Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
The 5-point scale has a simplicity to it.
5's are great, must-watch for the genre. 4's are good. 3's are mixed, with the good slightly outweighing the bad; they are for fans of a series/genre. 2's, most people should avoid but may have a tiny niche for people who are hardcore enough fans of that niche. 1, avoid altogether. My main issue with the 5-point scale is that there are a ton movies which are better than 3/5, but not quite a 4/5. How exactly would you rate a 7/10 movie on a 5-point scale? Proponents of the 5-point scale might retort by ask me what exactly is the difference between a 2/10 vs. 3/10, and mention that the 10-scale has too many increments on the lower end. But the difference is that 7/10's come up more often than 3/10's. If we were to watch every movie that existed at random, it might be a normal distribution bell curve with an average of 5/10, and maybe just as many 3/10's as 7/10's. But we have selection bias. We tend to watch movies that are either acclaimed, culturally significant, popular or at least pique our interest. So, if we look at the average rating of all our movies, it might actually rest in the 6-7 ish range. |
Originally Posted by Stamina888 (Post 2364029)
...My main issue with the 5-point scale is that there are a ton movies which are better than 3/5, but not quite a 4/5. If you think about it, this caliber of movie is probably the most common...
Need more fine tuning? Try this: + or this - |
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2364032)
Simple solution That's how we do it here at MoFo.
I have a better idea. Why don't we do a 1-point scale with 0.1 0.2 0.3 ... 0.9 1 Let's just have 10 increments, yet call it a 1 point scale. (edit: im being playful, not mad <3) |
Re: Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
You are correct, though I'm not sure why you're (seemingly-sorta) mad about it.
|
Re: Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
The reason to do 10-point with half-steps is because it takes up less visual space and is easier to represent with images.
All scales are a balance between precision and convenience. You could do zero to a million but at a certain point there are diminishing returns. |
Re: Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
We're not in disagreement. You're discussing how to visually the increments. I'm only discussing the amount of increments.
Some reviewers that essentially have 3 increments (i.e. buy/try/pass or good/okay/bad). Some have a 20-point scale. 10's with 0.5 increments. Some have a 10-point scale with 100 increments, who will inevitably come into a situation where they admit they actually liked the 8.4 movie more than the 8.6 movie, and those few decimal points could vary based on mood and what day they review it. |
Re: Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
Yeah, I think that last post is pretty important: the more precise the scale, the more tiny variables come into play, which means even if someone has a 100-point scale, in practice it ends up being closer to a 10-point scale anyway because of that fuzziness.
I guess we're all just sort of guessing, but I think 10-point is the sweet spot, and mostly avoids the problem of rating drift based on temporary circumstances. |
Re: Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
All those considerations are easily swamped by people's differing ideas about how to rate things, anyway.
|
Originally Posted by Stamina888 (Post 2364033)
...I have a better idea. Why don't we do a 1-point scale with
0.1 0.2 0.3 ... 0.9 1 .... |
Re: Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
Psssst
We have an 11 point scale, as we allow Base 11 ftw! ;) |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 2364040)
All those considerations are easily swamped by people's differing ideas about how to rate things, anyway.
I've seen people write reviews that make it sound like they enjoyed a movie almost exactly as much as I did, but their score is different. |
Re: Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
As a Finn, I prefer the five-point scale for movies (with or without halves). The reasoning for this is our school system where, for the first nine to 13 (depending on your choices) years, a ten-point scale is used, but with a caveat: the scale only goes from four to ten, with four being a failure. I've noticed on various Finnish forums that people have difficulties using the whole ten-point scale and naturally tend to only use grades from four to ten.
On the other hand, movie reviews have traditionally been on a five-star scale, and there's no mental block to using the whole range. So, using the five-star (or popcorn) scale with halves is not exactly the same as a ten-point scale. As for the actual number of possible ratings, I'd say anything from three to ten (or eleven, if you count the zero stars) is fine. More, and things get too convoluted or less, and there's no way to distinguish garbage from mediocrity. |
Re: Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
From 1 to 10 is the perfect scale (which translates to from 0.5 to 5 with halves)
I mean, a 100 scale? How the hell do you decide a film is 67/100 and not 68/100 or 66/100? |
Re: Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
I could not handle a 100 point scale. Attempting to rate films with that scale would be hell and I imagine that determining a film's rating would involve me changing my rating numerous times until I settle on something. Except, my rating would likely change the next day. A 10 point scale is more my speed.
|
I've always done a ten point scale because of repetition. Dating back to joining RT in '04.
|
Originally Posted by SpelingError (Post 2364218)
I could not handle a 100 point scale. Rating films with that scale would be hell and I imagine that determining a film's rating would involve me changing my rating numerous times. A 10 point scale is more my speed.
Any rating I give a film is a general ballpark about how I felt about it. I grade my students on a 1 (basic)-2 (progressing)-3 (mastery) scale and I love it. No more fiddling over whether a piece of writing is a B or a B+. |
It doesn't matter what my rating system is because my system doesn't mean anything. I've given movies I like less than movies I don't like that much before. I've given clearly perfect films 4/5 and clearly imperfect ones 5/5. I have reasons for all of this, but they are personal, and on a movie to movie basis. They aren't meant for anyone else and they are barely even meant for me.
This is because without discussion, none of these things mean a thing. I might as well be rating some movies a pineapple and others a free range stove. Without the context of words, who cares? As others have stated, everyone has different and personally idiosyncratic meanings for each of the possible numbers on their scale. So what can any of these numbers possibly mean to anyone else? The answer should be: nothing. The only rating system I think has ever had any kind of value whatsoever is the thumbs up or thumbs down of Siskel and Ebert. Recommend or don't recommend. Still deeply useless in a lot of ways, but I at least know exactly what these ratings mean. I look at this rating nonsense mostly as a way to skirt actual communication. It opens the door for more failure on the part of the audience. And if at the end of the day, all we can be bothered to do is throw a dart at some arbitrary number, and not accompany it with what you actually feel, I give that whole process a giant 2/10. |
Originally Posted by crumbsroom (Post 2364226)
I give that whole process a giant 2/10.
|
I use a 4 star review, which I was use to from my days of reading reviews in the Reading Eagle in the ‘90’s which often included Ebert reviews.
|
Re: Rating movies: 5-point scale vs. 10-point scale
I use 5 star scale. Most films are 3 to 3.5, not many make 4 and a 5 is rare.
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 04:22 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums