Do Three Stars Equal a 6.0?

When I finish a book or movie or CD or game, one of my first thoughts is, of course, processing how I felt about it. Did I like it? Would I like to experience it again? How would I compare it to others? Quite often for me, this boils down to a single rating, which somewhat reductively describes my experience with the item. In this way, I can look back later and remember first, if I’ve already done something (read that book, for example), and second, did I enjoy it? One concept I struggle with, however, is the multitude of rating systems. You have stars, half-stars, 10-point scales, 100-point scales, and many others.

Somewhat obsessively, I like to catalog what I’ve experienced. I have multiple accounts that track my music listened, games played, movies watched, books read, and so on. I like to go back and look at what I’ve accomplished. It’s also a good way to compare artistic tastes with friends. Most often, the best way to track this kind of information is by assigning it a rating, and as we know, rating systems can vary wildly.

The confusion of different systems arises because so many publications try to utilize unique ways of reviewing items. Websites and magazines that review products are in constant competition for views. Numeric ratings are often used in conjunction with a longer written review, obviously far more informative. Longer reviews, however, have the larger problem that most people would rather look at the number without digging into the article. Personally, I glance through a review only when I’m interested in the item in question. So, the rating system is a quick way to grab attention for the item.

I have had many debates with friends about what is the most effective system. Largely, these discrepancies revolve around the degrees with which items can be assigned. Five stars obviously gives five levels of definable quality; a 100-point scale gives 101 levels (including 0). As you can see, these get more precise with more levels. My personal preference falls somewhere in between.

100-point scales are a bit excessive. Though they carry a sense of scientific nature, it is mostly impossible to assign a sense of value with so many options. Questions arise like: is a 68 really better than a 66? These statements are obviously impossible to discern. However you feel about aggregate sites like Metacritic, these actually are take an average rating based on a collection of ratings and you can actually explore the differences between a 66 and a 68. But in the end, there is not much of a difference.

Ten stars is tricky. It gives twice as many choices as five stars, but not nearly as many as 100. In this way, we can get more specific responses, without getting ludicrously deep into ratings that differ by 2%. But I have issues with 10-point scales as well. Although I like the scaling, there is an inherent nature of interpreting quality, where any rating below about a 6 is considered ‘below average.’ Perhaps it is largely a problem in the U.S.--where a 60% is generally considered failing in the education system--but this has an enormous effect on how we comprehend low scores. Because of what we (at least in the U.S.) have learned, even something that earns 7 stars is considered mediocre.

The argument for five stars is a good one. The best way I have heard it described is that three stars is average with two levels above average and two below. I believe this is the most popular preference because it is most akin to how we think about quality. Was it very good? Five stars. Just okay? Two stars. The ease of use with a rating system like this makes it easily translatable. Furthermore, three stars is perceived as a better rating than a 60 out of 100. My issues with this system is that there is just not enough to differentiate from other ratings. I don’t enjoy every four-star item the same way; some are better than others. This is why I believe the best way to rate includes five stars with half stars.

I’ve been told that my issue with half stars is that I compare items against each other too much. Simply because I enjoyed something more than another is not reason enough to assign it a higher rating. I acknowledge that this is an issue, but I can’t help it. It’s only natural to compare media, so why wouldn’t you want to say something deserves a higher rating than something else? To me, half stars is as granular as I need to be to denote how I feel about a piece of entertainment.

Obviously, the rating is totally dependent on the rater. I know when it means when I’ve given something four stars, but I also know what it means when I assign something a 7 out of 10. The rating doesn’t matter; it’s how you ultimately felt about the item in question.

A Comment About Comments

The Internet is a great place for millions of users to come together and share ideas. The network allows for more interconnectedness than television, radio, or any other technology before. Anyone can share their creations. It is easier than ever to find someone who connects with an interest and have a dialogue with that person. Evidently, it is also very easy to display strong attitude, sometimes with hatred towards a person or group. I’m speaking, of course, of comments.

Scroll down to the bottom of most web pages and you will find the comments section. Some of them are blocked by login information while others require Google or Facebook verification, but the infamous ones have seemingly no rules and anyone can post whatever they want under the guise of “anonymous.” If you’ve spent any amount of time on the Internet, you have probably heard it before: “Don’t read the comments!”¹ Ostensibly, this section is a place for users to reflect knowledgeably upon what they have just read or watched. But it is not uncommon for this to devolve into rabid spewing of inappropriate or offensive speech almost completely unrelated to the original content. This is a problem.

Some websites are built entirely on the premise that sane folks can have a reasonable discussion in comments. And these can be successful because of the community that builds around the discussion. Based on the traditional sense of a public assembly, Internet ‘forums’ allow people to virtually gather and discuss a range of topics. These are the very best examples of comments on the Internet, as they allow like-minded people to be together. As the community grows, inflammatory commenters are excised. The opposite of this strict self-policing is a sort of free-for-all where people are rude almost immediately. YouTube is a notorious example, where commenters can be outright abusive. I’m just going to vent a bit, so if you want to skip the next two paragraphs, that’s okay.

Why do these kinds of people do this? What gives them the right to trash an otherwise fine piece of content? These are both difficult questions to answer, but one short, acceptable answer is that our freedom of speech extends to cover ideas stated on the Internet. People feel that they have the power to say whatever they wish, and that others need to listen to them. To an extent, this is true: all of us on the Internet have an equal voice. But these people are also wrong. Just because hate-speeches are widely publicized, this does not make them right or even popular. Even online, ignorant speech is still ignorant. And hateful people are still idiots.

Another obvious answer to the question, is that commenters can hide behind anonymity. A cowardly person can say whatever they want if their name is not directly to the left. There is nothing to risk by antagonizing others. Unless there is a some kind of thumbs down feature, that comment will exist as long as people respond to it. Which is, of course, the improper way to deal with “trolls” on the Internet. The best thing to do is let them say what they will and ignore it. Or read it and laugh at them inwardly because you are better than them². Either will suffice.

ANYWAY, I’m done with the negativity. Here is an absolutely radical theory: is it possible that comments are actually a positive force on the Internet? I might go so far as to suggest that they have become a part of the original content. Is that too much? For better or for worse, I believe our experiences are shaped by external opinions. I might think differently about a video after having read a comment about it. This might be a sad way to look at it, because it implies we cannot arrive at opinions on our own. That’s not really what I mean. I’d like to think browsing comments give us different avenues of thought from which to compare. I came to this realization while reading a library book in which another reader had written some notes in the margins of the book. It occurred to me that this marginalia really was affecting how I was reading the book.

As an undergraduate, I’m sure I remember a philosopher positing that a piece of literature is only half produced by the author. The other half is from the reader and the experiences they bring to the reading. This implies that every book is different for every reader any given time they read it. This also suggests that comments play a significant role in our comprehension of the work. For instance, if I read a news article online that particularly fascinates me, I purposely scroll through the top dozen or so comments, just to gauge the reactions of others. And yes, this affects my reading of the article. Therefore, I think that comments have slowly become part of the entire piece.

Basically, be careful with comments. They might have more of an effect than you think. It does not make sense to merely post that you don’t like something. Disagreeing with the content or another poster without providing any reasoning whatsoever does not add anything substantial to the conversation. Thoughtful is always best in comments.

So, what do you think? Are comments meaningless addendum to online publications, or should they be taken more seriously? Let me know what you think below.

---

1 There are myriad hilarious examples of these types of messages online that spoof the ridiculous nature of comments. Sometimes, though, the parodies are more accurate than they should be.^↩
2 In fact, I do get some enjoyment out of reading bad comments because some people are so laughably dense.^↩

Doing Things for Free: Part 3

A lot of musicians complain very publicly about not receiving enough money for their work. Whether it is record companies or streaming services, artists claim they are not compensated enough. They make these claims loudly, looking for enough sympathy that consumers will buy their records from their own labels to maximize a profit. But for every artist demanding more money for their music, there are ten musicians who produce everything by themselves hoping for even a dozen people to hear what they’ve done. Even if they hear it for free.

This brings us finally to the interplay between producers and consumers of music. Like most content creators, musicians make music because it is a passion of theirs. This is as true for major musicians as it is for high schoolers playing in their garages. And anyone who is passionate about something wants to share it with others to spread their enjoyment. Luckily, there are places, again on the wonderful Internet that makes it possible to share and promote music for their audience.

SoundCloud is a community devoted to just this purpose--artists giving their music to any interested person. It benefits both artists by promoting and listeners by providing new tunes. Because SoundCloud is disconnected from most major labels, it hosts tracks to be played directly on the website, or in some cases, to be downloaded for personal playback. This is an ideal use for someone who does all of their own work independently and can just upload finished products immediately. Fans can interact with the music instantly, as well as browse and discover new interesting songs. Occasionally, even major established artists take advantage of this service to share new music before the major release of an album.

Bandcamp is a similar service in that it allows songwriters to upload tracks and even full albums for distribution to interested fans. People can stream music directly on the site or, as is more commonly the case, they can download individual tracks or albums. The site utilizes a “pay what you want” strategy, where users can give what they feel the music is worth or what they can afford to spend, even if that cost is nothing. This system allows artists to earn a bit of a profit, if they wish, while still being able to advertise their own creations. From a listener’s perspective, there are dozens of great artists ready to be discovered for no cost. Some fans even curate lists of the best music on the site that’s also available for free.

But not all artists who want to share their music happen to be small independent musicians using these aforementioned websites. English rock band Radiohead, famously released their album, In Rainbows, for any price, including $0. Just as famously (or perhaps infamously), U2 forced any iPhone user to have their album, Songs of Innocence, at no cost but without the user’s permission. Influential hard rock musician, Trent Reznor, has made use of public copyrighting known as Creative Commons licensing to release several albums for free. Numerous rap groups give songs away in the form of mixtapes. The list goes on and on.

Obviously, even well-known and critically acclaimed musicians care enough about their listeners to simply give their music away. Once again, the Internet provides several outlets where consumers can get what they are looking for from producers with a little searching and no cost. Most people can find places to stream music online or download it illegally, but there are many great places where music makers can interact directly with fans. After a bit of poking and prodding around different websites, it’s not hard to broaden one’s mind, for purposes of both entertainment and information.

Doing Things for Free: Part 2

In 2015, at least in the US, video arcades are certainly no longer the hubs of activity they used to be three decades ago. Places that used to be packed with children, flashing lights, and pinball machines now look sort of sad. Even when I was young, arcades were already on the decline in all but the more heavily populated areas. Modern arcades, however, are hardly updated and--from personal observation--mostly empty. For many reasons, this is disappointing. Children (and adults) miss them dearly; parents miss having a place to send their kids.

This is due, in large part, to the rising availability of arcade games on home consoles. People no longer needed to feed quarters into a machine to make endless runs of games. Instead, with one moderately sized purchase, a game could be played over and over again, in the comfort of one’s own bedroom. It would not take long for the purchase price to offset the quarter pay per play method. It became the case that many popular console games were ports of arcade standbys. But it could not recapture the feel of arcades.

Home computers interconnected by the Internet was steadily more popular in the mid-1990s. This lead to innovative new ways to distribute games, such as message boards and shareware. This new term meant that content creators could make their software instantly available to anyone who wanted it. In all likelihood, these were the first examples of “viral” distribution. A piece of software that received a bump in attention could suddenly spread like wildfire. And there was no go-between interfering with the producer and the consumer. It was a direct link.

As it were, playing video games at home turned out to be desirable. The iterations of the Atari were basically mini arcades. Companies like Nintendo and Sega warred with competing consoles and playing games on the computer became even bigger. And as time passed these games became part of the history of the larger game industry as a whole. Games now seen as history, however, are increasingly difficult to enjoy as fewer people have access to actual working machines. Luckily, there is a legal home for these classic titles so that they can still be accessed today. Of course, it’s on the Internet.

The Internet Archive, also famously known as the Wayback Machine, is a nonprofit collection of links and files. One of its primary uses is archiving slices of the Internet so that it can be visited in the future. Want to see what your favorite website looked like in the early 2000s? You can bring up a sample of it in a matter of seconds. The other use of the website is to browse millions of files, including books, audio, and software, such as games.

While the collection is fairly small still, users can download and play many classic titles for the PC or for Atari and Sega systems. Some games do not hold up, to be sure, and appear outdated and uninspired. Others were and still are considered to be masterpieces. But they are all available for one to peruse at no cost, regardless of quality.

Being able to broaden one’s horizons is becoming easier all the time with the aid of the Internet. There is no cost barrier to entry with so much entertainment, just as it’s never been easier to freely share one’s own creations. Content goes from the producer to the consumer effortlessly. Anyone with an Internet connection has the freedom to experience new things. Or in some cases, old things which help ground our current landscapes. In any case, it’s a good time to be connected.