[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/a/


>7/10 is the rating for an average anime

Or

>5/10 is the rating for an average anime

Which do you feel is more accurate? They both have their origins and their reasons, obviously. 5/10 just makes sense, being the middle of the rating scale, and thus the rating that should be used for average anime. 7/10, however, comes from the fact that, in school, we were taught that a grade of 70% was average, thus giving rise to the idea in our minds that that same ratio should be used to rate media, as well, and thus we find that people rate an average anime as 7/10, instead of the more readily obvious 5/10.

What does /a/ think? Do you rate your average anime as 5/10, or 7/10? Also, do you care if others do differently, and that they should rate how you rate?
>>
>>102151908

Average = "numbers in the middle" or "the most common number to occur"
>>
7/10 is stupid, even 3/10 would make more sense, why would you want more fidelity in rating bad shows than good shows?
>>
>>102152131

When I use the word "average" I mean "an anime that is nothing special, had a few enjoyable parts but a few stupid parts, something you could tolerate and have some fun with but you wouldn't recommend to others unless you think they'd really like it" sort of thing. Do you rate that 7/10 or 5/10?
>>
I would say that 7/10 is about where I would put an average anime. Or maybe 6.5ish. But rating things, in general, seems like a bad idea unless EVERYBODY giving this rating agrees to use the same kind of criteria.

>>102152219
Because you don't actually consider all the things which have something missing, but would still qualify. If your average is 3/10 and you rate something 0/10 that seems pretty bad, what do you do when you compare that to an Uwe Boll movie or something similar? That has to fit on the same scale. Now compare that Uwe Boll movie to a movie that is missing something pretty heavily: eg sound is broken and messed up, but it's still shipped. It wouldn't be fair to rate all of those as 1/10 or 0/10 or whatever your minimum would be then, now would it? When they are clearly worlds apart in how good they are.

You have to remember that if something makes it on TV or is released by some company then there have been NUMEROUS people who thought this was a good idea. And usually there are also numerous people who liked it. This places it far above on the rating scale of something that is actually garbage.
>>
>>102151908
3 stars out of 5

And no half star shit, either. None of that is even useful.
>>
File: 1378929000280.png (374.94 KB, 752x588)
374.94 KB
374.94 KB PNG
I use 7/10 for something blandly average. I suppose that comes from the grading system in school, where anything below a 5/10 isn't even worth mentioning.
>>
File: 1387749827034.jpg (95.46 KB, 836x599)
95.46 KB
95.46 KB JPG
People get so fussy over ratings when looking at others peoples rating for shows its annoying.


7/10 is usually the average for me if I enjoyed it but wasn't amazing or just shy of being great, 5/10 is for finished it but not feeling anything for it.
>>
>>102152835

While I agree that 3 out of 5 is a good rating for a 5-star system, how would you rate it on an out-of-ten rating system?
>>
>>102152835
How the fuck are you going to tell the difference between two 4 star shows with that rating system
>>
>>102151908
>5/10 is the rating for an average anime

No way, that means that half of the material failed at its intended purpose.

I'd say 6/10 is average and 7/10 is slightly above average and 8/10 is where series begin to get good.
>>
>we were taught that a grade of 70% was average
Nope, 5 was the passing grade so a 5 is basically 'average', 7 is properly 'good'.
>>
>>102153035

Where did you go to school?
>>
>>102153035
What fucked up country let's you pass with a 50%?
>>
>>102153035
>5 was the passing.

7 is the passing here.

Where as 8-9 is properly "good". And 10 is excellent.
>>
>>102153098
More like what kind of fucked up country needs you to score a 7 to pass.
>>
>>102152727
But with 7/10 as average you can't really distinguish between great films and really great films. Do you care more if someone thought a film was unwatchable or just barely watchable or if they thought a film was great or really great?
>>
>>102153098
>Let's

I guess mine does.
>>
>>102152727
I don't think it's all that important to be able to differentiate various levels of "bad". Shows that are too crappy to be worth watching may have variance in quality, but since they are all too crappy to be worth watching, there is no particular need for more specific ranking between them. It is more important to be able to differentiate between various levels of "good". There is, after all, quite a bit of difference between "watchable if you're bored", "actually pretty good", "you're really missing out if you haven't seen this" and "genuine masterpiece"
>>
>>102153149
A 50% means that you could only grasp half the content.
>>
>>102153010
Why would you ever need to? Anything beyond broad 'see/don't see' strokes is more or less useless.
>>
>>102151908
7/10 is alright
5/10 leaves you numb
>>
>>102153149
The United States, where the grade school curriculum is so piss easy that literal retards get C's.
>>
7/10 anything below 7 is shit.
>>
>>102153160

5/10 - Not watchable

6/10 - Barely watchable

7/10 - Not enjoyable, but watchable

8/10 - Enjoyable, good

9/10 - Great, wonderful

10/10 - Masterpiece, amazing
>>
Soviet system is best in this regard.
You have numbers from 1 to 5.
1 is utter shit
2 is shit, that may be slightly better, but shit
3 is ok, passable, but not really good
4 is already quality, not top, but good things go here
5 is best
>>
>>102153237
That depends on the difficulty and scope of the questions.
>>
>>102152954
I wouldn't, because out of ten is a shit system which promotes retarded quibbling over irrelevant details and has unnecessary baggage attached.
>>
There is currently too much media for any one person to digest, so people disregard shit. The average anime is a 5 but no one wants to watch horrible shit so 7 is the most common ranking.
>>
>>102153382
So only three points in a 10 point scale are good? That's retarded.
>>
>>102153341

Blame Bush with his "No Child Left Behind" bullshit.
>>
5/10 = average

The average work in any medium is shit, so I would say 7/10 is what I would give something that is worth looking into. But quality varies so wildely once you get to a 9/10, that anything that reaches that point gets put on a new scale called 'the good scale' where 5/10 is really fucking good, but average as far as things that are really fucking good. Of course I don't use the good scale here but just say 10/10 must watch, but when in casual discussions with people online I will explain my system. yeah yeah autism ect ect
>>
>>102153382
>5/10 - Not watchable
So then what is the point of 4 and below?
>>
>>102153098
Grade of 5 doesn't necessarily mean that you got 50% of the questions right, In Finland, for instance, grades from grade school to high school go from 4 to 10, with 4 being a failing grade. How many points out of the highest possible amount it takes to get a particular grade varies. Grading systems vary from country to country, which may be one reason why same numerical rating means different things to different people.
>>
>>102153453

Explain why you think it's retarded, instead of just stating so. You're not doing a very good job of expressing your opinion like that.

>>102153463

Things like Mars of Destruction, Wonder Momo, etc. that are bad by virtue of the fact not that they have bad plots, which is what 5-10 is reserved for, but simply that they have horrible production values and at some points don't even have a plot at all. Seriously, when you have to resort to public domain music because you couldn't get any produced yourself, you have problems.
>>
>>102153453
>That's retarded
No, that's true.

Most things aren't good, anon.

It's possible to enjoy a ~5/10 and below, but they aren't generally good.

At that point it probably interests a person specifically, so you can't really recommend it
>>
>>102153463
In video games, anything below a 4 is reserved for broken games, so maybe an anime that makes you physically violent to the point where you break something.
>>
There are only three ratings that matter: good, mediocre, and bad. Why? Because the average consumer of reviews doesn't give a rat's ass about whether it's a "masterpiece," "bretty good," "kinda bad," or "the worst thing ever," all they care about is whether it's good or not.

>then why even have mediocre?

For people who want a specific genre, have already exhausted everything good, and are willing to risk it.
>>
5/10 is average. I think the issue is how you relate average to how good something is. I can watch a 5/10 show and still enjoy it for the most part.
>>
>>102152297
I'd give it a 6
>>
>>102153570
So you need 5 points to differentiate between completly garbage and has some good points but no one cares because the reset is unwatchable? While you have 3 points to seperate enjoyable and the second coming of christ?
>>
>>102151908
>having a number rating system
For most things that are tangible you either like them or you don't
>>
>>102153595
A 5/10 show is what I'd give to something I'd call 'watchable within the genre', not good by itself, but watchable. Basically what a mediocre work is, not good, not bad, but watchable.
A 6 already has something that makes it stand out a little bit instead of being utterly mediocre. I start recommending from this one.
4 and below are different levels from bad to horrible crap.
>>
File: 1364260132402.jpg (29.27 KB, 640x480)
29.27 KB
29.27 KB JPG
1-5 is bad
6/7 is average
7-8 is good
9-10 really good or rated by autists.
>>
>>102153726
Add 'must see' and 'avoid at all costs' and you have a good system.

One which happens to be out of 5.
>>
>>102153385
1 is refusing to do any work. 2 is shit and means you failed.
>>
1 - Offensively bad, i.e. Infinite Stratos
2 - Sightly better, but still garbage
3 - Serious flaws, e.g. poor execution of a good concept
4 - Generally bad, with some enjoyable parts
5 - Average, not good, but nothing bad about it either
6 - Above average
7 - Good, but nothing memorable
8 - Great in multiple aspects
9 - Brilliant, genre changing/defining
10 - Milky Holmes
>>
>>102154516
You need a 0- just plain an utter shit, people wonder to this day why it even got made: Mars of destruction, Green Green (tv series)
>>
File: 1389166457090.png (101.23 KB, 264x339)
101.23 KB
101.23 KB PNG
1-God Awful, you have to try to make an anime this terrible
2-Awful
3-Bad
4-Has one or two redeeming qualities, but otherwise bad
5-Okay, correct score for quite a bit of anime produced in the past 5 or so years. The score that most "popular" amine should get.
6-Decent, may be fun to watch but don't expect anything special
7-Good
8-Very good, expect maybe one, maybe two shows per season to get an 8
9-Great, expect about one 9 a year
10-Masterpiece, few and far between, (the only animu that I've watched that I would give a 10 is Crest of the Stars.)

Is this an alright rating system?
>>
>>102154768
I'd swap great for excellent in 9, high 8s are already great.
>>
Rating with points is stupid. "Good", "average" and "bad" are everything you need.
>>
>>102155317
That isn't really terribly informative either. Giving a short, concise description of the show, its strengths and its weaknesses is probably more useful that just giving a rating. Also I guess comparing it to other shows, like "if you liked X this might appeal to you as well".
>>
>>102153187
You just mentioned 4 pieces.
6 - "watchable if you're bored",
7 - "average"
8 - "actually pretty good",
9 - "you're really missing out if you haven't seen this
10 - "genuine masterpiece"

Seems to fit pretty well into this 10 point scale where 7 would be considered "average".
Not to mention that you can obviously use fractions too.
>>
>>102157147
Well, personally I would say that there is no need for "average" rating between "watchable" and "actually good". In my experience "watchable if you're bored" describes an average show pretty well. I think the verbal ratings I mentioned would fit a five point scale better. It would go something like this:

1 - "Don't watch"
2 - "Watchable if bored"
3 - "actually pretty good"
4 - "you're really missing out if you haven't seen this"
5 - "genuine masterpiece"

Using fractions would just make things unnecessarily complicated.
>>
4 and below: don't bother
5: watchable at best
6: decent
7: good
8: great
9: very, very good
10: masterpiece (LoGH is here)

Most shows fall around 6 for me.
>>
File: Hartmann s2.png (283.10 KB, 593x673)
283.10 KB
283.10 KB PNG
>>102152954
....................................Seriously?

3/5=6/10
>>
File: trophy.jpg (48.65 KB, 610x458)
48.65 KB
48.65 KB JPG
A good question. I consider a 7 rating to be "Okay" or "Average good" with a 5 rating being mediocre "I didn't like or dislike" Something that is neither good nor bad, here nor there. It just sort of exists. I'll go ahead and describe my personal 1-10 rating system.

10 - Masterpiece.
>As close to perfection by your standards as it gets. There should be very few, if not only one perfect 10.

9 - Great.
>High marks in every possible aspect. You'll love to discuss this for years to come. A true classic.

8 - Very good.
>Whatever flaws this has are outweighed by strengths. This is among your personal favorites.

7 - Good.
>A decent, solid entry. Far from perfect, but enjoyable. You'd recommend this to someone.

6. Above average.
>Certainly not bad, but not particularly good either. It had enough going for it to be considered "okay."

5. Average.
>No strengths or weaknesses to make this stand out. As forgettable as one drop of rain in a storm.

4. Below average.
>Not bad per se, but you definitely didn't like it. It just didn't appeal to you at all.

3. Bad.
>Not complete shit, but that's the nicest thing you'd ever say about it. Plagued by glaring flaws.

2. Very bad.
>You have very little, if anything good to say about this. Memorable only in how much you hated it.

1. Terrible.
>You truly despise this and regret ever having seen, or even heard of it. Just the thought of it is enough to make you cringe. You go out of your way to bash it at every opportunity as if you have some personal vendetta against it.
>>
If we are sharing our personal rating systems...

9-10 - Extremely good/Masterpiece would strongly recommend.
7-8 - Pretty good, above average but not quite masterpiece level. Would still recommend.
5-6 - Pretty average, probably better described as "not terrible". Might recommend if the person liked that genre specifically.

Anything below is not worth watching.
>>
>>102161714
Yeah, all three of the average ratings; 4, 5, and 6, are all shows I would describe as "meh" with varying degrees of positive or negative feeling. High meh, medium meh and low meh.

I feel almost as strongly a series I'd rate as 1 as I'd feel about a 10. The middle ratings are those I don't feel very strongly about one way or the other. I wouldn't even remember that I watched them unless it was brought up by something else. Shows in that range are just a dime a dozen, like Speed Grapher or Blue Gender.
>>
>>102162488
I notice quite a few people are only using half the scale. Why not use a 1 to 5 rating system?
>>
>>102161714
I like you.
>>
1 - I couldn't even watch it ironically
2 - I could hardly watch it but I could not enjoy it ironically
3 - I could hardly watch it and I laughed at how bad it was
4 - the show was bad.
5- the show was bad but hard something funny about it
6 - the show is something I wouldn't recommend but something was enjoyable about it, like characters
7 - the show was something I could watch and enjoy but nothing fantastic
8 - show was great and I would recommend someone to watch but I wouldn't want to rewatch it
9 - phenomenal I would watch this again
10 - so few shows bring a smile to my face but this show is something I would recommend to Damn near anyone who wanted something very enjoyable
I hardly give anything 10 but somethings are at that point.
>>
>>102161714
Pretty much this. With a note that a *vast* majority are actually 4s or 5s and thus completely forgettable. Low and High numbers stay with you.
>>
Shit Tier:
1 - Togainu no Chi Level
2 - SAO Level (+1 only because of great episode 1)
3 - Seitokai no Ichizon S2 Level (New Voice Actors Butchered the Show)

Average Tier:
4 - Average Score: Angel Beats Level
5 - Slightly Better than Average: Accel World Level
6 - Above Average: Code Geass

Good Tier
7 - Gankutsuou Level
8 - Spice and Wolf Level
9 - Fate Zero, JoJo Level

God Tier
10 - LoGH
>>
>>102163924
Spice and Wolf should be higher, shit list. I give it a 3/10
>>
>>102164020
/a/ tends to either enjoy Spice and Wolf or hate it. I personally enjoyed the interactions between Horo and Lawrence, hence the high score I've given it.

For anybody wondering why Gankutsuou is at 7 - It's because I found the series to be relatively dragged out and not as spectacular as it could've been.
>>
>>102162986
But with that scale, I could simultaneously give a show 10 and 3 at the same time: Samurai Flamenco
>>
>>102161714
This is almost verbatim my scoring system.
Also your average should be close to 5.5 because 0 doesn't exist.
(1+10)/2=5.5

It is pretty rare to see anything outside the 4-7 range. I tend to see 1-2 shows of 20 in a season that end up as 1,2,3,8,9,10.

Most of the time:
3 is usually the worst show of a season, and 8 is the best.
2 is the worst of the year, and 9 is the best.
>>
File: 1390087342183.jpg (27.62 KB, 382x333)
27.62 KB
27.62 KB JPG
People who set some retarded policy for rating things are usually really fucking full of it.

10 is a masterpiece, 5 is average, and 1 is saved for the most irredeemable piece of shit. That's all there is to it. it's a 1-10 scale. Not difficult.

People with mean ratings in the around 8 or 3 need to stop rating things, because you clearly don't know how to do use a scale. Either that or you genuinely only watch masterpieces or force yourself to watch shitty shows.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.