SE, while your explanation for using 5 clocks is better then Skar's it still doesn't do much to change the problem. Why would 5 be easier to understand then 6? And what makes you think saying 5 clock will be extremely rare will keep people from giving them out all the time like 6s are now? And Fell will never agree to allow for an editor to change any review score without talking to the reviewer first due to the Killowat incident. And lastly if we move to a different scoring system who is going to go change the 600+ reviews already in the database? I sure as heck ain't.
Yes, it does. Because the 5 clock system would be SCALED, instead of being like D&D levels.
See, the way we have it right now, it becomes progressively more difficult to move to the next half-clock the more clocks you already have. The difference between 5.5 and 6 clocks is much less than the difference between 3.5 and 4 clocks. That's what people don't understand. 6 clocks is just an odd number that serves no real purpose.
We'll work out who changes what when we decide what to change to. If nothing else, I can change 2 or 3 a day. no biggie.
And how about we let FELL decide what Fell will agree to. Changing under my system is very different than what happened with Kid. You know that. If you don't realize that changing his score was just hte last straw in a long line of things he was uncomfortable with, you didn't see anything he had to say.
Again, I see changing our scoring system as a band-aid fix it will only fix things in the short term due to several reasons already stated by myself and others here.
1) We review a lot of what we like so things tend to get higher scores.
2) Scores are only a quick summary of what the review text states.
3) People have the conception, write or wrong, that if they like something it must be a 6 score.
4) Or editors have never been very strict in enforcing the review criteria, even when reviews that don't support the score are brought to their attention.
5) That no scoring system is perfect since everything is all opinion anyway and there's only so many ways you can convert a 800 word review into a few numbers or letters, none of which are as effective as the initial review.
1) I don't think this is something that needs a remedy nor do I think my system tries to do anything about it. Not a problem.
2) I don't see why this affects my argument. It's a feature of all rating systems. If anything, my system proposes a much better reflection of the summary than the existing one.
3) That's why we let editors change scores and make reviewers read an follow the guidelines. Again, I don't see why that affects a decision to change the scale.
4) We haven't been strict, but we have enforced it and made people make changes. Usually this happens via email BEFORE it runs. Thus you don't see it happening. Again, allowing editors to change scores remedies this nicely.
5) none are perfect, but some are more intuitively understood than others. The language is not hard to understand in our description, but the fact that you *need to read* the description is the flaw. The system should be something easily understood without any special knowledge. Our current system fails at that. Maybe we go with 6 clocks instead of 5, but it doesn't matter. THe current system isn't progressive and gives a false impression about the overall feeling about the product. THat is something we *can* remedy, even if the remedy doesn't make it "perfect." No one's looking for perfect here.
Most of these issues must be addressed individually, #2 and #5 are things that is out of our control as long as we want to assign a score, or no matter how many times we change around our numbers we'll eventually end up in the same place.
I think I've given a very reasonable argument above to why this is not at all out of our control.
