How? The whole point of the argument was to show the futility of increasing the range.
Then perhaps you should define what you mean by "tightly meshed," because, to me, it would seem to apply to smaller ranges.
If you ask 20 people at random here at the forum to tell you what the center value of the rating system. With out giving them time to think over the problem, how many of these do you think will say 2.5 instead of 3? I would bet that most will answer 3.
This means that people get less range for the films they like and more range for the films they don’t like. Being that most people like to be more exact when they rate a movie they do like than when they rate a movie they don’t like, the current system gives them the opposite of what they want.
I don't grant the premise that people prefer to be more exact with positive ratings than negative ones, and I can't imagine how you would come to such a conclusion. It sounds like you're simply taking the way you think of ratings and assuming everyone else feels the same way.
Even if such a thing were both true and demonstrable, what you're saying doesn't follow. You're merely describing a situation where a person uses a different range than the one we tend to use here. That doesn't give them less range at all. The entire idea is backwards; more possible ratings gives you a larger range, so suggesting that using 0-5 instead of 1-5 decreases the user's range doesn't make a lick of sense. It may cause a slight misunderstanding, however, though only if they fail to learn about the disrepancy.
The problem with a 6-scale system, or any even number system, is that they don’t have a an existing center value.
Yes, we do: by using half-point intervals, as I mentioned in my last post:
"...particularly when half-point intervals are allowed. On our scale, 2.5 is the center, rather than 3."
The relevance of the runner-up system is the misrepresentation it creates. Most people, custom to a normal rating system of first, second, third, etc., will think more of the second place holder if he/she is referred to as the first runner up. This is because they will see the second place holder as the winner of a second competition.
Again, I don't grant your premise. It's certainly not how I think of the phrase "runner-up," and I'd be surprised if this can be even remotely demonstrated. It's completely subjective. And all this is still assuming that the phrase "runner-up" would enter a given person's mind when seeing a certain rating, which hasn't been established at all.
Transferred to the MoFo rating system, this will mean that the perception of the rating 1, isn’t that it’s a very bad movie, but the best of the worst. This means that the perception of just that rating may be better than the perception of a higher rating.
Once again, you're taking completely subjective interpretations and assuming everyone thinks the same way. On what basis do you claim that the perception of the rating 1 means "best of the worst"? This kind of thing varies from person to person, yet you continue to reference your own interpretation of what each rating means as if it were fact, or near-universal. It simply isn't.
Since zero represent absence of value. It can just as easily be interpreted as the absence of ratability as the absence of redeeming quality. In other words, zero is a very confusing variable as well as number.
This is a problem that, again, applies to all ratings.
Let's use an example: no one in their right mind would suggest that people shouldn't be able to give films a 5 out of 5, but the same confusion exists there: is a perfect score for flawless films? Or is the rating based on a curve, meaning it is imperfect, but as close to perfect as any other film?
In other words, you're trying to condemn a rating system for problems that
exist with all rating systems.
And, I'd point out again that this is why it's best to write an actual review. The moment you count on a lone number to encapsulate what you think of a film, you're opening the door to all these problems, on any rating scale.
There must be a reason MoFo is the only site I know which uses zero as a variable.
I doubt this is actually true, unless you frequent a relatively small number of sites. But without going around and digging up sites, I'd point out that Roger Ebert has given out no star and half-star ratings many times. He even compiled his reviews of 1-star-or-less films into a book I happen to own called
I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie. I'm sure he's not the only critic who has done this, either. And he also routinely points out that the existence of any rating system is inevitably a poor substitute for reading and writing actual reviews.
The main purpose of the rating system is to function as a quick summarized indicator of a movies quality. For the system to achieve this, it is necessary for all parties involved to easily understand how the system works. This is as I have pointed out above clearly not the case for this system.
True. But I say, hopefully for the last time, that the reasons you give apply to the rating systems you prefer, as well. Simply assuming that most people take a given rating to mean what you do doesn't change this fact.