Post your rating system

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ICGwfkAYwr0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

5.0
Great
4.5
Good
4.0
Average
3.5
Mediocre
3.0
Okay
2.5
Had its moments
2.0
Did not like
1.5
Bad
1.0
Really bad
0.5
Awful

>Amy Poelher above Amy Shumer
>Roony Mara above Elizabeth Banks
Bisexual spotted.

why the fuck is Queen Latifah lower than either of those two Amys

>defending Amy Schumer in any way
wew

>4.0/5.0
>Average

>5
good
>4.5
bad
>4
bad
>3.5
bad
>3
bad
>2.5
bad
>2
bad
>1.5
bad
>1
bad
>0.5
bad

Simple is best imo

>Thinking Amy Poehler belongs in comedy beyond a shitty local improv group.
But lad....

>rooney over banks and blanchett

>5
best
>4
like it
>3
ok
>2
shit

>all this half-number autism

>implying I said anything about Amy Poehler
learn to read nigga

Absolutely fantastic taste my nigga

>2016

light to decent 8
decent 8
9
forever

terrible

>5
Must listen / genre defining
>4
Well executed. Doesnt do anything too new or wildy different, but still a solid record
>3
Average. Worth a listen.
>2
I understand some of the appeal, but don't like it much. Easily forgettable.
>1
Avoid at all costs.

...

I think Bad / Awful aren't differentiated well enough but otherwise I like this.

this is good

Queen Latifah is at least 4.0

>4.0
>Average

Do you know what average even means? Kys

>implying symmetric distribution

This system implies an almost objective look at the music. This is weird to me, considering music is very subjective, and some of my favorite music is quite "flawed".

1/5 ign video game ratings

...

>use curse words in a rating system
2edgy

>implying we had to already know you had autism

i'm mad but i can't figure out why a symmetric rating system is better than any other so i guess maybe you're right idk

...

Asymmetric should only be used to rate how good something is, though. Having a detailed scale of shittyness is fucking redundant and utterly pointless as something being shit in the first place makes it not worthwhile.

I remember one critic saying the worst years in popular music were 1980, 1990, and 2001. I never understood that.

>only one 80s year
>it's 86
How pleb can you get?

>1980
>muh 70s are over
>1990
>nirvana hasn't saved rawk yet
>2001
>music is changing...

would there be a 5 that isn't that great? for example straight outta Compton isn't that great imp and yet it defined hip hop for the mainstream audience.

...

These are good
This one the best

>2.5
>Average

It's smack dab in the middle. How is it not average?

5
Everybody.
4
Fans of similar genres.
3
Fans of the genre.
2
Fans of the band.
1
Completionists only.

this is p nice, but needs an 'avoid' rating
>5.0
>not 1991
wew lad
I like this one

...

no it isnt

>Average of the rating system
>Not the average

its not the average of the rating system you retard

>please stop
>kill it with fire
>nuke it from orbit
ebín

just signed up

0 is not on there because it's all the shit you don't even bother listening to.

...

ebic

>Boring

that doesnt even make sense, how can I know that I wouldn't even give it a 0.5 if I have never listened to it

There is nothing better

You have a disturbing taste in women.

weeaboo

5.0
Personal favorite

4.5
Masterpiece, essential

4.0
Classic record

3.5
Recommended/AOTY Contender

3.0
Good/Sufficient

2.5
So-so

2.0
I won't listen to it again

1.5
Awful record

1.0
Waste of time

0.5
Personal hate

...

kek, wrong image

>1.0
>Meh
>0.5
>Annoying Music

>that low amount of ratings
Did you start listening to music last year?

no, I've restarted my rym account twice, and since Nov of the past years I've been only relistening to what I have in order to remember what all of my database sounds like

I'd rather do that than listening to a random album I won't remember how sounds, everyday

>4.0
>Average
>3.5
>Mediocre
>3.0
>Okay
are you retarded? these three mean essentially the same thing.

This triggers me heavily although I respect ur 5

>3.0 asuza nakano

>2.5
>Not average
It takes a especial kind of autism to think otherwise.

Rating scales should be objective desu
The numbers mean what they mean

user you are probably retarded since you don't seem to understand basic things about maths and english

the more i used rym the more i found that summing up vague feelings with concrete numbers only serves to drive me mad

>Avoid at all costs.
i always found it kinda silly that people put this in their reviews, it will only make me wanna listen to it

>hhh
>2.0
apply yourself

>heroin addict as #1
fucking disgusting.

5.0
Near perfect

4.5
It's okay

4.0
Great

3.5
Very good

3.0
Good

2.5
Average

2.0
Sub par

1.5
Bad

1.0
Awful

0.5
Abysmal

i keep it simple

like the romans

put the pussy in the sarcophagus

This is actually my films ratings but I'm more proud of it than of the music ones.

literally autism

based

>anything after season 9 in the top half
>principal and the pauper a 2/5

honestly, you should have just made everything after homer vs new york a 0.5

>Who shot mr. Burns
>4

fucking hell that is embarassing, why don't you put something good on there like blowfish or pta disbands or homer at the bat

...

5 - all time fav
4 - great
3 - good
2 - so-so/mixed
1 - do not like

I don't do half ratings.

>Thinking Amy Poehler belongs in comedy beyond a shitty local improv group.
She was fine on Upright Citizens Brigade.

Honestly a lot of episodes coul go on 4/5 but Who Shot Mr. Burns? stands up because of nostalgia reasons, it used to be on TV a lot when I was a kid. Also the Burns' Suit scene.
youtube.com/watch?v=ICGwfkAYwr0

>you should have just made everything after homer vs new york a 0.5
I'm one of the ones who believe Classic ends at Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo and the decent episodes at Behind the Laughter. S10-13 are not top class but they have a good bunch of nice episodes.

but its not good and no referencing twin peaks does not mean it is good

user you are probably retarded since you don't seem to understand basic things about maths and english

Someone help me think of a word for 2.5 please

wow what a clever response you fucking mongrel, why don't you shut the fuck up until you can figure out how to work out an average you inbred

...

Yeah, there are a few good episodes here and there, but I think everything post season 8 just pales in comparison to the original seasons. I just personally disagree that your rating system is so heavy on the later seasons.

Substandard

>referencing twin peaks does not mean it is good
i'm shallow enough to believe this is false

wow what a clever response you fucking mongrel, why don't you shut the fuck up until you can figure out how to work out an average you inbred

As I said, it's what I used to watch a lot when growing up. For some reason the local stations loved Season 10, for example.

5.0 - Perfect/Nearly Perfect
4.5 - Fantastic
4.0 - Great.
3.5 - Really good
3.0 - Pretty good, enjoyable.
2.5 - Average/middle of the road. Might give another listen in the future
2.0 - Not very good. Wouldn't listen again
1.5 - Not good.
1.0 - Bad.
0.5 - Twenty One Pilots

>words to describe score

Actual autism.

Thank you good sir

Any fucking idiot can transpose a star score to a 10-point score.

>numbers to describe another number of essentially the same value

>just wrote the same fraction multiplied by 2, thereby telling us nothing about your rating model
actually retarded

you buttblasted idiots stay with your faggy "extraordinaire" "fantastique" "shiny butt" descriptors lmao

1. shit
2. indifference
3. ok
4. good
5. great

autists

what a load of faggots, best rating system coming through:
>i like it
>i don't
anything else and you're an autist

can you please write next to the out of 10 scores what those scores would be out of 100, i'm a bit unsure as to how they would work as percentages.