post utterly disgusting curves
anything that peaks at 4 or 4.5
He enjoys gis music lad, you should be sad you dont
>>65636394
>liking a lot of music
>disgusting
>>65636448
>I am an idiot.
of course rym fags get triggered by this
>>65636448
>too dumb to properly realize the nuances in his taste
>doesn't have any favorite albums
>lives in "special needs care facilities"
>>65636448
>I'd better make sure that everyone knows that these two 1.0s are better than these three 1.5s!!! that's super fucking important! but those three are definitely 1.5, definitely not 2.0, that's for fucking sure. Big difference!11!!!
>oh, these 628 albums? yeah they're all the same, perfect, amazing. love them all equally
I know that it's supposed to be a "positive" rating scale, but it still triggers my autism.
>>65636629
What's wrong with it?
>>65636394
Anything but a bell curve
>>65636459
>>65636494
>>65636534
all me btw
WHO FUCKING CARES
WHO CARES
>>65636702
you got me
why do people do this
why do people spend hours everyday assigning meaningless numbers to albums they've only heard once? is this autism or am I missing something
>>65636961
>albums they've only heard once
filthy pleb
I only rate albums I've heard two or three times at least
>>65636961
i don't get it either, nobody cares what some random anon scores an album. It's pointless
>>65636394
>Only bothers spending time listening to highly acclaimed and recommended albums
What's is bad about this. Why would you listen to shitty or mixed albums in the first place.
>>65637141
/mu/'s autistic
>>65637141
Are you being serious? That's the definition of a tasteless drone. And how the fuck are you supposed to know if an album is bad if you haven't listened to it?
>>65636961
Nobody spends "hours everyday" rating albums. It literally takes half a second.
>>65636394
>>65636459
>>65636494
>>65636534
>>65636665
>>65637065
>>65637078
>people shit on people who give everything good ratings but defend retards who use retarded rating systems like this
>>65636629
/mu/ is fucking stupid, not enjoying things doesn't make you patrician
>>65637721
but that person enjoys everything except the 0.5s that's the whole point of that scale
just because your ratings peak at a higher number doesn't mean you enjoy music more
>>65637818
It's still retarded to use anything than standard scale where 2.5 is average
>>65636961
>>65637078
it's fun
>>65637844
Not really.
I would rather differentiate between how much I love certain albums, rather than how much I hate certain albums. Does anybody, even yourself, really care about the difference between a 1.0 and a 1.5? But the difference between a 3.5 and a 4.0 is much more important, interesting, and meaningful. Why not stretch out the differences between the albums you love to emphasize the best of the best, and compress the differences between the albums you dislike because it doesn't matter how much you dislike something?
>>65637844
Average at 2.0 is optimal. This way you get more numbers for the music that actually matters but still enough room to differentiate between terrible/bad/average
>literally neckbeard: the thread
>>65638084
t. embryo
>>65638029
this 2bh. what do you think of my rating system ? probably gonna shift it down a bit more at some point
