Star Ratings

[klunderbunker]

Can someone please explain to me why these are the be all and end all of ratings? I write reviews on two sites and use my letter grades and on both sites I've been called a combination of tacky, self-absorbed, overcomplicating and stupid for using letters. Also "they're hard to understand and don't look right." Yes I can CLEARLY see how difficult it is to tell what a B looks like as opposed to ***1/2*.

Someone enlighten me on this. Why is this so damn hard to grasp?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Maybe it's because of the way the letter grades are given out and what I mean by that is like you give grades of B, B+ and B-. Maybe if you just give A, B, C, and D's without the pluses and minuses people would better understand.

 

[JGlass]

Because it's what Netflix uses.

Personally, when grading wrestling matches/shows, I like to use letters or a 1-10 system, as the 5 star system doesn't really do matches enough justice.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Meh, what system someone uses isn't really an issue for me. Star ratings are fine if they stick to just using a whole star...Maybe a 1/2 on occasion. It becomes pointless when 3/4 stars are involved.

 

[klunderbunker]

Maybe it's because of the way the letter grades are given out and what I mean by that is like you give grades of B, B+ and B-. Maybe if you just give A, B, C, and D's without the pluses and minuses people would better understand.

*****
4.75
4.5
4.25
****
3.75
3.5
3.25
***
2.75
2.5
2.25
**
1.75
1.5
1.25
*
.75
.5
.25
Dud

Not counting negative stars, that's 21 levels of rating.

A+
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
D+
D
D-
F+
F
F-

I have 15. Mine's even less complex. I guess it's not pretty though.

 

[ABMorales787]

I prefer a straight 1-10 system with no decimals.

 

[The Crock]

I use letter grades as well, but I enjoy X's use of stars.

 

[Stormtrooper]

If Star Grades were so important, why do schools use letter grades? Last time I checked, report cards and the like don't say things like

History: *** 1/4

They say things like

History: B+

Besides, my big gripe with star (and partial star) grading is that the stars generally used are asterisks, followed by full-size numbers. This process accentuates the partial star too much, and makes the complete stars more of an afterthought. 10 star system would fix that (for the most part), but letter grades FTW.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

The school I had used a grading system with numbers instead of letters.

 

[klunderbunker]

Don't get me wrong: using whatever is fine. X uses stars, I use letters, some people use numbers, all fine and good. What I don't get are people complaining about one use or another. It blows my mind that I write a four page review of a show and I get bitched at because of one single thing even though I explain the rating. I could say I give it one burning McDonalds out of 28 and it would be the same thing.

 

[The Crock]

Somebody really should start some whacked out ratings system.

"That match gets 72 virgins out of 474.231 cigarettes."

 

[gd]

I'm all about the 1-10 system.

 

[ABMorales787]

If Star Grades were so important, why do schools use letter grades? Last time I checked, report cards and the like don't say things like

History: *** 1/4

They say things like

History: B+

Besides, my big gripe with star (and partial star) grading is that the stars generally used are asterisks, followed by full-size numbers. This process accentuates the partial star too much, and makes the complete stars more of an afterthought. 10 star system would fix that (for the most part), but letter grades FTW.

Those letter grades happen to be packaged with percentage grades to tell you just close you cut it to a C.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Those letter grades happen to be packaged with percentage grades to tell you just close you cut it to a C.

but nowhere are stars to be seen.

And while the letter grades are decided by an average of the numbers, the numbers are meaningless, in that an 85 and 86 would both be the same letter grade.

Letters make lief easier, too. easier to say "A-Minus" then "3 and 1 quarter stars", and A- looks neater then ***1/4. Numbered ratings works just as well as letters.

 

[Vega]

I think it's used because the top is more distinguished. You use an A for a very good to great match and an A+ for a legendary one. For example a 4,75* match may still be an A+ match (Undertaker VS Michaels II for instance) and a 5* is more rare.

I usually go with two ratings, X/12 for a match and Y/8 for the buildup.

 

[shattered dreams]

I think part of what it is about is that fine distinctions are what people look for in ratings. The more you generalize/"simplify," the less meaningful the result is because anyone could do it. Also, it hampers comparison in the historical context because it is somewhat atypical. Then again from what I remember you did not care much about judging all matches under the same objective lense anyway.

 

[klunderbunker]

Well that's because not all matches can be graded on the same scale. Never have been able to and never will be able to, which is a flaw in most systems.

 

[shattered dreams]

Actually they can be and that is kind of the point of most systems.

 

[klunderbunker]

No, there can't be.

John Morrison vs. Alex Riley on Raw
Bam Bam Bigelow vs. Random Jobber #1
TLC 2
Royal Rumble 1998
Ricky Steamboat vs. Randy Savage
Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant - Mania 3

All of those have different things they're supposed to do and be and if you graded them using the same scale it would make no sense.

 

[shattered dreams]

A sliding scale of intentions just makes the entire process pointless because there is no comparison. I also think you might need to look up the word scale because your reviews grade everything on the same scale. What you are talking about is criteria. Most systems have some subjective criteria. The best matches accomplish a little bit of everything. Those that fall short of that regardless of why receive less. It isn't 5 A+ when Santino makes you laugh because he was supposed to. If you actually differentiated like you allude to I think that would be great and useful but you do not.

 

[klunderbunker]

No, it makes the process something you have to actually think about instead of being told what to think. Matches work or don't work when they do what they're supposed to do. A squash match is supposed to be one sided and if the jobber gets in no offense then it's perfect. That to me would be an A+, but with such little time there's no point to grading it. Most traditional scales I see would call that match a dud, which it isn't.

 

[shattered dreams]

I think you are confusing the show with the matches. Even then you are not judging for your audience. Your audience wants to know how entertaining something is, not how well they followed the script so things might actually be interesting next week.

 

[Sully]

I think letters are easier to understand, they're pretty much the same as grades.

 

[klunderbunker]

I think you are confusing the show with the matches. Even then you are not judging for your audience. Your audience wants to know how entertaining something is, not how well they followed the script so things might actually be interesting next week.

Which isn't what I do in my reviews. Don't like them? Go read someone else's or watch the match yourself. I don't write recaps. I write reviews and say not mainly what happened but why is this important and what does it mean.

 

[shattered dreams]

Then why do you give letters and call them match ratings within these reviews?