| Mike joined | |
|---|---|
I slightly adjusted the tier names:
The goal was to have one single/simple adjective for each tier that also works well in tag badges (e.g. "Great Prog Rock"). What do you think? Is this in line with how you assign ratings? | |
| Rivertree joined | |
no complaint, it's not a massive change, seems to be better I'd say, concerning the color scheme it will need some time to get used to, especially when you've been present here very frequently ... | |
| anonymous user | |
I think the tiers should be recategorized, with 5 being on the lower end of C and 4 being D. That's how I use it in my personal system. I'm also not sure "E" is a good tier name, as it's a little confusing. Grouping 3 and 2 into "F" makes more sense in my opinion | |
| anonymous user | |
Yes, with a 7 star system, if I rate something 4 out of 10, which is 0.4, that is 2.8/7, which should be rounded up to 3 stars, especially since the decimals within the 4 would likely put it above 2.8/7 in distribution. If you want to keep E, so that each star has a tier, then ig the 3s would work for that one. S: 10-9 A:8s B:7s C: 6-5 D: 4s E: 3s F: 2-0 "Decent" also doesn't really work as it can be interchangeable with "good," depending on how it's used. I'd move "mediocre" for D tier, being wedged between "good" and "bad," as mediocre means "neither good nor bad, but something in between." If D is passable and F is failure (name it to terrible, or something), then "E" would be something in between the two (eg bad but with some merit). | |
| Mike joined | |
^ First, let's agree that there's no wrong or right here. Other than making the mapping entirely linear (ending up with ten stars mapping to 9.x, 8.x, ..., 0.x), how you do it differently is a subjective call. What I've done with the current mapping is to make the mapping non-linear in that the lower range is compressed into fewer stars to reflect the fact (imho) that we don't need as fine-grained distinctions between ratings on the lower end than on the higher end. Your suggestion is to make the mapping more "gauss-shaped", making the C-tier broader at the "expense" of the E-tier. I don't see how that is intuitive or makes more sense than my mapping. I agree that the word "decent" is a bit ambiguous. I think that "average" would be better, my only problem with it is that since it starts with the letter A. I'd be willing to shift to the negative:
What do you think? | |
| bartyMJ joined | |
Personally I think its better as it is. I don't think it makes sense to have something in the upper 50% of a distribution described as "mediocre", that doesn't really makes sense. Think you're right pitching it as 'average', by definition its in the middle! If you're going by the dictionary, decent is used as another word for average or OK, but I guess common use of 'decent' is to describe something more positively. Maybe just use "OK" if you want to change it? | |
| Mike joined | |
Yes, "Ok" might work. Maybe Ok for 5.x, then Mediocre for 3.x and 4.x and Bad for everything below. :-) |