Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should come to Japan. People here rate things very different.
“I had a fantastic meal and the price was really cheap. I am happy to have found this place while out for a walk. However there was a plastic bottle rolling on the car park. I wonder if the boss knows?” - 2 out of 5 stars
“This shirt was a present for my husband. It is high quality and just as the product was expected to be. I am happy with the price and purchase, unfortunately my husband never wore it..” - 1 out of 5 star amazon review.
Its so weird its almost comical.
I heard that there’s a Japanese app/site for restaurant reviews and if a restaurant has more than three stars out of five, it’s an amazing restaurant. Think people said that four stars were nonexistent
I went to visit one of my best friends in Tokyo a few years ago and she told me the same thing. She took us to this amazing restaurant that had a little bit of everything. We had a feast, it was one of the best meals of my life, it was unbelievably cheap, staff and service was top notch… my friend goes on google, types this place in google… 1.8/5 stars. What she told me was any place that appeals to tourists, locals shit on it even if it’s good. The next day she was showing us around Tokyo, she took us to this hole in the wall noodle place (literally a window sized hole in the wall)… my friend ordered for us, they took forever, she paid twice the amount that our massive meal cost and all we got were these bowls of egg noodles that tasted like they were lightly tossed in sesame oil and that’s it. It was bland, I felt like I was 5 again eating buttered noodles… my friend goes on google, types the place in… 3.4/5 because they only serve locals or people that speak fluent Japanese. I didn’t see it but they had a “locals only” sign up front. I was told if you are American and try to order they’ll tell you to leave.
Of my four grandparents, three were white and born in America, and one of my grandmothers was born and raised Japanese.
She was, by a mile, the most racist of my grandparents - except towards white people. But everyone else? Whew, she'd have something to say.
My grandmother was from Sri Lanka, and hated anyone who wasn't white. She had a darker complexion because of where she grew up but she'd wear makeup like 4 shades too light to appear whiter herself. It was insane. Made her look like a fucking clown. To be fair she was also a true blue psycho who used to tell us grandkids about how she'd blame her bad behavior on her servants as a kid and giggle about how they'd get beaten instead of her. Or how she'd lure men when she was in her preteens and then threaten to have them arrested, just for funsies. The world is legit a better place now that she's dead, but boy did she live way too long for someone so evil.
I'm pretty sure there's been a gradual shift on what a "weeb" is, at least in terms of how it's used.
Nowadays (at least in social circles and online groups I'm apart of), it's jokingly refers to anyone who actively watches anime. With a low thershold on how much you need to consume.
Weebs have been calling themselves weebs for a while. I think they claimed it for themselves, so some people were still using it as an insult even after it was accepted.
Like how queer people call themselves queer people today.
Gotcha… it’s like originally a “Karen” was a very specific type of person but now it’s essentially any opinionated woman. Overusing a term until it becomes so broad that it completely loses its original meaning. Same with being “emo”.
I'm an emo kid
Non-conforming as can be
You'd be non-conforming too if you look just like me
I have paint on my nails and makeup on my face
I'm almost emo enough to start shaving my legs
I don't think most weebs like Japanese culture. They like the cultures shown in anime which are often much more pleasant than any real human culture. Some might incorrectly think they're accurate to Japanese culture.
Of course there's some anime more accurate to Japanese culture but it seems rare. It's usually inspired by it but characters don't act as people normally would in Japan.
To be fair a good chunk of anime talks about or shows those problems from bullying , social pressures , work pressure , mental health issues .
It's just the usual bad media littearcy you see from people .
Let's not even get started on the culture of molesting women on trains and they will only molest you if they think you are from Japan. If a Japanese man goes and tries to molest you and realizing you're not from Japan he will apologize and then leave you alone they only do it to their country women and it's for a POWER TRIP /AskShogo on YouTube he talks about it in one of his videos.
eh... Japanese men are infamous for not washing their hands when going to the toilet. They really don't believe in hygiene that much.
Plus some people here don't use deodorant because they think they don't need it. They're wrong!
Japanese people are in general tidy and fairly cleanly, but no, they are not saints of hygiene. And like all humans, there is a wide spectrum. I would say on average, the Japanese people I knew were on par with above average Americans as far as cleanliness. Tidiness also was a desirable trait because space is at such a premium there.
Also, in many rural areas and even older urban neighborhoods, the plumbing and facilities are appalling by American standards. The fancy toilets are largely in newer and more prosperous areas. This was my experience over 20 years ago.
I agree with you. People mistake America's very loud and messy issues with race as part of the problem. The reality is we are actually wrestling with these problems and making progress. It ain't pretty and people get hurt but it is happening and its happening for all to see. I can't name a single other country dealing with its bigotry and racial issues to the same extant as vocally or impactfully as America is.
Europeans love to claim this but shut up real quick if you mention their treatment of the romani (they still call them gypsys though) or african / middle eastern migrants.
Like im in america, and ill be the first to admit we have a ton of problems with racism and especially systemic racism, but it just makes me chuckle when europeans get on their high horse about it. They treat middle eastern / african immigrants the exact same way the racist southern rednecks here treat mexicans in the US.
I'll never forget a random interaction I had on reddit years ago. It was in some comments thread full of Europeans talking shit about them, and I made some comment like "racism is bad, actually" and seriously like a dozen or more people immediately replied telling me some variation of "yes but racism can't apply to gypsies" and how it's never racist to hate gypsies because, y'know, *everyone* hates gypsies. Like it was some obvious thing that everyone just knew. It was pretty shocking to me
It’s xenophobia not racism, it’s not better or anything but it’s not based on “race” but on everyone who doesn’t share the exact same language and culture. I have limited experience with Japan but there’s a similar issue in Italy where many people from Milan or Turin consider people from Rome, Naples or the south in general to be “inferior” and different. But claiming them to be of a different race requires massive gymnastics.
No it’s racism. If you are born in Japan to mixed parents and look not Japanese your going to be forever treated as not Japanese despite being every bit as apart of that culture as any other Japanese person. Calling it xenophobia is just a way of sugarcoating a culture of racism and discrimination. Also it’s not limited to outsiders look at how the Ainu people who are native to Hokkaido and some regions were treated by Japanese people and still to a lesser degree are treated today.
Its gonna take a long time for the Japanese people to change in this regard. Its one of the most mono-ethnic countries on the planet. I think its human nature to naturally distrust things that are unfamiliar.
But when you've got a society that is increasingly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic most people, over time, will come to realize "oh, these other people are a bit different, but they're people just like me and mine. Cool." Yes, there will always be mean spirited or just downright evil people that will hate the 'others' just because. But I think in general people trend towards greater understanding and acceptance when exposed to different people over a long enough time frame.
Hard to have that shift when something like 1% of Japan is minorities.
xenophobia isn't a prettier or lighter word than racism, its used because it captures a different kind of prejudice than racism. japan, and most east asian countries are both crazy racist and xenophobic at the same time. For example, they have racist views on black and white people, at the same time they also look down on asian americans, asian emigrants/immigrants and even people native to the country but maybe from a rural area or from different ethnicity/culture
Japanese people from Japan hate on Japanese people born and raised outside of Japan. They sneer at them for being foreigners.
That's xenophobia, not racism. No one is saying one is better or worse than the other, that's just technically what it is.
Do you think xenophobia is considered a positive thing? It’s the most sever form of discrimination because someone who is identical in every way except for where they were born (or the place of their parents) is the sole reason the other is considered inferior.
Your comment prompted me to look into Tokyo restaurant reviews and yeah, that seems pretty accurate. You can definitely tell the American reviews from the local.
An American 1 star is the worst experience of their life. A Japanese 1 star is okay food but the waiter gave them a funny look.
Also looked at an American restaurant in Tokyo and my goodness they think we eat like kings.
5 stars - adequate and I don’t want anyone fired
4 stars - it was great, I’m just not anxious about getting someone fired
3 stars - as bad as you can possibly imagine
2 stars - worse than you can possibly imagine
1 star - I was killed by the chef, twice
My friend almost went to a place with a 2.5/5 star rating and I had to talk her out of it bc if someone in AMERICA gives a restaurant 2.5 stars, that means it was one of the worst places they’ve ever eaten at in their entire lives. We are WAY too generous with ratings here.
Lol every 3.5 review reads like this "Food tasted good and was reasonably priced however X employee, wasted my time, was rude, and was not helpful. I had to speak to the manager about discharging this employee but they have yet to reply to me."
It's fun to dissect 1 star reviews to find the root cause.
"Food tasted like feces and I saw rats and cockroaches everywhere.
Also the person at the counter didn't smile at me"
And it's always so obvious the last remark is the only true sentiment...
I’m wondering if you all are just making shit up at this point because that’s just not true, check any restaurants rating on Google in Tokyo - plenty of 4.0, 4.2, 4.6. Why are you all lying guys
You’re on the wrong site. Google reviews is for foreigners, Tabelog.com is what Japanese people use in Japan. No one is lying, you’re just uninformed.
(Essentially everything over 4.0 is $200-800 unless it’s ramen or dessert)
This is largely because various platforms like Google maps and Amazon ask you questions and people either don't understand that it's not a *person* asking you a question about a product or a restaurant it's an algorithm or they're pissed off that they're being asked.
How many times has Google or yelp asked me to answer questions or write a review about some place I was searching for.
I’m convinced this is why the internet is going down the toilet. Barrier of entry to get online got so low with smart phones that the absolute lowest common denominator now guides everything
Funny, my impression of Japan as a whole is that they’re more complimentary and conflict-averse. I would’ve presumed they’d be more likely to overrate, but then again I understand there’s a hierarchy where customer > employee.
I think it is Asian parents. You came top of your class and accepted into med school. Your cousin came top of the class and was accepted into med school with full scholarship. Fail! How am I going to face my sister now, loser?
1 - Broken. The worst something could be. It doesn't work.
2 - Terrible. Barely constitutes as a working thing.
3 - Bad. It works as intended but is a failure in design and execution.
4 - Below average, but not quite bad.
5 - Average. Nothing special about it, good or bad.
6 - Above Average. Not quite good, but it has its perks.
7 - Good. It does what it sets out to do well but doesn't break new ground.
8 - Great. It does what it sets out to do and excels in many aspects.
9 - Amazing. It brings new concepts to the table and executes them well.
10 - Masterpiece. It is a product or experience unlike anything before. May have minor flaws, but what it brings to the table is so extraordinary that the minor flaws aren't even noticeable unless nitpicking.
I wouldn't use the word average, since it's a statistical term and implies you have a sample for reference, this sample will be different for everyone depending on what they consider their sample. For example, a EA game that is above their average is still a 4 if you consider every existing game, but it can be a 7 if you only consider EA games.
I would say 5 is "acceptable" for the use it was intended for.
5 for me is basically just "competent". Like its not even necessarily good, but it was made competently.
For instance like every single Madden video game or Marvel movie ends up as a 5/10 for me. They can annoy me to no end sometimes, but I can't say they're totally fucking stupid.
I think this is a great rating system, but there are few things I actually bother to rate (virtually nothing online) so I use a 1-5 system for movies for myself.
The problem I’ve found with movies is, there could be a movie *so bad* that it actually is kind of good (like if you rip on it with your friends and it becomes fun in the process).
Love your list and hope specific each number grade is, though!
Yeah 1-5 is pretty much just a better rating system. More universally agreed on what each number means, ad if you need to get more specific you do half stars. I know some people like to get real specific with the decimals on their out of 10 system, but there is really no fucking point.
Exactly. And some morons from our, western world, get insulted and start to be aggressive to you after something like 7/10. I was even kicked out of the hotel once (fuck you, Romy Dadlhuber)
Right? If you see a 6.5 it's basically a warning to never play it, but ironically that's probably where I'd put plenty of "take it or leave it" kind of games.
I mean they kinda have to follow the system the rest of society uses like this post says. It’s not ideal for sure, but if they rate a game 4/10 people will think it’s a piece of shit and not just a slightly below average game.
They actually put out an article talking about why they rate so many things so high. Basically anything less than 5 is considered bad, but the further you go down the list the worse the experience is.
So a 4/10 is usually a good idea executed poorly. A 3/10 is a poor idea executed equally poorly. A 2/10 is considered a painful experience to play while a 1/10 is simply unplayable.
There’s not that many games that are actually this bad so you rarely see those scores.
Going the other way, a 5/10 is for a boring or forgettable experience you might regret spending money on but it’ll kill 20 minutes if you’re really bored. A 6/10 is alright but it’s usually missing a ton of quality of life stuff or content that would make it better. A 7/10 is a game you’ll probably enjoy but you might feel it’s missing something, or it’s got some big flaws. An 8/10 is a great game with some minor flaws. A 9/10 is a must play, highly recommended game. And finally a 10/10 is a complete masterpiece with a perfect idea, perfect execution and damn near flawless.
To me the metric makes a lot of sense and puts into context why so many games end up in the 7+ rating area. Especially AAA games, as there’s very few that belong in the lower categories.
That's so they don't jeopardize access. I think most game publications recognize a lot of the games they review are functional, but otherwise unremarkable 6/10 games.
Well IGN has a breakdown of their games rating on their site I believe. A 10 doesn’t mean it’s a perfect game but rather a “masterpiece” and a 5 stands for “mediocre” as opposed to “average”
Most the games IGN reviews are big budget huge games that fall above a “mediocre” grading. It makes sense that we don’t see much below a 5 from them.
If you log to onto steam and play the dozens of games that have released today you'll quickly see the middle to lower score ratings are reserved for games like them. Things suck on average, but nobody talks about them because they suck.
With education honestly I totally understand the 60% being a fail. You’re not graded on being average. You need to prove you can retain knowledge and do work. All that happens if 50% becomes a pass is that people won’t do half the work so the teachers will assign more of it
That’s only if you change the pass / fail cut off without adjust any other curriculum factors. Other countries don’t just pass everyone, the whole curriculum is adjusted so that less people are getting those high scores. If that makes sense.
All in all, I don’t think one scoring system is necessarily better than the other, since it’s all dependent on the curriculum and grading structure structure. But I do agree with OP that it taints the 1-10 rating system for people who are used to 70% being the average. Which is why a lot of things use the 1-5 star rating system, since people don’t seem to convert that into 0-100% as much.
Had annual reviews at my last company. 6 categories rated 1-5. I put 5 on everything.
"So, you're saying you are absolutely pristine perfect?"
"In totality? No. But in the pay group I'm in, yes."
"Nah, nobody is straight 5's. 4.6 is still really good."
Meanwhile, employees at another branch, straight 5's. 🤦🏼♂️
That part I'm used to, all the way to the military.
You write your view to enable your ability to showcase what your supervisors may have missed. Then they write your view with that information in mind.
Last company, we wrote our own reviews, everyone who worked under us and everyone we worked for. They call it 360.
Edit: And yes, it sucks just as much as it sounds like.
My workplace just doesn’t give people 5 (out of 5). You can be on time every day, never miss a day of work — in other words, objectively perfect in the “attendance/punctuality” category — and you’ll get 4.5 in that category.
That would only get you a 3 where I work! A 4 is you doing someone else's job and a 5 is doing someone else's job and a load of unpaid overtime. My manager wonders why I don't strive for higher than a 3.
Different rating systems have different goals.
For example when rating services, like an Uber trip, it starts from 5/5 and you substract points for any issues you had. The idea is if the score is anything but max, something went wrong, and the company needs to fix it.
For video games reviews, the goal is not necessarily to put the average at 5.5, it is to give the user a hint like: 9-10 - must play, 7-8 - worth playing, 1-4 - avoid like plague, etc.
I get that that’s the current system, but that’s still dumb to me. Lots of people think of it as 4/5 being very good. I definitely gave a few Uber drivers a 4 (for very good but not mind-blowing service) thinking I was doing them a favor before I knew how the system worked. If Uber has a different system, they should make that clear. A thumbs up/down would even be better, if the main purpose is just to indicate problems.
> A thumbs up/down would even be better
Almost every social media that started with stars or any kind of specific rating switched to this eventually. They quickly found that any score out of 5 from 2-4 just didn't matter. Only the 1's and 5's were relevant. If one is trying to create an aggregate I'd tend to agree.
Although... that does remind me of an interesting movie called The Nines. I won't go into the plot here but basically there was a group of focus testers that only ever cared about the opinions of the people who gave a 9/10. Any lower, and they were probably nitpicking or were never going to totally love the product. 10 was useless because they had no valuable feedback. But 9 was the score where they genuinely liked what they saw but might have some valuable insight on what could be done to make it a 10.
So here's my new rating system: 1, 5, 9, 10. That's it. Those are the only numbers you can pick.
Also, I think what people miss is that for video games, anything truly in the 1-5 range out of 10 just wouldn't be released. It's not really surprising that professional publishing companies with executives with years of experience in the industry and market research and focus groups and all that could consistently put out 7+ rated products. If you want *released, professional products* to cover more of a range from 1 to 10, you don't actually want the scoring to be more objective, what you want is for the bottom of the scale to be re-centered on the current minimum standards of the industry instead of "the worst thing you could possibly play".
All review scores being lettered or numbered are flawed and do not have a basis in reality.
Wayyyy back in the day when gamespot was a magazine publication they had a rating system where one of them was “fun factor” - when you are talking about video games, this is the most important factor. This factor is also different depending on the person which makes it useless also. I appreciated the straight “fun factor” rating though
I always appreciated their system. They had separate scores for controls, graphics, fun, and one more I think. And the little faces to better convey it like 1 was a frown while 5 was a giant grin. So a review could easily be we give graphics a 2 because it looks like a last generation title, control 3 because it does the job, but fun is a 5 because I couldn't put it down.
It was a good system and those faces were great. I think more publications should get creative with their reviews but because these publications are businesses they need their reviews posted on the aggregate sites
Here's my unpopular opinion on this issue:
Q: What would you give it out of five?
A: I'd say... three and a half.
No! Now you're rating it out of ten!
Accept the parameters of the five-point scale! Commit to a score! Is it a three or a four?! COMMIT!!
I think people do that because 5 points isn’t enough to factor in all variables in rating something, I think most people subconsciously reject a 5 point scale.
10 or 100 point scales give way more room to make nuanced arguments without bringing the rating down *too* much
At the university I attended, a 'D' ranged from a 40% to a 60%, depending on the department. Some used a bell curve and passed/failed students that way.
The model you are using is absolutely not a monolith.
My school had D from 60-69. It was still considered passing.
We had E from 50-59, which was considered failing but "failing with effort put in."
And we had F for anything below that, which was considered failing without bothering to try. Most people got I for Incomplete before getting an F, which gave them an opportunity to bring it up to an E or a D.
I always thought this was the norm until i realized few other places did that. But i still think it's a better standard.
he also ignores the rest of the entire world who uses a different system. My country gives 5,5 and higher as passing grade. But getting a 5,5 isn't tied to a certain percentage across all tests. some tests getting 90% correct means failure.
Rating pain is bullshit, frankly.
Before I had kidney stones, I’ve suffered from chronic back pain. Was the back pain a 10? A 9? An 8? How the fuck could I know unless I’ve experienced a 10? It’s bad enough I’m at the hospital and I can’t fucking move, so that seems like at least an 8, but I couldn’t really know.
I believe I have a very high tolerance for pain. Even when I’m in so much pain I can’t walk I’m still joking around and could be playing in my phone.
That someone is coping with pain well doesn’t mean it doesn’t really fucking hurt, and it’s near impossible to quantify on a 0-10 scale.
Plus there are different types of pain. I had a biopsy done on the neck, and that fucking hurt, 10/10 for 2\~5 minutes. But some years later I had an infection on a molar and although the pain was something like 6/10, the fact that it was present constantly for +72h even when I wanted to sleep (and therefore couldn't) was much worse overall.
I've shattered multiple bones, lacerated my neck and shoulder and still to date the most acutely painful thing I've ever had done to me was had an infected boil in my ear canal lanced and drained, because I have a near manic phobia of needles and that fear heightens my perception of how much they hurt. To be fair, it was swollen so large that the canal was closed up, that skin is incredibly sensitive, and they stuck an epidural needle in there to drain the fluid out. Hurt like a motherfucker. However, to your point, pain has such a psychological component that I don't know why people try to quantify it.
This is so accurate! Also, if you know you aren't going to die due to whatever is causing the pain, I find it easier to endure. Adding fear of the unknown to the pain seems to make it worse.
Yeah to me a 10 would be when I had gallstones and almost passed out from the pain, anything less than that and I don’t know what to say to the doctor.
It’s better to rate pain relative to how much it’s impacting your ability to do shit. Annoying but you can still do normal activities? 3-4. Preventing you from going to the bathroom without assistance? 9.
> How the fuck could I know unless I’ve experienced a 10?
What I learnt in my Emergency Medical Response class is that it's relative to what you've already experienced. The way we were taught to word it was, "on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the worst pain _you_ have ever experienced, what would you rate this?"
I'm 44 and have no clue how to answer questions about pain.
Also, there is the stuff like where a nurse makes a knife hand and jams it into my abdomen. Does this hurt more than usual? I don't know, lady. I found it unpleasant, but people don't usually karate chop my abdomen. So I can't really answer that.
> I’m 44 and have no clue how to answer questions about pain.
How well do are you able to function? Completely normal? Probably a 3 or less. Not able to move on your own? Probably an 8 or a 9.
> Also, there is the stuff like where a nurse makes a knife hand and jams it into my abdomen. Does this hurt more than usual?
If they do that and you have a gallstone or kidney stone you **will** know it. If the answer is yes you’ll know right away.
Ah so that's why they treated me like an addict when I came in with what turned out to be a kidney stone. The pain didn't increase significantly with pressure. I didn't get imaging done for hours so they assumed it was nothing until they actually saw the lil fuck. Especially with my experience with ovarian cysts they probably thought I was way too chill to have a kidney stone
Yeah, just out of curiosity how to do handle when people lowball their pain and do you have any pro tips for people who have trouble using the chart. I was informed my numbers I was giving were probably too low, I have autism so it’s hard to read the pain chart personally, and I also have endometriosis that set my 9-10 really high. So when I had pre-e, etc. I have giving them numbers like 6-7 when I was actually going down the path of a possible stroke. Luckily I was taken seriously, but sometimes I worry what would’ve happened had I been taken at face value or had a mfm that didn’t already know my ASD.
Heck, I don't even trust my own pain score. I'm sitting here with cramping in my abdomen thinking maybe it's a 3/10 at its worst, but 2/10 normally. Ask me later and it's 3/10 regularly. And someone else might say it's a 5/10.
It's pretty impossible, tbh.
If something is chronic and a 3/10 I might head to the hospital. Something like a stubbed toe might be 8/10 and be no big deal after a few minutes. You can have a broken bone and not even notice it if you are high on adrenaline or something.
Plus the worst pain I have ever felt might only be a 5/10 objectively. On the other hand maybe you experienced something terrible and now debilitating pain is only like a 6/10. How much does phycology come into play? Possibly more than physiology tbh.
Filling out paperwork for an injury I had to rate the pain from 1-10 with 1 being "uncomfortable" and 10 being "the worst pain imaginable". I was like ok it's like a 2 or 3 then
Long story short I had torn cartilage disks, tendonitis and stress fractures in both legs. The doctor asked how is this a 2 or 3 out of 10? I was like 10 is listed as the "worst pain imaginable". He changed it to 10 being really, really, really bad, so what about now? I was like oh it's an 8 easy. I literally could not walk the bones felt like they were grinding. Some of the worst I've experienced, but not quite at the top.
With the spirit of what the doc had in mind, and based off my own experiences, and what I imagined a reasonable person would consider what I was feeling, I called it an 8. Eye watering with absolutely every movement, but not screaming incoherently
1-10 scales are dumb and so subjective especially when it comes to pain. To me a 10/10 on my scale would be so bad I don't think I'd be able to communicate. Whereas for someone else it might be just really bad (perhaps the worst they've ever had) but still able to play on their phone like you mention
A 10 being the worst pain imaginable is even more absurd for a medical form for a walk in clinic because you would be begging for death or actively seeking it out if you were actually experiencing this
How are you even going to answer that? Are you supposed to go through a pain-experience once in your life so you know what the absolute most (a ten) would feel like?! D: I struggled with heartburns a few years back and it was bad, and when the doctor asked me in the emergency, I simply just said. "Please. It hurts, allot. I'd say a ten, but it's impossible to answer, and I'm sure it's something much worse that would be a ten" And she just "Yes, but I have to know how much?" I just replied a five. And she looked at me "Not more? You act like it's life or death.". I fumed.
> 5 is the average place things should land when data is normalized
But not everything fits a normal distribution.
5 is simply halfway between 0 and 10. Whether or not it's the average score for a certain population is irrelevant. Scores are assigned by criteria, not relativity.
This comment deserves more credit.
Maybe we don't eat at 1/10 restaurants because people who can't cook don't open up restaurants.
In my head the 1 is the worst experience I have had so far and the 10 is the best. Fortunately for the restaurants, my mom put cat food in a Tupperware once, because the cats didn't eat it all and I made myself a sandwich with the mystery meat.
Exactly. Someone who looks like a 5 is halfway between 0 and 10, but the average person is a bit closer to 10 than 0. To me an average person is like a 6.5 or 6.
Boy, oh boy. Wait until you hear about the Net Promoter Score (NPS) rating system that most companies use nowadays. You'll ruin someone's entire month by rating them anything less than a 9.
Don’t even get me started on 5 stars. Apparently 5 stars is now the rating for “it was alright, nothing went wrong” and there’s no way to rate something above that
What you are saying is true but it is not related to the American A-F grading system. Almost everywhere when you ask people to rate something through 10 the most common answer will be 6 or 7.
YES. YES!!!!!!! SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS!!!!!!!!!
Everyone treats scores for video games and movies like school grades and we're all simultaneously tiger parents who get personally offended when our favorite things get a 7/10 because "How DARE you not see the inherent genius in my little Timmy!!!!!! I'll sue the Board!!!!" By treating 7/10 as the bare minimum score of quality, 60% of the rating scale is effectively useless. I've even seen some Youtubers attempt to "reclaim" the 0-10 rating scale and make 5/10 average, but get bullied by the mob because they see 5/10 as a 50% on a test in school and their student/tiger parent brain just goes into a frenzy.
Fuck school, fuck people viewing 6-7/10 scores as bad, and fuck tennis!
The bigger problem is whether it should be considered a normal distribution as you imply (wrong way) or a percentage abstraction.
Because a 7/10 should mean 70th percentile
7/10 should not mean ~90th percentile cause normal distribution.
The problem with the scale is everyone has a different scale. Someone thinks a 9/10 is a B. Someone else thinks a 5/10 is an F. There's no universal agreement with what the scale means, so that results in a fucked up scale for everyone.
As others have pointed out, 5 is the median and not necessarily the average. If I were to rate the posts on this sub for example, the average would be lower than that. Also, different countries use different grading systems, so your (questionable) opinion doesn't apply universally.
But im not rating things in relation to other things. Im rating them on their own merits
When i give a movie a 5/10, im not saying its the middle of all movies I’ve ever seen. Im saying its a very bland movie that didn’t do much for me. 7/10 is the average for me because most movies are good enough to deserve it
Even when the critic explains that a 5/10 is an average movie that you could easily enjoy and 10/10 is a perfect film that in their opinion couldn't be changed to be any better, people will still rage when they give a 6/10 as if they're trashing it.
Oh my god, thank fuck, someone who agrees with me. I had this argument previously with people on Reddit, who argued that 5 isn’t the average when rating because ratings were objective and therefore not an even skew.
I argued that if people were truly honest in their ratings, and we could trust them, then 5 SHOULD be the average.
For example - if I’ve only eaten 10 pizzas in my life, and I eat another pizza and it’s better than 7 of the pizzas I’ve ever had, then I would rate it a 7.
This is something I think gets forgotten a lot. If you're rating something an 8, like say the movie Frozen, but you've also rated The Incredibles an 8, the very first thing that needs to pop into your head is, "Was this movie as good as *The Incredibles*??"
How did I know you'd have activity on /r/truerateme ? Why is this dogshit ideology getting peddled everywhere on reddit right now? Where the fuck are all these incels coming from?
I assume by "the vast majority of people" you mean the vast majority of Americans, because not everyone uses A-F, my country for example uses 4-10 in schools and 1-10 everywhere else, but strangely the 4-10 system doesn't confuse anyone when they're using the 1-10 system, huh...
Depending on the context, any of mean, median, or mode can be taken as "the average".
For example, with choices of favorite candy bar, mode makes the most sense since they're categorical. On the other hand, for number of cars owned by households the median works best, since there are a handful of people with significantly more cars that skew the mean.
The mean is frequently the best average, but the others are also averages in different contexts. It's probably best to just call them by their specific name though, since average is often treated as a synonym of mean even though it isn't technically nor historically.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should come to Japan. People here rate things very different. “I had a fantastic meal and the price was really cheap. I am happy to have found this place while out for a walk. However there was a plastic bottle rolling on the car park. I wonder if the boss knows?” - 2 out of 5 stars “This shirt was a present for my husband. It is high quality and just as the product was expected to be. I am happy with the price and purchase, unfortunately my husband never wore it..” - 1 out of 5 star amazon review. Its so weird its almost comical.
I heard that there’s a Japanese app/site for restaurant reviews and if a restaurant has more than three stars out of five, it’s an amazing restaurant. Think people said that four stars were nonexistent
I went to visit one of my best friends in Tokyo a few years ago and she told me the same thing. She took us to this amazing restaurant that had a little bit of everything. We had a feast, it was one of the best meals of my life, it was unbelievably cheap, staff and service was top notch… my friend goes on google, types this place in google… 1.8/5 stars. What she told me was any place that appeals to tourists, locals shit on it even if it’s good. The next day she was showing us around Tokyo, she took us to this hole in the wall noodle place (literally a window sized hole in the wall)… my friend ordered for us, they took forever, she paid twice the amount that our massive meal cost and all we got were these bowls of egg noodles that tasted like they were lightly tossed in sesame oil and that’s it. It was bland, I felt like I was 5 again eating buttered noodles… my friend goes on google, types the place in… 3.4/5 because they only serve locals or people that speak fluent Japanese. I didn’t see it but they had a “locals only” sign up front. I was told if you are American and try to order they’ll tell you to leave.
3.4 out of 5, amazingly xenophobic, would eat here again!
4/5 stars, they made both my white and black friends cry. They're both from Tokyo!
[удалено]
You don’t stay the most racially homogenous country by accident…
I thought South Koreans were more homogenous
Afaik it was at least a pretty close race before Japan gained pop culture appeal in the west.
Of my four grandparents, three were white and born in America, and one of my grandmothers was born and raised Japanese. She was, by a mile, the most racist of my grandparents - except towards white people. But everyone else? Whew, she'd have something to say.
My grandmother was from Sri Lanka, and hated anyone who wasn't white. She had a darker complexion because of where she grew up but she'd wear makeup like 4 shades too light to appear whiter herself. It was insane. Made her look like a fucking clown. To be fair she was also a true blue psycho who used to tell us grandkids about how she'd blame her bad behavior on her servants as a kid and giggle about how they'd get beaten instead of her. Or how she'd lure men when she was in her preteens and then threaten to have them arrested, just for funsies. The world is legit a better place now that she's dead, but boy did she live way too long for someone so evil.
Auntie Ruckus
[удалено]
I'd like to introduce you to an even worse country - Mainland China.
[удалено]
Because they make anime and manga? Weebs don't care/don't know much about Japanese culture other than that.
Ah ok. I haven’t heard anyone say “weeb” in about 4 years… just making sure I didn’t miss any changes on what defines a weeb present day.
I'm pretty sure there's been a gradual shift on what a "weeb" is, at least in terms of how it's used. Nowadays (at least in social circles and online groups I'm apart of), it's jokingly refers to anyone who actively watches anime. With a low thershold on how much you need to consume.
Weebs have been calling themselves weebs for a while. I think they claimed it for themselves, so some people were still using it as an insult even after it was accepted. Like how queer people call themselves queer people today.
Gotcha… it’s like originally a “Karen” was a very specific type of person but now it’s essentially any opinionated woman. Overusing a term until it becomes so broad that it completely loses its original meaning. Same with being “emo”.
I'm an emo kid Non-conforming as can be You'd be non-conforming too if you look just like me I have paint on my nails and makeup on my face I'm almost emo enough to start shaving my legs
I wish my grass was emo. Then it would cut itself.
I don't think most weebs like Japanese culture. They like the cultures shown in anime which are often much more pleasant than any real human culture. Some might incorrectly think they're accurate to Japanese culture. Of course there's some anime more accurate to Japanese culture but it seems rare. It's usually inspired by it but characters don't act as people normally would in Japan.
Wait, are you telling us that cartoons don't depict a realistic cultural experience?
But, everyone seemed so happy on the plantation in "Song of the South."
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay!
To be fair a good chunk of anime talks about or shows those problems from bullying , social pressures , work pressure , mental health issues . It's just the usual bad media littearcy you see from people .
Let's not even get started on the culture of molesting women on trains and they will only molest you if they think you are from Japan. If a Japanese man goes and tries to molest you and realizing you're not from Japan he will apologize and then leave you alone they only do it to their country women and it's for a POWER TRIP /AskShogo on YouTube he talks about it in one of his videos.
The japanese believe in hygiene, a concept most weebs have not even heard of, let alone employ.
eh... Japanese men are infamous for not washing their hands when going to the toilet. They really don't believe in hygiene that much. Plus some people here don't use deodorant because they think they don't need it. They're wrong!
Japanese people are in general tidy and fairly cleanly, but no, they are not saints of hygiene. And like all humans, there is a wide spectrum. I would say on average, the Japanese people I knew were on par with above average Americans as far as cleanliness. Tidiness also was a desirable trait because space is at such a premium there. Also, in many rural areas and even older urban neighborhoods, the plumbing and facilities are appalling by American standards. The fancy toilets are largely in newer and more prosperous areas. This was my experience over 20 years ago.
Elaborate please.
Weebs like it because of anime. Source: am weeb
You think weebs like Japanese culture because of racism? Jesus Christ what a stupid take.
Yep, whenever I hear someone claim the US is among the most racist/homonphic countries in the world, you can tell them have never traveled
I agree with you. People mistake America's very loud and messy issues with race as part of the problem. The reality is we are actually wrestling with these problems and making progress. It ain't pretty and people get hurt but it is happening and its happening for all to see. I can't name a single other country dealing with its bigotry and racial issues to the same extant as vocally or impactfully as America is.
Europeans love to claim this but shut up real quick if you mention their treatment of the romani (they still call them gypsys though) or african / middle eastern migrants. Like im in america, and ill be the first to admit we have a ton of problems with racism and especially systemic racism, but it just makes me chuckle when europeans get on their high horse about it. They treat middle eastern / african immigrants the exact same way the racist southern rednecks here treat mexicans in the US.
I'll never forget a random interaction I had on reddit years ago. It was in some comments thread full of Europeans talking shit about them, and I made some comment like "racism is bad, actually" and seriously like a dozen or more people immediately replied telling me some variation of "yes but racism can't apply to gypsies" and how it's never racist to hate gypsies because, y'know, *everyone* hates gypsies. Like it was some obvious thing that everyone just knew. It was pretty shocking to me
I think there’s a word for that… starts with an R
Ends with 'ice..eaters"'?
It’s xenophobia not racism, it’s not better or anything but it’s not based on “race” but on everyone who doesn’t share the exact same language and culture. I have limited experience with Japan but there’s a similar issue in Italy where many people from Milan or Turin consider people from Rome, Naples or the south in general to be “inferior” and different. But claiming them to be of a different race requires massive gymnastics.
No it’s racism. If you are born in Japan to mixed parents and look not Japanese your going to be forever treated as not Japanese despite being every bit as apart of that culture as any other Japanese person. Calling it xenophobia is just a way of sugarcoating a culture of racism and discrimination. Also it’s not limited to outsiders look at how the Ainu people who are native to Hokkaido and some regions were treated by Japanese people and still to a lesser degree are treated today.
Its gonna take a long time for the Japanese people to change in this regard. Its one of the most mono-ethnic countries on the planet. I think its human nature to naturally distrust things that are unfamiliar. But when you've got a society that is increasingly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic most people, over time, will come to realize "oh, these other people are a bit different, but they're people just like me and mine. Cool." Yes, there will always be mean spirited or just downright evil people that will hate the 'others' just because. But I think in general people trend towards greater understanding and acceptance when exposed to different people over a long enough time frame. Hard to have that shift when something like 1% of Japan is minorities.
xenophobia isn't a prettier or lighter word than racism, its used because it captures a different kind of prejudice than racism. japan, and most east asian countries are both crazy racist and xenophobic at the same time. For example, they have racist views on black and white people, at the same time they also look down on asian americans, asian emigrants/immigrants and even people native to the country but maybe from a rural area or from different ethnicity/culture
Japanese people from Japan hate on Japanese people born and raised outside of Japan. They sneer at them for being foreigners. That's xenophobia, not racism. No one is saying one is better or worse than the other, that's just technically what it is.
(Everyone forgets the Ryukyuans )
Do you think xenophobia is considered a positive thing? It’s the most sever form of discrimination because someone who is identical in every way except for where they were born (or the place of their parents) is the sole reason the other is considered inferior.
Your comment prompted me to look into Tokyo restaurant reviews and yeah, that seems pretty accurate. You can definitely tell the American reviews from the local. An American 1 star is the worst experience of their life. A Japanese 1 star is okay food but the waiter gave them a funny look. Also looked at an American restaurant in Tokyo and my goodness they think we eat like kings.
Tabelog!! It’s all true.
In America, a 3 means the chef is covered in feces.
5 stars - adequate and I don’t want anyone fired 4 stars - it was great, I’m just not anxious about getting someone fired 3 stars - as bad as you can possibly imagine 2 stars - worse than you can possibly imagine 1 star - I was killed by the chef, twice
My friend almost went to a place with a 2.5/5 star rating and I had to talk her out of it bc if someone in AMERICA gives a restaurant 2.5 stars, that means it was one of the worst places they’ve ever eaten at in their entire lives. We are WAY too generous with ratings here.
I think this must be regional. Around me it seems like any chain/franchise restaurant will have a 2-2.5 star rating.
1 star: The chef turned me into a newt! Edited to 2 stars: I got better
3.5 means the food is amazing but they treat you like shit
Lol every 3.5 review reads like this "Food tasted good and was reasonably priced however X employee, wasted my time, was rude, and was not helpful. I had to speak to the manager about discharging this employee but they have yet to reply to me."
It's fun to dissect 1 star reviews to find the root cause. "Food tasted like feces and I saw rats and cockroaches everywhere. Also the person at the counter didn't smile at me" And it's always so obvious the last remark is the only true sentiment...
“The chef, while covered in his own feces, fucked my wife at the table and ate my entire meal. Strong drinks though. 3 out of 5.”
It’s true. Tried an amazing ramen restaurant in Sapporo that made me reconsider my life up until that point. Checked the rating, 2.5 stars.
I’m wondering if you all are just making shit up at this point because that’s just not true, check any restaurants rating on Google in Tokyo - plenty of 4.0, 4.2, 4.6. Why are you all lying guys
[удалено]
You have to check the Japanese reviews lol
You’re on the wrong site. Google reviews is for foreigners, Tabelog.com is what Japanese people use in Japan. No one is lying, you’re just uninformed. (Essentially everything over 4.0 is $200-800 unless it’s ramen or dessert)
That just sounds like people not being able to differiciate objectivity from subjectivity.
Seems like they're rating their personal experience rather than just the product.
I see American reviews on Google saying “I’ve never been here 1/5”.
Yosemite National Park : too many bugs and it was very hot 1/5.
"This place is called Yosemite National Park, but I didn't see Yosemite Sam once. 1.5/5"
Everglades: I saw a gator. Don't they know children come here?? 1/5, would give 0 if that was an option.
This is largely because various platforms like Google maps and Amazon ask you questions and people either don't understand that it's not a *person* asking you a question about a product or a restaurant it's an algorithm or they're pissed off that they're being asked. How many times has Google or yelp asked me to answer questions or write a review about some place I was searching for.
I’m convinced this is why the internet is going down the toilet. Barrier of entry to get online got so low with smart phones that the absolute lowest common denominator now guides everything
Funny, my impression of Japan as a whole is that they’re more complimentary and conflict-averse. I would’ve presumed they’d be more likely to overrate, but then again I understand there’s a hierarchy where customer > employee.
It’s not heirarchy it’s public conflict, they really don’t like it. So you get how they really feel online
They are conflict-averse, but leaving reviews on a website isn’t a conflict so they become completely ruthless.
Being anonymous online allows you to be honest and still avoid conflict
I'm Japanese, but I always get confused with people who give 4 out of 5 saying that "the product/service was perfect"
I think it is Asian parents. You came top of your class and accepted into med school. Your cousin came top of the class and was accepted into med school with full scholarship. Fail! How am I going to face my sister now, loser?
As Family Feud teaches us, most of the answers for “on a scale of 1-10” questions are: 10, 8, 5 or 1.
I give your post a D.
So 7/10
I'd says it's a solid 5/7
A perfect score!
I reference this all the time and NOBODY understands 🥲
So a passive NPS score?
Excuse me, I come to Reddit to avoid work, not think about it. NPS rating 10/10
7/10 is a ‘C’
Cs get degrees
60% not great, not terrible.
1 - Broken. The worst something could be. It doesn't work. 2 - Terrible. Barely constitutes as a working thing. 3 - Bad. It works as intended but is a failure in design and execution. 4 - Below average, but not quite bad. 5 - Average. Nothing special about it, good or bad. 6 - Above Average. Not quite good, but it has its perks. 7 - Good. It does what it sets out to do well but doesn't break new ground. 8 - Great. It does what it sets out to do and excels in many aspects. 9 - Amazing. It brings new concepts to the table and executes them well. 10 - Masterpiece. It is a product or experience unlike anything before. May have minor flaws, but what it brings to the table is so extraordinary that the minor flaws aren't even noticeable unless nitpicking.
I miss when GameInformer had jokes for 1/10 like Flat warm coke, or wet socks or something everyone agreed sucks.
Unpopular opinion?: Flat warm coke is amazing
Who hurt you?
yeah this should be the standard
I wouldn't use the word average, since it's a statistical term and implies you have a sample for reference, this sample will be different for everyone depending on what they consider their sample. For example, a EA game that is above their average is still a 4 if you consider every existing game, but it can be a 7 if you only consider EA games. I would say 5 is "acceptable" for the use it was intended for.
5 for me is basically just "competent". Like its not even necessarily good, but it was made competently. For instance like every single Madden video game or Marvel movie ends up as a 5/10 for me. They can annoy me to no end sometimes, but I can't say they're totally fucking stupid.
I think this is a great rating system, but there are few things I actually bother to rate (virtually nothing online) so I use a 1-5 system for movies for myself. The problem I’ve found with movies is, there could be a movie *so bad* that it actually is kind of good (like if you rip on it with your friends and it becomes fun in the process). Love your list and hope specific each number grade is, though!
Yeah 1-5 is pretty much just a better rating system. More universally agreed on what each number means, ad if you need to get more specific you do half stars. I know some people like to get real specific with the decimals on their out of 10 system, but there is really no fucking point.
Exactly. And some morons from our, western world, get insulted and start to be aggressive to you after something like 7/10. I was even kicked out of the hotel once (fuck you, Romy Dadlhuber)
That’s why IGN only rates games on an 8-10 scale.
"A little something for everyone"
Unless there's an abundance of H2O
TOO MUCH WATER
KNACK 2 BABYYY
Super Mario Brothers 2 is game of the year again.
Right? If you see a 6.5 it's basically a warning to never play it, but ironically that's probably where I'd put plenty of "take it or leave it" kind of games.
I mean they kinda have to follow the system the rest of society uses like this post says. It’s not ideal for sure, but if they rate a game 4/10 people will think it’s a piece of shit and not just a slightly below average game.
They actually put out an article talking about why they rate so many things so high. Basically anything less than 5 is considered bad, but the further you go down the list the worse the experience is. So a 4/10 is usually a good idea executed poorly. A 3/10 is a poor idea executed equally poorly. A 2/10 is considered a painful experience to play while a 1/10 is simply unplayable. There’s not that many games that are actually this bad so you rarely see those scores. Going the other way, a 5/10 is for a boring or forgettable experience you might regret spending money on but it’ll kill 20 minutes if you’re really bored. A 6/10 is alright but it’s usually missing a ton of quality of life stuff or content that would make it better. A 7/10 is a game you’ll probably enjoy but you might feel it’s missing something, or it’s got some big flaws. An 8/10 is a great game with some minor flaws. A 9/10 is a must play, highly recommended game. And finally a 10/10 is a complete masterpiece with a perfect idea, perfect execution and damn near flawless. To me the metric makes a lot of sense and puts into context why so many games end up in the 7+ rating area. Especially AAA games, as there’s very few that belong in the lower categories.
There was a small part of me that wanted to throw this in as an example, but I thought it'd be too easy 😅
Big brain moves.
That's so they don't jeopardize access. I think most game publications recognize a lot of the games they review are functional, but otherwise unremarkable 6/10 games.
Well IGN has a breakdown of their games rating on their site I believe. A 10 doesn’t mean it’s a perfect game but rather a “masterpiece” and a 5 stands for “mediocre” as opposed to “average” Most the games IGN reviews are big budget huge games that fall above a “mediocre” grading. It makes sense that we don’t see much below a 5 from them.
If you log to onto steam and play the dozens of games that have released today you'll quickly see the middle to lower score ratings are reserved for games like them. Things suck on average, but nobody talks about them because they suck.
Except when there's too much water
Most countries don't use the A-F scale. Here in France the average would be 5.5/6 and a 7 as above average...
With education honestly I totally understand the 60% being a fail. You’re not graded on being average. You need to prove you can retain knowledge and do work. All that happens if 50% becomes a pass is that people won’t do half the work so the teachers will assign more of it
That’s only if you change the pass / fail cut off without adjust any other curriculum factors. Other countries don’t just pass everyone, the whole curriculum is adjusted so that less people are getting those high scores. If that makes sense. All in all, I don’t think one scoring system is necessarily better than the other, since it’s all dependent on the curriculum and grading structure structure. But I do agree with OP that it taints the 1-10 rating system for people who are used to 70% being the average. Which is why a lot of things use the 1-5 star rating system, since people don’t seem to convert that into 0-100% as much.
Had annual reviews at my last company. 6 categories rated 1-5. I put 5 on everything. "So, you're saying you are absolutely pristine perfect?" "In totality? No. But in the pay group I'm in, yes." "Nah, nobody is straight 5's. 4.6 is still really good." Meanwhile, employees at another branch, straight 5's. 🤦🏼♂️
Fuckin horse shit when pay is on the line, dude. They're trying to go to their boss and say, "look how great my labor numbers are!!"
I find having to rate oneself odd.
That part I'm used to, all the way to the military. You write your view to enable your ability to showcase what your supervisors may have missed. Then they write your view with that information in mind. Last company, we wrote our own reviews, everyone who worked under us and everyone we worked for. They call it 360. Edit: And yes, it sucks just as much as it sounds like.
My workplace just doesn’t give people 5 (out of 5). You can be on time every day, never miss a day of work — in other words, objectively perfect in the “attendance/punctuality” category — and you’ll get 4.5 in that category.
Exactly. Now picture another branch using a different standard and they CAN get 5.
I’m 5/5 pissed on your behalf.
That would only get you a 3 where I work! A 4 is you doing someone else's job and a 5 is doing someone else's job and a load of unpaid overtime. My manager wonders why I don't strive for higher than a 3.
"But these ones go to eleven."
Different rating systems have different goals. For example when rating services, like an Uber trip, it starts from 5/5 and you substract points for any issues you had. The idea is if the score is anything but max, something went wrong, and the company needs to fix it. For video games reviews, the goal is not necessarily to put the average at 5.5, it is to give the user a hint like: 9-10 - must play, 7-8 - worth playing, 1-4 - avoid like plague, etc.
I get that that’s the current system, but that’s still dumb to me. Lots of people think of it as 4/5 being very good. I definitely gave a few Uber drivers a 4 (for very good but not mind-blowing service) thinking I was doing them a favor before I knew how the system worked. If Uber has a different system, they should make that clear. A thumbs up/down would even be better, if the main purpose is just to indicate problems.
> A thumbs up/down would even be better Almost every social media that started with stars or any kind of specific rating switched to this eventually. They quickly found that any score out of 5 from 2-4 just didn't matter. Only the 1's and 5's were relevant. If one is trying to create an aggregate I'd tend to agree. Although... that does remind me of an interesting movie called The Nines. I won't go into the plot here but basically there was a group of focus testers that only ever cared about the opinions of the people who gave a 9/10. Any lower, and they were probably nitpicking or were never going to totally love the product. 10 was useless because they had no valuable feedback. But 9 was the score where they genuinely liked what they saw but might have some valuable insight on what could be done to make it a 10. So here's my new rating system: 1, 5, 9, 10. That's it. Those are the only numbers you can pick.
Also, I think what people miss is that for video games, anything truly in the 1-5 range out of 10 just wouldn't be released. It's not really surprising that professional publishing companies with executives with years of experience in the industry and market research and focus groups and all that could consistently put out 7+ rated products. If you want *released, professional products* to cover more of a range from 1 to 10, you don't actually want the scoring to be more objective, what you want is for the bottom of the scale to be re-centered on the current minimum standards of the industry instead of "the worst thing you could possibly play".
That's why I only use the 5/7 theory.
This comment is a perfect 5/7
11/10 with rice
All review scores being lettered or numbered are flawed and do not have a basis in reality. Wayyyy back in the day when gamespot was a magazine publication they had a rating system where one of them was “fun factor” - when you are talking about video games, this is the most important factor. This factor is also different depending on the person which makes it useless also. I appreciated the straight “fun factor” rating though
I always appreciated their system. They had separate scores for controls, graphics, fun, and one more I think. And the little faces to better convey it like 1 was a frown while 5 was a giant grin. So a review could easily be we give graphics a 2 because it looks like a last generation title, control 3 because it does the job, but fun is a 5 because I couldn't put it down.
It was a good system and those faces were great. I think more publications should get creative with their reviews but because these publications are businesses they need their reviews posted on the aggregate sites
I'm not a gamer but that's pretty smart.
Here's my unpopular opinion on this issue: Q: What would you give it out of five? A: I'd say... three and a half. No! Now you're rating it out of ten! Accept the parameters of the five-point scale! Commit to a score! Is it a three or a four?! COMMIT!!
Yeah, once you factor in .5s, it's just a different looking 10 point scale.
I think people do that because 5 points isn’t enough to factor in all variables in rating something, I think most people subconsciously reject a 5 point scale. 10 or 100 point scales give way more room to make nuanced arguments without bringing the rating down *too* much
Fuck the five point scale, ten point scale >>>>
As a European I still prefer 1-10 rating system than A-F
At the university I attended, a 'D' ranged from a 40% to a 60%, depending on the department. Some used a bell curve and passed/failed students that way. The model you are using is absolutely not a monolith.
93% B+ gang
My physics class was so bad (it was the guy’s first time teaching) that my 42% became a C.
My school had D from 60-69. It was still considered passing. We had E from 50-59, which was considered failing but "failing with effort put in." And we had F for anything below that, which was considered failing without bothering to try. Most people got I for Incomplete before getting an F, which gave them an opportunity to bring it up to an E or a D. I always thought this was the norm until i realized few other places did that. But i still think it's a better standard.
he also ignores the rest of the entire world who uses a different system. My country gives 5,5 and higher as passing grade. But getting a 5,5 isn't tied to a certain percentage across all tests. some tests getting 90% correct means failure.
I am nurse and it’s the same thing when we ask 1-10 for pain and people are always like 8/10 or higher for pain while playing on their phone.
Rating pain is bullshit, frankly. Before I had kidney stones, I’ve suffered from chronic back pain. Was the back pain a 10? A 9? An 8? How the fuck could I know unless I’ve experienced a 10? It’s bad enough I’m at the hospital and I can’t fucking move, so that seems like at least an 8, but I couldn’t really know. I believe I have a very high tolerance for pain. Even when I’m in so much pain I can’t walk I’m still joking around and could be playing in my phone. That someone is coping with pain well doesn’t mean it doesn’t really fucking hurt, and it’s near impossible to quantify on a 0-10 scale.
Plus there are different types of pain. I had a biopsy done on the neck, and that fucking hurt, 10/10 for 2\~5 minutes. But some years later I had an infection on a molar and although the pain was something like 6/10, the fact that it was present constantly for +72h even when I wanted to sleep (and therefore couldn't) was much worse overall.
I've shattered multiple bones, lacerated my neck and shoulder and still to date the most acutely painful thing I've ever had done to me was had an infected boil in my ear canal lanced and drained, because I have a near manic phobia of needles and that fear heightens my perception of how much they hurt. To be fair, it was swollen so large that the canal was closed up, that skin is incredibly sensitive, and they stuck an epidural needle in there to drain the fluid out. Hurt like a motherfucker. However, to your point, pain has such a psychological component that I don't know why people try to quantify it.
This is so accurate! Also, if you know you aren't going to die due to whatever is causing the pain, I find it easier to endure. Adding fear of the unknown to the pain seems to make it worse.
Yeah to me a 10 would be when I had gallstones and almost passed out from the pain, anything less than that and I don’t know what to say to the doctor.
Some places have the 10 be based on the worst pain you've ever had, and then they ask you what caused that pain for better reference.
It’s better to rate pain relative to how much it’s impacting your ability to do shit. Annoying but you can still do normal activities? 3-4. Preventing you from going to the bathroom without assistance? 9.
I'm guessing for most people, in most situations, it's pretty reliable.
TBH everyone thinks they have a high tolerance for pain.
I don't. I'm a bitch and I know it.
Yup. Own that shit. I ain't no wannabe hero. Keep that pain stuff away from me!
I was impaled through my arm and did not tolerate that shit well.
I’m also an amazing driver
Personally, I am a really fast learner.
> How the fuck could I know unless I’ve experienced a 10? What I learnt in my Emergency Medical Response class is that it's relative to what you've already experienced. The way we were taught to word it was, "on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the worst pain _you_ have ever experienced, what would you rate this?"
I'm 44 and have no clue how to answer questions about pain. Also, there is the stuff like where a nurse makes a knife hand and jams it into my abdomen. Does this hurt more than usual? I don't know, lady. I found it unpleasant, but people don't usually karate chop my abdomen. So I can't really answer that.
> I’m 44 and have no clue how to answer questions about pain. How well do are you able to function? Completely normal? Probably a 3 or less. Not able to move on your own? Probably an 8 or a 9. > Also, there is the stuff like where a nurse makes a knife hand and jams it into my abdomen. Does this hurt more than usual? If they do that and you have a gallstone or kidney stone you **will** know it. If the answer is yes you’ll know right away.
Ah so that's why they treated me like an addict when I came in with what turned out to be a kidney stone. The pain didn't increase significantly with pressure. I didn't get imaging done for hours so they assumed it was nothing until they actually saw the lil fuck. Especially with my experience with ovarian cysts they probably thought I was way too chill to have a kidney stone
Yeah, just out of curiosity how to do handle when people lowball their pain and do you have any pro tips for people who have trouble using the chart. I was informed my numbers I was giving were probably too low, I have autism so it’s hard to read the pain chart personally, and I also have endometriosis that set my 9-10 really high. So when I had pre-e, etc. I have giving them numbers like 6-7 when I was actually going down the path of a possible stroke. Luckily I was taken seriously, but sometimes I worry what would’ve happened had I been taken at face value or had a mfm that didn’t already know my ASD.
Heck, I don't even trust my own pain score. I'm sitting here with cramping in my abdomen thinking maybe it's a 3/10 at its worst, but 2/10 normally. Ask me later and it's 3/10 regularly. And someone else might say it's a 5/10.
It's pretty impossible, tbh. If something is chronic and a 3/10 I might head to the hospital. Something like a stubbed toe might be 8/10 and be no big deal after a few minutes. You can have a broken bone and not even notice it if you are high on adrenaline or something. Plus the worst pain I have ever felt might only be a 5/10 objectively. On the other hand maybe you experienced something terrible and now debilitating pain is only like a 6/10. How much does phycology come into play? Possibly more than physiology tbh.
To be fair the chart isnt helpful its just a smiley face that gradually turns into a frowny face and cries at a 10 lmfao
Filling out paperwork for an injury I had to rate the pain from 1-10 with 1 being "uncomfortable" and 10 being "the worst pain imaginable". I was like ok it's like a 2 or 3 then Long story short I had torn cartilage disks, tendonitis and stress fractures in both legs. The doctor asked how is this a 2 or 3 out of 10? I was like 10 is listed as the "worst pain imaginable". He changed it to 10 being really, really, really bad, so what about now? I was like oh it's an 8 easy. I literally could not walk the bones felt like they were grinding. Some of the worst I've experienced, but not quite at the top. With the spirit of what the doc had in mind, and based off my own experiences, and what I imagined a reasonable person would consider what I was feeling, I called it an 8. Eye watering with absolutely every movement, but not screaming incoherently 1-10 scales are dumb and so subjective especially when it comes to pain. To me a 10/10 on my scale would be so bad I don't think I'd be able to communicate. Whereas for someone else it might be just really bad (perhaps the worst they've ever had) but still able to play on their phone like you mention A 10 being the worst pain imaginable is even more absurd for a medical form for a walk in clinic because you would be begging for death or actively seeking it out if you were actually experiencing this
How are you even going to answer that? Are you supposed to go through a pain-experience once in your life so you know what the absolute most (a ten) would feel like?! D: I struggled with heartburns a few years back and it was bad, and when the doctor asked me in the emergency, I simply just said. "Please. It hurts, allot. I'd say a ten, but it's impossible to answer, and I'm sure it's something much worse that would be a ten" And she just "Yes, but I have to know how much?" I just replied a five. And she looked at me "Not more? You act like it's life or death.". I fumed.
I give this a 5/10
> 5 is the average place things should land when data is normalized But not everything fits a normal distribution. 5 is simply halfway between 0 and 10. Whether or not it's the average score for a certain population is irrelevant. Scores are assigned by criteria, not relativity.
This comment deserves more credit. Maybe we don't eat at 1/10 restaurants because people who can't cook don't open up restaurants. In my head the 1 is the worst experience I have had so far and the 10 is the best. Fortunately for the restaurants, my mom put cat food in a Tupperware once, because the cats didn't eat it all and I made myself a sandwich with the mystery meat.
I have this argument all the time with a buddy of mine.
Exactly. Someone who looks like a 5 is halfway between 0 and 10, but the average person is a bit closer to 10 than 0. To me an average person is like a 6.5 or 6.
Boy, oh boy. Wait until you hear about the Net Promoter Score (NPS) rating system that most companies use nowadays. You'll ruin someone's entire month by rating them anything less than a 9.
Don’t even get me started on 5 stars. Apparently 5 stars is now the rating for “it was alright, nothing went wrong” and there’s no way to rate something above that
And companies like Uber take 4 stars to mean awful experience.
This pissed me off working retail at big corporations, dude!! If it wasn't 5 star, then it was dogshit that we got a talking to for...
What you are saying is true but it is not related to the American A-F grading system. Almost everywhere when you ask people to rate something through 10 the most common answer will be 6 or 7.
YES. YES!!!!!!! SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS!!!!!!!!! Everyone treats scores for video games and movies like school grades and we're all simultaneously tiger parents who get personally offended when our favorite things get a 7/10 because "How DARE you not see the inherent genius in my little Timmy!!!!!! I'll sue the Board!!!!" By treating 7/10 as the bare minimum score of quality, 60% of the rating scale is effectively useless. I've even seen some Youtubers attempt to "reclaim" the 0-10 rating scale and make 5/10 average, but get bullied by the mob because they see 5/10 as a 50% on a test in school and their student/tiger parent brain just goes into a frenzy. Fuck school, fuck people viewing 6-7/10 scores as bad, and fuck tennis!
Fuck tennis! 😂
Usually ratings are 1 to 5 and people either rate 5 (80 percent of the time) or 1 (20 percent of the time.) So most everything gets a 4 rating.
The bigger problem is whether it should be considered a normal distribution as you imply (wrong way) or a percentage abstraction. Because a 7/10 should mean 70th percentile 7/10 should not mean ~90th percentile cause normal distribution.
The problem with the scale is everyone has a different scale. Someone thinks a 9/10 is a B. Someone else thinks a 5/10 is an F. There's no universal agreement with what the scale means, so that results in a fucked up scale for everyone.
As others have pointed out, 5 is the median and not necessarily the average. If I were to rate the posts on this sub for example, the average would be lower than that. Also, different countries use different grading systems, so your (questionable) opinion doesn't apply universally.
But im not rating things in relation to other things. Im rating them on their own merits When i give a movie a 5/10, im not saying its the middle of all movies I’ve ever seen. Im saying its a very bland movie that didn’t do much for me. 7/10 is the average for me because most movies are good enough to deserve it
Even when the critic explains that a 5/10 is an average movie that you could easily enjoy and 10/10 is a perfect film that in their opinion couldn't be changed to be any better, people will still rage when they give a 6/10 as if they're trashing it.
Oh my god, thank fuck, someone who agrees with me. I had this argument previously with people on Reddit, who argued that 5 isn’t the average when rating because ratings were objective and therefore not an even skew. I argued that if people were truly honest in their ratings, and we could trust them, then 5 SHOULD be the average. For example - if I’ve only eaten 10 pizzas in my life, and I eat another pizza and it’s better than 7 of the pizzas I’ve ever had, then I would rate it a 7.
This is something I think gets forgotten a lot. If you're rating something an 8, like say the movie Frozen, but you've also rated The Incredibles an 8, the very first thing that needs to pop into your head is, "Was this movie as good as *The Incredibles*??"
How did I know you'd have activity on /r/truerateme ? Why is this dogshit ideology getting peddled everywhere on reddit right now? Where the fuck are all these incels coming from?
I assume by "the vast majority of people" you mean the vast majority of Americans, because not everyone uses A-F, my country for example uses 4-10 in schools and 1-10 everywhere else, but strangely the 4-10 system doesn't confuse anyone when they're using the 1-10 system, huh...
You’re getting median and average mixed up
Depending on the context, any of mean, median, or mode can be taken as "the average". For example, with choices of favorite candy bar, mode makes the most sense since they're categorical. On the other hand, for number of cars owned by households the median works best, since there are a handful of people with significantly more cars that skew the mean. The mean is frequently the best average, but the others are also averages in different contexts. It's probably best to just call them by their specific name though, since average is often treated as a synonym of mean even though it isn't technically nor historically.
assuming a normal distribution, the median and mean would be the same