| Mike joined | |
|---|---|
20 days have passed, and I've been on vacation. Now I'm ready to rename the tiers, but let's try to not rock the boat too much:
Main points are:
What say you? | |
| bartyMJ joined | |
To me, 'ok' and 'so-so' mean the same thing | |
| Mike joined | |
^ yes, and that makes sense since on that mediocre/average level it is hard to differentiate. We could also use the same adjective for the two levels (“ok” for both). | |
| bartyMJ joined | |
I guess that's true. Would be good to have a slight differentiation though but I'm struggling to think of other reasonable solutions to suggest (even with using this again https://swipefile.com/how-negative-or-positive-different-english-words-are-perceived). I think that's partly due to B-C-D now being quite squeezed together, and the very large gap between B and A (in my perception). Know previously your reasoning was that good and great are synonyms... Can't say I agree with that at all, there's definitely a step from one to the other. I'd take great to mean more "very/really good" | |
| Mike joined | |
^ my problem with “great” for the B-tier is that it is too close to “awesome”. One solution would be to use “great” for the “B+” range. | |
| Mike joined | |
As far as grouping is concerned, the groups are S-A-B (good), C-D (neither good nor bad) and E-F (bad). | |
| bartyMJ joined | |
Think it shows whatever you go with isn't going to make perfect sense to everyone! :-) For me, Supreme and Awesome are much closer to being synonymous than Awesome and Great. Potentially a British English thing but there is a really clear gap between the latter, with Awesome fairly synonymous with brilliant, incredible, amazing etc. and Great being the bridge between those and 'just' good (hence VERY good etc.). So, as you have it, it does sort of line up with a B+, and I'd argue A- to an extent. But regardless, those 3 groupings have always made sense, and probably do regardless of any personal perspective. | |
| rushfan4 joined | |
My biggest concern is the same as before. Every time you change the meanings of the ratings I feel it ruins the integrity of all of my previous ratings. It is fine going forward, but if I rated something as ok and now it says mediocre I feel that changes my rating to something I didn’t rate and I don’t have the time nor the desire to go back and re-rate everything that I’ve already rated. My two cents. | |
| Mike joined | |
Ok, how about this?
It addresses the problem with "decent" having a much too positive ring to it compared to where the D-tier sits and makes it clear that E and F are really meant for bad releases. | |
| bartyMJ joined | |
That potentially offers a good balance of the clarification of lower tiers you wanted to have but without too much impact on past ratings per Rushfan4's concerns. Having C as 'good' does make sense to me, as to me its where everything goes that I don't have anything particularly negative to say, it just lacks a 'wow factor', or potentially also if there's a standout track or two in an album full of "meh" (which would otherwise be a D) |