| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Ten Percenter
- FB Enquirer -
United Kingdom
1733 Posts |
|
|
Cartland
- FB Fan -
Iceland
78 Posts |
 Posted - 06/21/2006 : 02:54:58
|
This rating doesn't make sense. According to my quick calculations, the average is 53. If anything, I think that the reviews from Billboard, ET and Pitchfork should weigh more than the others (thus hiking the rating), but the opposite is obviously true.
I sometimes suspect the people at Metacritic of influencing the ratings according to their own tastes. And they don't like Frank Black.
http://myspace.com/ivartheartist |
 |
|
|
Ten Percenter
- FB Enquirer -
United Kingdom
1733 Posts |
|
|
geertos
- FB Fan -
Belgium
158 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 04:46:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cartland
This rating doesn't make sense. According to my quick calculations, the average is 53. If anything, I think that the reviews from Billboard, ET and Pitchfork should weigh more than the others (thus hiking the rating), but the opposite is obviously true.
I sometimes suspect the people at Metacritic of influencing the ratings according to their own tastes. And they don't like Frank Black.
http://myspace.com/ivartheartist
Metacritic spreads the results on a 0 to 100 scale, otherwise nearly every album would have a rating between, say, 60 and 80. This works in two directions: an album avaraging 85 can get a score of 90, or vice versa (like FMRM). I bet they know a few things about statistics over there, and have other priorities than disliking particular artists. |
|
|
|
Cartland
- FB Fan -
Iceland
78 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2006 : 13:50:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by geertos
quote:
Originally posted by Cartland
This rating doesn't make sense. According to my quick calculations, the average is 53. If anything, I think that the reviews from Billboard, ET and Pitchfork should weigh more than the others (thus hiking the rating), but the opposite is obviously true.
I sometimes suspect the people at Metacritic of influencing the ratings according to their own tastes. And they don't like Frank Black.
http://myspace.com/ivartheartist
Metacritic spreads the results on a 0 to 100 scale, otherwise nearly every album would have a rating between, say, 60 and 80. This works in two directions: an album avaraging 85 can get a score of 90, or vice versa (like FMRM). I bet they know a few things about statistics over there, and have other priorities than disliking particular artists.
Don't quite understand what you're getting at. It's a weighted average, which means that some reviewers are given more weight than others. It just strikes me as strange that Billboard, ET and Pitchfork (above average) weigh less in their calculations than the ones that are below the average (Observer Music Monthly, Playlouder, Uncut).
Pardon my broken English and perhaps not entirely correct use of terms.
http://myspace.com/ivartheartist |
|
|
|
geertos
- FB Fan -
Belgium
158 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 02:22:09
|
I agree I wasn't very clear. Allow me to copy-paste from their website:
"In addition, for our film and music sections, all of the weighted averages are normalized before generating the METASCORE. To put it another way that should be familiar to anyone who has taken an exam in high school or college, all of our movies, games, and CDs are graded on a curve. Thus the METASCORE may be higher or lower than the true weighted average of the individual reviews, thanks to this normalization calculation. Normalization causes the scores to be spread out over a wider range, instead of being clumped together. Generally, higher scores are pushed higher, and lower scores are pushed lower. Unlike in high school, this is a good thing, since it provides more of a distinction between scores and allows you to better compare scores across movies (or CDs)."
So I don't think the weighted avarages are the deciding factor in the case of FMRM. The magazines you mentioned are probably weighted heavily anyway. With a weighted avarage in favor of Pitchfork etc, you'd still only get, say, 57 instead of 53. After "normalization to prevent clumping", this 57 becomes 49. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 07:47:47
|
I like how they make it clear that they accept that pushing the high higher and low lower is bad in high school. That they somehow then take the same logic teachers use to grade on the curve anyway immediately after is perplexing. That most reviews are weighted in the middle means, probably, that most albums are average. That, for example, Pitchfork gives it say 69% doesn't mean that they REALLY meant a 49% but were biased positive. They have plenty of 3/10 reviews.
I agree that they're obviously not picking on FMRM, but I think their system has some inherent flaws.
 "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
|
|
|
Cartland
- FB Fan -
Iceland
78 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 09:05:18
|
Well yes, I hadn't read their rules and I thought it was just a weighted average. The reason I suspected foul play was that some while ago I noticed a Q review which gave 2/5 and they translated it into 30/100, using their scale. And there is inevitably always a certain level of subjectivity in their system, because an employee has to translate verbal reviews into their 0-100 scale. Which is another matter, of course.
http://myspace.com/ivartheartist |
|
|
|
geertos
- FB Fan -
Belgium
158 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 00:47:04
|
Ah yes, the fact that a 2/5 stars rating in Q becomes 30/100 has another explanation. Q doesn't use half star ratings. So a three star rating can in fact be rather positive as well as just avarage. And a two star rating can still be pretty decent as well as downright bad. Metacritic thinks it's unfair to just give 60/100 or 40/100 when the written review tells a different story, so they decided to give themselves the opportunity to adjust 10 points (or half a star) either way in function of the written review. Seems fair to me.
They don't use their normalization scale for individual (weighted) reviews, only for the final avarage.
Anyway, I love these kind of statistics. You can also check out acclaimedmusic.net if you love this kind of stuff.
|
Edited by - geertos on 06/30/2006 00:52:16 |
|
|
|
Ten Percenter
- FB Enquirer -
United Kingdom
1733 Posts |
|
|
vilainde
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Niue
7441 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2006 : 02:45:54
|
I wonder why Uncut reviewed it so harshly. They're usually into that sort of Americana stuff.
Denis
|
|
|
|
callahan
- FB Fan -
149 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2006 : 08:34:21
|
I'm starting to think critics all follow eachother's opinions. Most of the reviews I've read of this album have pretty much said the same thing with different wording. This isn't the first time I've noticed that happening. it's as if they all jump on the bandwagon.
A few years back Nick Cave released an album called Nocturama. The critics loves it at first. There was, again, a general consensus that Nick had returned to his original form. This was so untrue. Most of his fans were incredibly disappointed with the album. It was widely regarded, amongst his fans, as his weakest album. Now, even the media refers to it as a poor attempt. Yet, they were touting it as one of his best upon its release. Go figure.
In any case, I think this is a great album! It doesn't repeat Dog In The Sand or Teenager Of The Year, but its not meant to. Screw the professional critics! |
Edited by - callahan on 08/02/2006 08:34:45 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Fastman Raiderman on Metacritic
