>>60403082
It's different

>>60403082
Depends how accurate the person rating the album is

>>60403096
is it more accurate though?

>>60403125
It's more accurate in some aspects

>>60403082
Of course, rating it out of 20 is more accurate than 10 and so on ad infinitum, the more room for difference in score the better. The 10 point scale is great because everyone uses it, so you can reference other scores alongside it

>>60403082
You rate tracks out of 5 and albums out of 10 how hard can it be

>>60403082
It's a question of precision, not accuracy

Numeric ratings are unnecessary

>>60403250
this
is fucking retarded

>>60403082
sort of. for instance, i would feel better giving a "good" album a 3.5/5 rather than a 7/10, even though it's the same score.

>>60403082
Can someone explain how a 10 rating gives me more insight than a 5 rating?

>>60403309
3.5 is better than good, in the standard 5 rating scale 3 is just 'good'

>>60403250
but what about my rym and sputnik account? or theneedledrop and pitchfork? how else would i tell if an album is good or not it i can't just see a number out of 10 and immediately disregard it or listen to it?

>>60403345
maybe on sputnikmusic, but i think of it differently since i'm not as critical

>>60403372
everywhere that uses a 5 scale considers 3 just good. It goes
1-bad/weak
2-poor
3-good
4-excellant
5-classic/great

they can be the same if you want

0.5 = 0.25
1 = 0.5
1.5 = 0.75
2 = 1
2.5 = 1.25
3 = 1.5
3.5 = 1.75
4 = 2
4.5 = 2.25
5 = 2.5
5.5 = 2.75
6 = 3
6.5 = 3.25
7 = 3.5
7.5 = 3.75
8 = 4
8.5 = 4.25
9 = 4.5
9.5 = 4.75
10 = 5

:^)

>>60403410
What the hell is this. Poor is just as bad as Weak to me, and Great is certainly not as good as Excellent

>>60403448
notice how on the two you singled out they have a slash with a different adjective.

>>60403348
nice b8, you got me

>>60403082
the 3 point scale is the only one that isn't dragged down by pointless hair-splitting
1 = won't listen again
2 = will
3 = will listen often
albums that stick out in your memory are your favorites and need no pointless distinction other than the title of favorite

>>60403425
I was gonna say this, but not give the numbers because people can figure that out by themselves

>>60403082
10 is more accurate, because it has more numbers it allows for greater precision of the rating. That way you know the rating you see is 100% objective and factual, calculated to the exact decimal of the albums artistic value.

Yes. Smaller units are always more precise. Rating them out of 100 would be more accurate than 10 and so on.

>>60403621
how do you rate an albums worth accurately though? If art is subjective then is a 5 scale not equally as accurate as a 10?

That album is a solid 673/1000 desu senpai

>>60403488
nah, this is retarded. you can rank the amount you enjoyed something.

>>60403654
If you want to take into account rating an album on different scales than just 1 = bad 10 = good, then a 5 scale is better. There really isn't a reason to go above 10, since you can easily rate albums with halves (8.5/10, etc.)

Whenever I rec an album to a friend, I tell them that:

1 = shite
2-3 = Average
3.5-4.5 = Great
4.5-5 = Classic

Smaller units are more precise, it's just up to the reviewer to decide whether or not more precision is worthwhile. Also, remember that 9/10=90/100=900/1000 etc.

>>60403082
>more accurate
>Implying any kind of rating is accurate

>>60403488
That's good for deciding if you enjoy the album, but doesn't really tell anyone else shit as to how good it is

>>60403991
Well they should listen for themselves.

>>60403991
that's the point. music is subjective. there is no "accuracy" to a ten point scale because no review can boil down to anything other than "i liked w parts for x reasons and disliked y parts for z reasons." whether or not you liked things is all that can really be accurately and understandably communicated to another human being

>>60403410
>excellant