scale, I used .5 decimals though. I.e. I separated between 99.5/100 and 100/100. :whistling:
What?! If a film rocked both my world and my universe I would have to at least give it a 9!!

User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13057
Joined: May 26, 2011
Contact:

#24

Post by bal3x » April 15th, 2014, 6:48 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 15 2014, 11:28:06 AM wrote:
bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:
Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
What's not to understand? It's just increased granularity.
You start with two ratings Thumbs up and down, then realize there are some films in between so you get three ratings. But then some films you hate and some you merely dislike, while others you like and others you love so now you have a 5 point rating system. But then you find there are significant differences there and keep going further.

At 5000 films that's 500 films per rating on a perfectly even 10 pt rating scale. Since most people's rating scales are not perfectly even, that means having 800 or 900 films with the same rating. It was very natural for me to find distinctions between those, even back when I had only rated about 1000 films. Even now on criticker with a 100 pt scale I still have ratings with 100 or more films and could definitely subdivide further.
So then how much further can we go? For me even 10 point scale is difficult really, I often hesitate between a 5, 6 or 7 for example, similarly also on the lower end it's really difficult to rate some poor films with 2, 3 or 4, and in that sense I find a 4 point scale much more reasonable actually. But people are free to use whatever they want, in a way I admire those who are able to apply ratings in so much detail.
Last edited by bal3x on April 15th, 2014, 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7118
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#25

Post by Gershwin » April 15th, 2014, 6:49 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 15 2014, 12:07:37 PM wrote:
Gershwin on Apr 15 2014, 11:59:59 AM wrote:
Lammetje on Apr 15 2014, 11:36:01 AM wrote:(...)

Since the subjective part is the most important for me when rating a movie, I am happy with a ten point scale and I could easily use a twenty point scale (deciding between two ratings would be harder of course). If you have just four choices, how could you ever make a ranked favorites list consisting of more than a dozen films?
That's exactly the point! I love The Big Lebowski and Il gattopardo, but how could I even start comparing these, ranking one higher or lower than the other? Both are just favourites, two thumbs up, not an 8.5 and a 9.6. :shrug:

I've expressed likewise before, but I'm totally with Noirville here.
If you could only watch one ever again in your life which would it be?

I mean yeah, there will always be movies that you can't rank higher or lower than the other, but the question isn't "are there two movies you can't judge between" but rather "are all 280 of your favourites really completely interchangeable?" Could you really not split them into 2 groups or 3 or 4?
I've tried that dozens of times. Every time I try, it ends up with some outspoken top films, a category of less important favourites, and a huge amount "maybe greatest, maybe not". And ranking these among each other is completely impossible for me, or I'd have to spend a few hours every day on doing so (and I still wonder if I'd manage). Up, down, up, further up, down again ... It would be driving me insane.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
jvv
Donator
Posts: 8626
Joined: May 28, 2011
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#26

Post by jvv » April 15th, 2014, 6:51 pm

My problem is more that my feelings towards a movie fluctuate.

Depending on my mood one day I prefer movie A over B and the next day I prefer movie B over A.

This makes making ranked lists very hard, since every time I look a them I want to change the order.

User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13057
Joined: May 26, 2011
Contact:

#27

Post by bal3x » April 15th, 2014, 6:52 pm

jvv on Apr 15 2014, 11:29:23 AM wrote:
bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:
Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
Well, ICM actually has the 3 point scale. :P
Indeed, and I'd be happy to stick with that simple system, but I'm used to rating stuff on IMDb and without a doubt IMDb offers some functionality that iCM does not have, especially with lists etc. so I still have to use both.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7118
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#28

Post by Gershwin » April 15th, 2014, 6:52 pm

St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 12:45:18 PM wrote:
Gershwin on Apr 15 2014, 11:59:59 AM wrote:
Lammetje on Apr 15 2014, 11:36:01 AM wrote:(...)

Since the subjective part is the most important for me when rating a movie, I am happy with a ten point scale and I could easily use a twenty point scale (deciding between two ratings would be harder of course). If you have just four choices, how could you ever make a ranked favorites list consisting of more than a dozen films?
That's exactly the point! I love The Big Lebowski and Il gattopardo, but how could I even start comparing these, ranking one higher or lower than the other? Both are just favourites, two thumbs up, not an 8.5 and a 9.6. :shrug:

I've expressed likewise before, but I'm totally with Noirville here.
If you like them equally they should be the same rating. ;)

So either 8.5 or 9.6, or some other rating.

:happy:
I like both equally, but on q completely different level, one appealing to a certain silly sense of humour, one appealing to some very melancholy sense of loss. How could I rate these feelings? :huh:
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

Jay Mars
Posts: 2014
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

#29

Post by Jay Mars » April 15th, 2014, 6:53 pm

Kasparius on Apr 15 2014, 12:37:59 PM wrote: I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).For me the number is about rating my experience with the film, not the film itself. I would never pretend to give an "objective" rating to a film. Whatever that means
I prefer to leave the objective classifications to film scholars. I would never try and list the best of any era or genre. I, and most of us, don't know enough about them to make those determinations. I can rattle off my favorites, which is a different proposition.
Last edited by Jay Mars on April 15th, 2014, 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13057
Joined: May 26, 2011
Contact:

#30

Post by bal3x » April 15th, 2014, 6:55 pm

joachimt on Apr 15 2014, 12:05:37 PM wrote:The 10 point scale works best for me, because I'm so used to those numbers. In The Netherlands this scale is used in schools, so the numbers have a meaning to me. In schools a grade 6 is sufficient to pass, so I won't rate a movie 5 if I think the movie was "alright" (whatever that means).
That's the problem, the minimal passing grade here is "4"... so I go by that :D
Last edited by bal3x on April 15th, 2014, 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13057
Joined: May 26, 2011
Contact:

#31

Post by bal3x » April 15th, 2014, 6:58 pm

St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 12:37:46 PM wrote:
bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:
Noirville on Apr 15 2014, 10:37:08 AM wrote:Numerical ratings for artworks are all stupid. These suggest that the subject is measurable like science... but how? You can't measure films like we measure wind speeds or audio volumes.

I'll stick to using words and a simple system like Roger Ebert's famous thumbs up and thumbs down (sometimes simplicity works best).
Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
Level of greatness. Sometimes even a 10 scale feels limited in regard to expressing how I feel about the film. I just like to be "accurate". :D

1-4 would just make me feel claustrophobic. How could I show the variations of greatness? I couldn't even separate between absolute masterpieces, and slightly less absolute masterpieces. :lol:
Yeah, I know you're one of the crazy ones with those 7.568 ratings - sorry, mate, it's beyond my comprehension :D Sometime though I wonder what makes it 7.6 and not 7.4, would be interesting to see some sort of formula or a report on how that number is actually arrived at :)

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24713
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#32

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 15th, 2014, 7:00 pm

Gershwin on Apr 15 2014, 12:49:02 PM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 15 2014, 12:07:37 PM wrote:
Gershwin on Apr 15 2014, 11:59:59 AM wrote:That's exactly the point! I love The Big Lebowski and Il gattopardo, but how could I even start comparing these, ranking one higher or lower than the other? Both are just favourites, two thumbs up, not an 8.5 and a 9.6. :shrug:

I've expressed likewise before, but I'm totally with Noirville here.
If you could only watch one ever again in your life which would it be?

I mean yeah, there will always be movies that you can't rank higher or lower than the other, but the question isn't "are there two movies you can't judge between" but rather "are all 280 of your favourites really completely interchangeable?" Could you really not split them into 2 groups or 3 or 4?
I've tried that dozens of times. Every time I try, it ends up with some outspoken top films, a category of less important favourites, and a huge amount "maybe greatest, maybe not". And ranking these among each other is completely impossible for me, or I'd have to spend a few hours every day on doing so (and I still wonder if I'd manage). Up, down, up, further up, down again ... It would be driving me insane.
Well then, that's already room for three ratings just among your favourites. I get that actually ranking them can be an impossible task for some. I think to make a long ranked list you have to be compulsive enough to take the time to do it, but not so much that you agonize over every position. I'll never be fully satisfied with mine, but I feel it's pretty solid at expressing my feelings on the films more accurately than an unranked list. Ratings don't have to be as detailed, though.
bal3x on wrote:So then how much further can we go? For me even 10 point scale is difficult really, I often hesitate between a 5, 6 or 7 for example, similarly also on the lower end it's really difficult to rate some poor films with 2, 3 or 4, and in that sense I find a 4 point scale much more reasonable actually. But people are free to use whatever they want, in a way I admire those who are able to apply ratings in so much detail.
Well that depends on the person. Me, I'm ok with 100 pt scale. Like you I find the lower end more difficult to delineate, so I could probably work with a 50 point scale, though the numbers wouldn't be as intuitive to me. I do understand others view ratings differently. I've internalized mine enough that my gut gives me a good target on a 100 pt scale, but there are always films where I find difficulty.

User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13057
Joined: May 26, 2011
Contact:

#33

Post by bal3x » April 15th, 2014, 7:06 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 15 2014, 01:00:00 PM wrote:Well that depends on the person. Me, I'm ok with 100 pt scale. Like you I find the lower end more difficult to delineate, so I could probably work with a 50 point scale, though the numbers wouldn't be as intuitive to me. I do understand others view ratings differently. I've internalized mine enough that my gut gives me a good target on a 100 pt scale, but there are always films where I find difficulty.
Yeah, I agree that the lower end is actually more difficult, that's certainly true! And it's great you have this internalized, I guess you're more of a maths person and it seems these things are easier for you :)

Kowry
Posts: 3033
Joined: Jul 03, 2011
Location: Finland
Contact:

#34

Post by Kowry » April 15th, 2014, 7:17 pm

I have a love-hate relationship with ratings. Many times I've become so frustrated with the process that I've stopped completely but then I've started again, because it makes categorizing my film experiences easier and provides a quick way to offer my opinion on them. The problem is that I'm often unsure about my opinion on a film and it also can change over time. Plus, there are just so many aspects to consider that properly weighing them becomes really frustrating. And if I decide to start using a simpler scale (like the one below) I quickly begin thinking that maybe I should add some half stars or shit and it just becomes muddled and complicated again :(

User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 9832
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: New Mexico, Trumpistan
Contact:

#35

Post by Knaldskalle » April 15th, 2014, 7:30 pm

jvv on Apr 15 2014, 12:51:46 PM wrote:My problem is more that my feelings towards a movie fluctuate.

Depending on my mood one day I prefer movie A over B and the next day I prefer movie B over A.

This makes making ranked lists very hard, since every time I look a them I want to change the order.
This. So much this.
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7118
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#36

Post by Gershwin » April 15th, 2014, 7:45 pm

PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 15 2014, 01:00:00 PM wrote:I get that actually ranking them can be an impossible task for some. I think to make a long ranked list you have to be compulsive enough to take the time to do it, but not so much that you agonize over every position.
I think that's my problem exactly. It's too unsatisfactory, every time I try. Ranking films works best when I do it by year of release. ^_^
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10854
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#37

Post by St. Gloede » April 15th, 2014, 8:49 pm

bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 12:52:19 PM wrote:
jvv on Apr 15 2014, 11:29:23 AM wrote:
bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
Well, ICM actually has the 3 point scale. :P
Indeed, and I'd be happy to stick with that simple system, but I'm used to rating stuff on IMDb and without a doubt IMDb offers some functionality that iCM does not have, especially with lists etc. so I still have to use both.
Well, the 3 point scale, for me anyways, doesn't distinguish between films I find great (8) and films I find meh (5), so I'd say that's a flaw. ;)

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10854
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#38

Post by St. Gloede » April 15th, 2014, 8:51 pm

Gershwin on Apr 15 2014, 12:52:52 PM wrote:
St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 12:45:18 PM wrote:
Gershwin on Apr 15 2014, 11:59:59 AM wrote:That's exactly the point! I love The Big Lebowski and Il gattopardo, but how could I even start comparing these, ranking one higher or lower than the other? Both are just favourites, two thumbs up, not an 8.5 and a 9.6. :shrug:

I've expressed likewise before, but I'm totally with Noirville here.
If you like them equally they should be the same rating. ;)

So either 8.5 or 9.6, or some other rating.

:happy:
I like both equally, but on q completely different level, one appealing to a certain silly sense of humour, one appealing to some very melancholy sense of loss. How could I rate these feelings? :huh:
Easy, rate on level of engrossment + overall appreciation. All movies fail or succeed to capture you, and does so to varying degrees, even if they use different tools - shouldn't be that hard to explain said feelings/opinions in simplistic terms in regard to how much you love it, and convert said words to numbers. At least it's not for me. :happy:

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10854
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#39

Post by St. Gloede » April 15th, 2014, 8:57 pm

bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 12:58:55 PM wrote:
St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 12:37:46 PM wrote:
bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 11:15:30 AM wrote:Actually I'm with you on this, sadly IMDb uses a scale of 1-10 thus I have to use that, but I would actually be quite happy to use a 3 or 4 point scale, basically thumbs up (favorite), OK, thumbs down (dislike). But it appears for some people even a 10 point scale is not sufficient and they use decimal points, e.g. 7.5... that is something I never understood.
Level of greatness. Sometimes even a 10 scale feels limited in regard to expressing how I feel about the film. I just like to be "accurate". :D

1-4 would just make me feel claustrophobic. How could I show the variations of greatness? I couldn't even separate between absolute masterpieces, and slightly less absolute masterpieces. :lol:
Yeah, I know you're one of the crazy ones with those 7.568 ratings - sorry, mate, it's beyond my comprehension :D Sometime though I wonder what makes it 7.6 and not 7.4, would be interesting to see some sort of formula or a report on how that number is actually arrived at :)
Easy. 7.6 rounds up to 8, while 7.4 rounds down to 7. If 7 is really good and 8 is great, that 7.5 would be the "just barely great" bar, with 7.6 being slightly above that, but still a tad below solidly great - at the same time a 7.4 would be really, really good, but still a slight bit from any kind of talk of greatness.

(Doubt that helped a bit)

I really just think of the decimals as qualifiers for how much I liked something, and how strong said opinion is, with a fluid level of quality assessment for my own point of view.

User avatar
bal3x
Donator
Posts: 13057
Joined: May 26, 2011
Contact:

#40

Post by bal3x » April 15th, 2014, 9:39 pm

St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 02:57:31 PM wrote:
bal3x on Apr 15 2014, 12:58:55 PM wrote:
St. Gloede on Apr 15 2014, 12:37:46 PM wrote:Level of greatness. Sometimes even a 10 scale feels limited in regard to expressing how I feel about the film. I just like to be "accurate". :D

1-4 would just make me feel claustrophobic. How could I show the variations of greatness? I couldn't even separate between absolute masterpieces, and slightly less absolute masterpieces. :lol:
Yeah, I know you're one of the crazy ones with those 7.568 ratings - sorry, mate, it's beyond my comprehension :D Sometime though I wonder what makes it 7.6 and not 7.4, would be interesting to see some sort of formula or a report on how that number is actually arrived at :)
Easy. 7.6 rounds up to 8, while 7.4 rounds down to 7. If 7 is really good and 8 is great, that 7.5 would be the "just barely great" bar, with 7.6 being slightly above that, but still a tad below solidly great - at the same time a 7.4 would be really, really good, but still a slight bit from any kind of talk of greatness.

(Doubt that helped a bit)

I really just think of the decimals as qualifiers for how much I liked something, and how strong said opinion is, with a fluid level of quality assessment for my own point of view.
Well, what can I say - I'm glad you've got it all figured out and it works so well for you :)

Post Reply