Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Zeus

NEW: Monochrome Heaven Official Review Rankings Guide

2 posts in this topic

Hey there Monochromiums!

Well why is this here? Well this topic got me to start thinking about our review forum. We don't get too many reviews from all of our members but we do get a lot. On top of that, sometimes we get very good reviews that can reach a wider audience and should be taken more seriously. Since we are all listeners of Japanese music and all of our opinions are valid, all of our reviews are worth consideration. Plus, since it's also MH's goal to end up being the one-stop shop for all things Japanese related, it's about time that we started to make our review section become a place where opinions about Japanese releases are taken seriously (as they should be).

Now since every other review site out there has a scale on which they rank releases, I thought we needed one too - plus having a scale system that everyone uses gives us a lot of legitimacy that no other place that does what we do has. So after some discussion, we settled on a nine point scale where releases are rated out of five but there are decimals involved.

Please note that the goal isn't to tell you how to review things. The goal is to provide you wonderful reviewers with a standard way to not only express how you feel about a release to the widest group of people, but to also more easily compare how your ratings and reviews rank against ratings and reviews of other members. So with that out of the way, here's the scale:

 

1.0: ( :1.0:): Reviews rated a 1 are very poor with no redeeming qualities. This should be saved for the very worst of the worst, things that should never have been pressed to disc and that you can't recommend anyone listen to.

1.5: ( :1.5:): Reviews rated a 1.5 should denote releases that have a lot of shortcomings and are difficult to enjoy. Usually these are also releases you wouldn't recommend most people listen to unless they're into those specific kinds of releases.

2.0: ( :2.0:): Reviews rated a 2.0 should denote releases that you believe could only be enjoyed by diehard fans of the band but otherwise wouldn't appeal to many people.

2.5: ( :2.5:): Reviews rated a 2.5 are what you would consider "a step below average". Needed some fine-tuning but the release is enjoyable as-is.

3.0: ( :3.0:): Reviews rated 3.0 are what you would consider an average release. May appeal to fans of the genre more than most people.

3.5: ( :3.5:): Reviews rated a 3.5 should denote releases that you find are above average that may have some wider appeal. These could be releases with a possible recommendation.

4.0: ( :4.0:): Reviews rated a 4.0 are what you would consider a good release that highlights a band's sound well that you would recommend.

4.5: ( :4.5:): Reviews with a 4.5 rating should be given to releases that you feel are excellent in many ways but have a few flaws here and there.  You would definitely highly recommend this release.

5.0: ( :5.0:): Reviews with a 5.0 should be given to that rare release that blows your socks off in every way that you would recommend to just about everyone. This release should be labeled things like "stunning", "absolutely perfect", "eargasmic", "flawless", "my life has new meaning after hearing this", etc.



If you are wondering how to get the star pictures, surround the numerical rating with colons. So for 4.5, you would just write : 4.5 : (without the spaces) and the appropriate pic should pop up.

Also, feel free to provide your own personal rating along with it if you feel that these ratings are too "restrictive" (and I would also like to hear your opinions on how to improve it via PM so we could tweak it to make it better). If subsequent reviews from now on could use this kind of scaling system, that would be wonderful.

Happy reviewing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.