Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Yeah. The reason Starman scored a 14/10 is cause I am factoring in an four extra credits cause the song is going beyond and above the call of duty. It goes beyond the regular "oh, it's a good song." They did every thing right so they gets a normal 10/10. But it has a certain je ne sais quoi. There is something more about it, something mythical, something magical, so the need for 4 extra credit points being added to its 10/10. It totally makes good sense to me.
|
Why "4" and not 30 extra points? I mean, why not; since we're in meaningless meta-mathematical no man's land? The reason it doesn't work as if you're grading papers is because rating things based on taste, is, like I said earlier, usually linear. Going by your logarithmic way, it would mean that Frownland's score of 5 would mean that the album was worse than a failure (something that's as "meaningful" as 14 out of ten). Same thing if you apply it to any other product review - Yelp or otherwise. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't say, "The movie went 'beyond and above the call of duty," so I give it 140%" or a Yelp review of a restaurant that gives it a 3 star (meaning "good") would, in your system, be a complete failure at an equivalent 60%.
If we really are just wanting to talk about the music, then why even have the rating system? 'Cause that's what we do here - pit people and things against each other.
I'm rethinking my review. Since I think it's a cool record, I'll have to take the formula for the speed of sound thru ice and calculate each tune's placement within each calculated sound/time space and probably have to resort to Baire's Theorem to come up with a similar meta-math that gives an answer outside rational boundaries ... or, I'll just continue with the scale of "1" equaling "crap," "5" equaling "average," and "10" being nearly unobtainable perfection.
Linear Mode
