|
|
Post by fxnj on Jan 20, 2018 3:23:43 GMT -5
I was looking at my spreadsheets and realized I'm gonna have a shitload of matches rated at ****1/4-****3/4 before this project is over. Hell, I already find myself with more matches in that range than I'm comfortable with trying to sort through. Has anyone considered adopting an alternative rating system to the conventional system to make it easier to sort through your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by El Mckell on Jan 20, 2018 5:25:57 GMT -5
When I first started rating matches I used a1-10 scale but I switched to the stars because it was more precise. So you switching from the stars is why I switched to them.
The star rating system is basically rating matches on a scale of 0-21. You could address your problem by switching to a scale of 0-50, If you are confident enough in your own mind to separate a 40 from a 41 or whatever.
The other solution is to consciously become a more tough grader with your stars for this project so that you use more of the scale for great matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by sams on Jan 20, 2018 6:27:48 GMT -5
In general I use a system where each match is rated 1-5.
5=5*
4=4.25-4.75
3=3.75-4
2=3-3.5
1=2-2.75
0=under 2
Initially I switched from the standard star rating scale because I didn't want to be thinking about match ratings too much when I was actually watching the match, which ended up happening a lot. However, for this project those ratings are far too vague, so I've separated them into 5, 4.75, 4.5 upper tier and 4.5 lower tier. Once they've been separated into those categories I've been using the tried and true method of taking a match and seeing if it's better than the one above. If it is I do the same with the match above that until it reaches a match that it isn't better than. And then that's when I know where it'll rank.
|
|
|
|
Post by maddog1981 on Jan 20, 2018 8:53:26 GMT -5
I tried a school grading system for awhile when I was doing All Japan TV a couple of years ago. It was kind of just same shit different day so I stopped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Jan 20, 2018 10:48:26 GMT -5
I also did different number system for a while when I was first gathering my thoughts and organizing them (few years ago now). I did 1-100 and I had certain amounts of points allotted for different things. It wound up being too much hassle and honestly not very effective. I would look at two matches and pretty clearly like one more and thin it was better, but the other would have a slightly higher number because of how I had points divided between aspects of the match. So i inevitably switched over to stars because its a language people understand (even if they don't agree with it sometimes).
I really try not to talk about stars that much because man people get bees in their bonnet about stars. I will do them on PWO and I am pretty sure how I feel about the match. I wont talk stars if I am getting into a new style. I have thrown them around a bit here because of how match centric this project is, but even then its been only really to distinguish between the 5 and 4.75 levels. Any match I have lower than 5 is going to have a hard time getting on my list. I have like 65 ***** matches right now and a few styles and areas I need to explore. At some point just about everything on my list will be on that top their so it won't make much sense for me to talks stars. I know some people only have like 2 five star matches so their will be different orientations to the system, but I'll be working MOSTLY in that top level.
I do sort of have informal tiers within my 5 and 4.75 star matches that I started organizing when I began trying to put top 100 together a while back. I might formalize something like that during this project, at least for myself as a way to help sort through this.
|
|
|
|
Post by maddog1981 on Jan 20, 2018 10:53:15 GMT -5
I don't talk stars a lot either. Mostly because my scale is constantly sliding as I see more content and my tastes change. Sometimes matches don't change but sometimes the rating goes up or down. I usually throw a star rating if I do because that's a quick and easy way to tell another person what you thought of a match.
|
|
|
|
Post by microstatistics on Feb 16, 2018 20:16:58 GMT -5
Just using my standard 5 star ranking system. All my ***** and **** 3/4 rated matches will make it easily. The rest should be covered by the **** 1/2 category (though I may have to dip into the **** 1/4 category). It's sort of a pain to sort though all of them but, in the end, this sort of tier system should be helpful when it comes to actually ranking matches (why this match is at #86 and not #65 and vice versa).
|
|
|
|
Post by joeg on Feb 20, 2018 0:43:26 GMT -5
I know of people who use a percent rating system. So 91% or higher is a 5 star match. 85% is 4 and a half stars. 80% is 4 stars. 75% is 3 and a half stars. 70% is 3 stars. 65% is 2 and a half stars. 60% is 2 stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by fxnj on Jun 22, 2018 21:43:50 GMT -5
Here's what I've come up with after giving it some thought
DUD (shit match)
* (bad match)
** (mediocre match)
**1/2
*** (good match)
***1/4
***1/2
***3/4
**** (great match)
****1/8
****1/4
****3/8
****1/2
****5/8
****3/4
****7/8
***** (GOAT candidate)
The idea is that the conventional system devotes way too much of the scale to bad and mediocre matches. What difference does it really make if something is * or *1/2? It's pretty rare for me ever bother making the effort to write a review for something I don't even consider a good match, so simplifying the first half of the scale is attractive to me. On the other hand, I try to spend most of my viewing time contemplating and discovering the great matches, of which I'm sure quite a few exist. Just having 1/4* increments to rate them feels a bit limiting, so going into 1/8s has been working quite well for me. No need for 6 or 7 star ratings. ***** is a rating reserved for matches that I could be convinced truly might be best ever wrestled. I doubt my list of ***** matches will ever exceed 10, if even that.
|
|
|
|
Post by microstatistics on Jun 22, 2018 21:52:16 GMT -5
Here's what I've come up with after giving it some thought DUD (shit match) * (bad match) ** (mediocre match) **1/2 *** (good match) ***1/4 ***1/2 ***3/4 **** (great match) ****1/8 ****1/4 ****3/8 ****1/2 ****5/8 ****3/4 ****7/8 ***** (GOAT candidate) The idea is that the conventional system devotes way too much of the scale to bad and mediocre matches. What difference does it really make if something is * or *1/2? It's pretty rare for me ever bother making the effort to write a review for something I don't even consider a good match, so simplifying the first half of the scale is attractive to me. On the other hand, I try to spend most of my viewing time contemplating and discovering the great matches, of which I'm sure quite a few exist. Just having 1/4* increments to rate them feels a bit limiting, so going into 1/8s has been working quite well for me. No need for 6 or 7 star ratings. ***** is a rating reserved for matches that I could be convinced truly might be best ever wrestled. I doubt my list of ***** matches will ever exceed 10, if even that. The 1/8th ratings are interesting, don't think I've seen that before. They make sense too unlike anything above 5 stars. Also agree ***** is just for GOAT candidates. Right now, I have only 7 matches rated at 5 stars. |
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Jun 26, 2018 11:17:19 GMT -5
I like not dedicating much time to bad matches when "rating". Honestly, I don't record anything under *** stars and anything from *** to ***3/4 only gets recorded if its part of a show I am rating other stuff from or part of a feud I am looking at or something like that. I only actually rate everything i see that is **** and above (and even then I miss stuff because I am not around my computer or I am not really thinking about ratings a lot of time time, etc etc etc)
|
|
|
|
Post by bossrock on Jun 26, 2018 20:03:07 GMT -5
I'll usually find myself at least trying to rate every match on a major card or ppv, but I agree that it's much easier to just rate the stuff you know is good.
|
|
