-->

21.10.13

Wolfe: What the Heck is Up With Wolfe's Rating System?

Wolfe reporting.

So, there's been lots of confusion (apparently) regarding my rating system. I'd like to start by saying that I do not like using a rating system... it's like assigning numerical values to art. Each piece of art is, well, art, so calling one piece a "5" and another piece a "4" seems counter-intuitive for one such as myself.

However, that's not to say a rating system is without its value. After all, a reader is either reading on something they've already seen, or, more importantly, reading to determine whether or not the anime wants to be seen at all. Usually, if I complete an anime, I didn't dislike it. I want to highlight the points I liked and make educated arguments against one point or another (whether it be plot or characters).

Also: I was new to this when I started. I started out without a rating system entirely, and then moved onto a tentative rating system, which is continually evolving. While I can't pretend that it's stable yet (there are bits I intend to modify), I reckon I'm pretty close to my final line.

Ultimately, this comes down to this debate: do I rate based on what I (personally) thought? Or do I rate based on what I (objectively) thought? The perfect example would be in my Baccano! post. There are two comic relief characters that get a lot of screen time in Baccano!, and are, best as I can tell, well-loved by the average viewer. I didn't like them (although I did eventually warm up a little to them). So, do I mark down points under "Characters" solely because I didn't like them? In the personal rating system, I would. Under the objective rating system, I would consider other elements: for instance, both comic relief characters were consistent, had good back-story, and seemed likeable enough (even if they weren't so for me). So, under the objective rating system, I wouldn't mark the anime down for good characters just because I didn't like them.

Second debate: do I rate things down for bad elements, or rate things up for good elements? This is a tough question, in my opinion, and I understand people who do things either way. If rating down for bad elements, I suggest a zero-to-"x" scale, starting off with a perfect score and being marked down for this or that. If rating up for good elements, I also suggest a zero-to-"x" scale, starting off with a score of zero and building the anime up for this or that. If a combination of both the down and up systems is desired, I suggest either a zero-to-"x" scale (whereupon one starts halfway between zero and "x") or a "negative x"-to-"x" scale (whereupon one starts at zero), then bumping the score up or down based on this or that.

Conclusion: my methodology of choice is an objective rating system based on rating things down for "bad" elements. While I include my personal opinion, I don't give it any weight. For an example, I'll point again to my Baccano! review. I gave the Character section a 4 / 4, a perfect score... or, rather, I marked nothing down under Characters. While I noted that I disliked the comic relief, I defended my rating by explaining that each character is thoroughly thought-out (with good back-story as well).

Most of this was said just to sate Roxas' and Woodpecker's confusions, as well as to give advice to Iorek (who is awesome and rather new). I may or may not point out my personal opinion in juxtaposition with my objective opinion in later posts to help avoid confusion.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hey, click "older posts" to view more, or find reviews by particular reviewers from the top. Thanks! ~Wolfe