I am really bad at rating things on a numerical scale. When it comes to rating moods etc. (which people sometimes want me to rate), I use an unmarked 10cm line, instead, and mark the point I feel that I am on that line.
I feel like I want to ask questions, but I don't have anything coming to mind, beyond feeling I want to know but don't know where to start. If that makes sense.
But I do find your method of rating very interesting.
Well, if you figure out where to start, ask away. The problem I have with numbers is that I agonise- is it really a 6, or is it a 7? Without a number to point at, I can't do that- I can only say "I feel about here" and look at previous dots- and say "I feel a bit better than yesterday's dot". In the end, trends matter more than if I pick a 6 or a 7.
I'm totally with you on the numbers I assign things. And 11 is just stupid. If something is an 11 your scale is totally out of whack and you need to reallocate the numbers ;p
I usually think someone giving something 11/10 is a twat. Much like people who like to say they've given 110%. Clearly, you can't. So shut it.
This might be cos I've drunk too much nice red wine tonight, but your suggestion of rating things from 1-10 reminds me of rating risks of doing a particular programing task (hmm, risk management). I prefer a scale of 1-5 cos it's coarser and less arbitrary, and I prefer to have descriptions for each rating. For a task with a requirement and available skills, the following descriptions might apply - what score descriptions would you use for a tv series or a movie? 3/5= average? What aspects of the film do you tend to consider?
For risks for a technical task (which is where I finally started relating risk management to software projects):
1: "Activity has been done before; Experienced people are available to complete the activity."
2: "Activity has been done before; People are available to complete the activity."
3: "Major parts of the activity have been done before; Experienced people are available to complete most of the activity"
4: "One or more major parts of activity have not been done before; Experienced people not available to complete most of activity."
5: "Activity not been done before; Tech not readily available for activity; Little experiecne in this type of work."
Similar to you, with 5 being just on the down side of this film gets a pass mark. i do use .5s, usually when I just can't quite decide if it really is just a 7 or whether is deserve an 8. It's rare for me to give a 10 as, being that is the highest that can be awarded i feel it should mean the film is either perfect, or so damn close that its failings are insignificant, thus you are more likey to see a 9.5 out of me - i guess I am a hard marker. Don't think I've ever rated something a 0, or possibly even a 1. i think that would have to represnt a film so bad that i couldn't watch it all the way to the end. (NeverEnding Story 3 anyone?)
PS. I find rating films out fo 5 stars more challenging. i think there is much more room for interpretation between one person's 4 stars and another's, whereas being able to say 7 or 8 is much clearer. If asked to rate out of 5 stars I am much more likely to start giving .5s if I feel I need to clarify.
Yep, pretty much sums up my way of looking at it - five is meh, six is not bad, I quite enjoyed it and it goes up from there.
I have a real problem with the "out of Ten" scale due to this simply factor that we only ever use 6 thru 10 and for some reason when ever it's a five or a four, for some reason it turns into a over the top comment on how bad it was and not an actual score!
But to comment on the original question, I believe 5 is a natural score. not good and not bad.
I don't enjoy rating things, which is a bit of a problem when I'm marking assignments. I suppose luckily for my students I don't like giving scores less than half unless they really stuff things up.
[GregT] In the world of videogame reviewing, anything less than a 6 tends to mean that individual elements (art, sound, level design) may be competent or better but the package as a whole is unplayable, with 0-2 being for games that have no redeeming features. A 6 is generally cult/niche interest only, a 7 is the threshold for "generally reasonable", and 8, 9 and 10 are the three-point scale of excellence.
Generally I prefer systems that break down the individual elements. Single raw numbers tend to lead to annoying artifacts such as Roger Ebert giving Fight Club and Kick Ass zero out of four stars while giving 2012 and the Clash of the Titans remake a hearty thumbs up.