How do you rate anime?
Marco_a_Phoenix said: I try to rate shows as objectively as I can and not about how much I enjoyed them. When I rate shows, I tend to rate them based on their technical aspects. Whether its the plot elements, uses of literary devices, characters, etc, I try to judge a show on these aspects. To help make you understand the way I rate things a little more clearer, let me give you an example: Dragon Ball Super. It's one of the most enjoyable anime I've ever seen, but it is not a good anime. Why? Because there's so many things wrong with it. It has a countless number of cliches, two-dimensional characters, lots of plot conveniences, asspulls, everything. It makes use of almost every negative literary devices you can think of in the book. In contrast, a show like Dragon Ball is better. The characterization in Dragon Ball is great (lots of character development), and it is just in general, better written (it doesn't rely on new asspull transformations half of the time). With that being said, I enjoyed Dragon Ball Super more so than Dragon Ball. However, Dragon Ball is superior. The fact that it is actually well written is what makes it a better anime in comparison to DB Super (which is actually a garbage anime) despite the fact that I enjoyed Super a lot more. It seems from the poll results you are a rare breed! Interesting to get that perspective. Even though I think pure objectivity is impossible personally, I respect how earnest you are in the attempt and how you have fully committed and not allowed yourself any room to fudge scores with (your perception of) personal enjoyment. I appreciate commitment to ideals. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
| Enjoyment is a big factor when I rate anime. Doesn't matter if the plot is weak or there's many loopholes and what not, if its still fun to watch I'll rate it higher than its 'deserved' score. |
| Enjoyment 60 % , Objectivity 40 %. There really isn't a purpose to watch a show that is incredibly well made but you yourself do not enjoy it. The purpose of a show is to enjoy it, unless you are a hard critic that is. For me it's always enjoyment 1st, followed by objectivity. |
Peaceful_Critic said: That doesn't make the measure subjective, no matter what it represents no matter how bias of a tool. Someone using the tool wrong or dishonestly is not the tools fault.Sorry for the late reply, I took a break from the debate to get me in the mood again. Lunilah said: The measure is made as someone's subjective values though and is made as a representation of it. The tool is defining realism or consistency as the ideal, it's not just defining those aspects. Like you mentioned someone could use the tool wrong, but that tool would still define their values making it subjective.only the person is subjective, if a tool is defining consistency or realism then that's all it's going to do. A person could use the tool dishonestly whether or not they're aware of it to come to a wrong conclusion or to create a false narrative. Something that comes to mind is sexism in anime, where you can take observable events which don't completely indicate sexism, but portray it like it's the only conclusion. Lunilah said: Sure in that case they would be consistent with each other, but it's not a requirement to use the tool. For example i don't have to value animation consistency to recognize that it could be better or worse in different scenes. Context in the sense of what the parameters or rules of the tool are, you can't make it subjective by giving it those, how we interpret and use information is subjective. Well, it is a requirement if you use the tool. You can lie or not know your value, however, in that case, you aren't actually using the measure, you are using a different one. If you value something and you judge works on that measure then you would inevitably come out consistent, otherwise, you need to rethink the tool you are using. In your example, you talked about recognizing different qualities even if you don't particularly value those criticisms, that isn't using the tool. As we agreed before the tool is a set of criteria for what makes something good, so if animation consistency isn't in the criteria then you aren't using the measure. You are looking at all the parts of the art separately to your own measure. You could acknowledge someone else's measure, and see the flaws they point out, but you aren't using it to judge a work if it's good or bad. Lunilah said: Hmm, i wonder what the character limit to these replies are, these quotes are pretty massive. This is currently at almost 3000 words and 17500+ characters. I'm guessing not, at least, I haven't run into it yet and I had longer thread discussions than this one. Why is it a requirement? I don't think i understand you at all in this paragraph. |
 I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: It can't make judgments, people do, that's the marrying of objectivity and subjectivity regardless of bias.Lunilah said: A tool with a bias is going to make a subjective judgment no matter how rightly someone uses it. The tool isn't going to measure something equally and what has the use of determining the quality of the art which is subjective by nature.That doesn't make the measure subjective, no matter what it represents no matter how bias of a tool. Someone using the tool wrong or dishonestly is not the tools fault. Why is it a requirement? I don't think i understand you at all in this paragraph. Because the tool stands for what makes a piece of art good if you don't honestly hold that value than you aren't actually using that measure("As we agreed before the tool is a set of criteria for what makes something good, so if animation consistency isn't in the criteria then you aren't using the measure.") I think because you believe a measure can be subjective, that it's a requirement to have a consistent value with it to be able to use it since using it dishonestly wouldn't be using it? That sounds like proving a negative for me because you're asserting something on a basis i don't agree with. |
LunilahJun 12, 2019 6:48 PM
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
| 100% enjoyment. Because its easier, does not demand overthinking and reflects your "true" yourself. Also because people in general are more interested to know what you like and what you don't, rather than what you approved and what you disapproved. If others consider your taste as shitty... well that's not your problem and nothing you should care about. |
Peaceful_Critic said: A measure, or a better example a policy or law, doesn't have emotions or opinions to be subjective, but it can be bias and that doesn't have to do with emotions.Lunilah said: The measurement is a judgment on what makes good art. Was it made by people? Yeah, but the tool was made inherently as subjective measurement, so no matter how you use it the tool it is never going to be objective.It can't make judgments, people do, that's the marrying of objectivity and subjectivity regardless of bias. I think because you believe a measure can be subjective, that it's a requirement to have a consistent value with it to be able to use it since using it dishonestly wouldn't be using it? That sounds like proving a negative for me because you're asserting something on a basis i don't agree with. No, more so that it stands as someone's subjective values, so if someone is actually using that tool it would produce consistent results. If that person doesn't have that value, then they would, by nature, use a different measurement. On this, we agreed beforehand the tool is a set of criteria for what makes something good, so you agree with the basis. That's just describing bias not subjectivity. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Yeah because the measure can't have feelings, it can't be subjective, it's bias.Lunilah said: The measure is about someone's opinion and taste on what makes something good art, so it's still subjective just not through personal feelings by the measure itself.A measure, or a better example a policy or law, doesn't have emotions or opinions to be subjective, but it can be bias and that doesn't have to do with emotions. That's just describing bias not subjectivity. That was more so aimed at the argument that to use the measure you have to be honest. I wasn't trying to use that comment as an extension the one used above. I think it's confusing because that below argument operates on the above argument being concluded in favor of your side. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: That would preclude the hyper-realism point as would it math since they're both dependent on us for it's existence, as would a physical tool like a wrench, in a certain context. It's a tricky point but in this context; the measures aren't dependent on their mind since they don't have one (but we do as a species), and not our mind since it's an idea that exists outside of us with no agency; "i think i'm the cutest in the world" as opposed to "1+1=2" where "i" is attributing agency.Lunilah said: Having feelings of its own isn't a requirement to be subjective:Yeah because the measure can't have feelings, it can't be subjective, it's bias. I think it's confusing because that below argument operates on the above argument being concluded in favor of your side. Subjective: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." The measure is based on someone's personal opinions and tastes which makes the tool itself subjective. Fair enough. Edit: I don't know if you've seen V for Vendetta, but writing this reminded me of a quote "Beneath this mask there is more than flesh, Beneath this mask there is an idea, [redacted name], and ideas are bulletproof" |
LunilahJun 12, 2019 8:17 PM
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Yes, it was based on us which are based on that, that's why i said in that context because that's the interpretation you're using. As opposed to the other one which i laid out an idea for that exists outside of us that doesn't have agency.Lunilah said: Not really as math wasn't based on opinion, feelings or taste, more so what we know as fact. As for the second sentence, the tool doesn't have a mind of its own, of course, but by defination, the tool is subjective since the measure was based on someone's taste and opinion.That would preclude the hyper-realism point as would it math since they're both dependent on us for it's existence, as would a physical tool like a wrench, in a certain context. It's a tricky point but in this context; the measures aren't dependent on their mind since they don't have one (but we do as a species), and not our mind since it's an idea that exists outside of us with no agency; "i think i'm the cutest in the world" as opposed to "1+1=2" where "i" is attributing agency. Edit: I don't know if you've seen V for Vendetta, but writing this reminded me of a quote "Beneath this mask there is more than flesh, Beneath this mask there is an idea, [redacted name], and ideas are bulletproof" I have not, but that's a good quote. It's relevant in a way, I can see why you were reminded of the quote. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
| The thing is, 'enjoyment' and 'objectivity' are being mixed together when they carry completely different meanings. Enjoyment is part of what one takes into account when rating a show; With 'objectivity' I suppose you are refering to all the things one needs to take into account, at least from a technical standpoint, when rating a show. So let me tell you, if you find someone saying they didn't enjoy a show and it bored them to death, but then goes and rates it higher than something that they legitimately love but isn't as praised as that other boring show, then that person doesn't have an opinion of his/her own. My enjoyment can be more easily detereorated when I watch a show with below-average production values than someone who either hasn't seen as many shows as I did or doesn't really pay attention to that at all. That means that inevitably, in that case, I have more parameters to judge the show than that other person, which means it'll be harder for me to consider it good. When I started watching anime, my thoughts after watching a show would be either "it was awesome!" or "it was... meh...", because I didn't have nearly as many things going on my head while watching something as I do now. The longer you think about what YOU value the most in anime, the wider your spectrum of ratings will be. It's also important to note that the concept of "enjoyment" should be refering to nothing more than the level of personal engagement someone has with said anime, in this case. If you simply summarize all the things you process in your head while watching an anime with a sentence like "I enjoyed that show [THIS] much", then that's fine: it simply means that you don't care about deconstructing or thinking too deeper about the technical details of what you just witnessed - it either made you feel something positive or not. And that, I believe, is how most MAL users approach the rating scale. So, in conclusion, I believe that you can never really detach 'enjoyment' from the technical qualities of an anime when rating it, because if it entertained you, then there's ALWAYS a reason for that. Wether one can point that out accurately or not, though, is another question. |
 |
| Whenever I can I try to compare things that are of a similar genre. Say I just finished a mecha series,I'll compare it to a mecha series I really liked and rate based on that. Doesn't always work though since there are anime that are hard to compare to others. |
Peaceful_Critic said: 1. Because it's born from us which are based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.Lunilah said: Hate to be difficult, but you completely lost me.Yes, it was based on us which are based on that, that's why i said in that context because that's the interpretation you're using. As opposed to the other one which i laid out an idea for that exists outside of us that doesn't have agency. 2. Because itself is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The first is self explanatory, the second is us as existing, where our ideas don't apply unless we give agency to them. Edited due to multitasking, had to reformat my point because i wasn't paying enough attention to my re-read. |
LunilahJun 12, 2019 9:22 PM
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Both parts were messed up. The first one in particular about what you meant, that because it was from us rather than our tastes/values and opinion.Lunilah said: I liked the format of sentences you did 1st better actually, even if you messed up on the 2nd part. Anyway, I replied to 1. in my last post. How is the second is us as existing?1. Because it's born from us which are based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. 2. Because itself is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The first is self explanatory, the second is us as existing, where our ideas don't apply unless we give agency to them. I butchered that in a hurry to get the post edited. I mean it describes us because that's how we exist, we're based on that, and so are our ideas but only if we attribute agency to them. "I think i'm the cutest in the world" where "i" is the attributing factor of agency vs "1+1=2" which has no agency and in the context of math is true as is 'most realistic' in the context of hyper-realism is, and so is the technical aspects of art and animation *in the context of anime. |
LunilahJun 12, 2019 9:52 PM
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: What we interpret as more realistic is subjective, the measure can't decide. It's a tool to facilitate a conclusion not make one.Lunilah said: The hyper-realism point stated something was better based on how realistic the art is which is a measure that is subjective as people are free to disagree which isn't the case for 1+1=2. I already stated my disagreement that measurements simply list technical aspects. Both parts were messed up. The first one in particular about what you meant, that because it was from us rather than our tastes/values and opinion. I butchered that in a hurry to get the post edited. I mean it describes us because that's how we exist, we're based on that, and so are our ideas but only if we attribute agency to them. "I think i'm the cutest in the world" where "i" is the attributing factor of agency vs "1+1=2" which has no agency and in the context of math is true as is 'most realistic' in the context of hyper-realism is, and so is the technical aspects of art and animation. We've gone full circle. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: I'm not really trying to convince you, more so engaging with the ideas to their full extent. If i were to guess on why we disagree, if my points aren't wrong, it's that you're conflating bias with subjectivity. Took 3 days to go full circle though.Lunilah said: Yep, we sure have. I'm guessing that's because we already stated all our arguments on the topic, as I honestly don't know how to convince you(though I might be wrong). I already stated all the reasons I would count the measure as subjective.What we interpret as more realistic is subjective, the measure can't decide. It's a tool to facilitate a conclusion not make one. We've gone full circle. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: Yeah i know, i'm just treating you with the same courtesy of expressing why i never dropped it. Yeah, not adequately enough for the both of us, maybe we're both stubborn.Lunilah said: Wasn't trying to imply you were trying to convince me though I did state I was trying to convince you. I also stated that I believed the reason we went full circle to be that we already stated all our points. I don't view bias as the same as subjectivity and I believe some of your points to be wrong even if you don't personally think so.I'm not really trying to convince you, more so engaging with the ideas to their full extent. If i were to guess on why we disagree, if my points aren't wrong, it's that you're conflating bias with subjectivity. Took 3 days to go full circle though. I can continue down your 3rd part if you want, reigniting the conversation. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: If i'm wrong about you not conflating bias and subjectivity, 3rd sentence.Lunilah said: Ah, okay, sorry.Yeah i know, i'm just treating you with the same courtesy of expressing why i never dropped it. Yeah, not adequately enough for the both of us, maybe we're both stubborn. I can continue down your 3rd part if you want, reigniting the conversation. My 3rd part? What's that one? |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
Peaceful_Critic said: I'm open to doing it off MAL if you want, so we don't have to spend another 3 days.Lunilah said: Alright, let's start here, why do you think I'm conflating the two?If i'm wrong about you not conflating bias and subjectivity, 3rd sentence. If you're not conflating those two then maybe you're unknowingly confusing them, or perhaps you're just wrong about attributing subjectivity to a measure. |
I don't believe in the Devil. You should. He believes in you. |
| My personal method is mostly enjoyment and some consideration to objectivity. I mean I don't care if people are rating 5 on this specific show because there is a plot hole in X episode leading to Y episode to not make sense, altough I do care about a good written plot I would never underscore because the show is not the taste of other 90% of the MAL, so it's mostly enjoyment. |
''Enemies' gifts are no gifts and do no good.'' |
YossaRedMage said: This thread was remade about a dozen times in the past month so I'll be brief. Subjectivity means, in philosophy and any other technical sense, something that exists in the mind that is perceived. Opposite of that, objectivity means something that exists in reality that is sensed. Of course, you can't usually sense without perceiving the sense, so a corollary, so as not to devolve into absurdity, is to call objectivity intersubjectivity, that it could 1) be observed by multiple people, 2) be measured, and 3) have the measured be confirmed.There is a lack of interesting topics on the front page right now and polls are fun. So I thought I'd ask everyone something I'm curious about to get a feeling for where people land on this subject. I think it's a personal decision and how people rate is totally up to them so I'm not looking for any serious debate but I hope for some good light discussion. Of course, objectivity is not 100% possible or debatably not at all maybe, but even if you think that way, we can make attempts at it. So consider my use of 'objective' here to mean 'trying to be objective'. When you're "trying to be objective", you aren't trying to sense something in reality. That doesn't take effort. You either see it or you don't. What you are invoking is a second definition of objectivity -- synonym impartial. You are trying to be impartial. The opposite of impartiality is not subjectivity, but bias. While it may seem that bias and subjectivity are synonyms because they are often correlated, they are not. For example, if the prosecution and defendant in a courtroom express their versions of events, and then you express your opinion on which is right, your opinion is subjective regardless, but you may be biased towards one side or impartial. That is, bias implies subjectivity, but subjectivity does not imply bias. Hence the mistake here is a semantic shift fallacy where you use one definition of a word in an established context, and then silently shift to a second definition to use in the same prior context. Why the fuck is all this technical stuff relevant? Because the real question you care about is NOT subjectivity versus objectivity like you think it is, but the degree of articulation in which you could justify your clearly subjective opinions. You could never be impartial in a review. That's why it's called a "review". It's supposed to reflect your biases. The purpose of a review is to have the reader relate to your opinion without having seen the work. That takes details of your personal inferences. That takes skillfully articulating the nuances of your inner feelings. Doing so does not make your review objective (fact), or impartial (unbiased). It makes it clear. Note: When you deliberate on a rating, you're not writing out a review, but you are reviewing the work in your head in order to arrive at a rating. Hence, I talk about reviewing and rating as if it were the same activity. YossaRedMage said: This is, again, a categorical error. The plot of a show has no revelatory power in a review. Someone who watches the show enjoys it or doesn't, but for a reason. He doesn't enjoy a show for no reason at all. He doesn't just random pick a number in his head and stick with it. Something about the show (e.g. the plot) incites that enjoyment. So to claim you rate on enjoyment over, say, plot, compares two things which are not to be compared. It's like saying, "There is no tree, I see..." This is nonsense, obviously. What you mean is that, "There is a tree, and I see the tree." There has to be something to perceive in order for you to perceive it.Personally, I used to be someone who tried to weigh both objective quality and subjective qualtiy equally, but over time I rated more and more based on enjoyment. Now I rate only on enjoyment. YossaRedMage said: Now, you are conflating a third definition. Perhaps not a dictionary definition of objective, but colloquial definition, synonym popular. Popularity has shit to do with things that exist in reality, nor impartiality. Just because 100 people say something doesn't mean it's automatically more right or less biased than something 10 people say.I felt like when I rated stuff I really didn't like highly because of what other people said that's kind of wrong. And anime become known as 'objectively' high quality often just as narrative that forms around popular shows. So, for me at least, I felt I was too influenced by others when deciding on 'objective' quality. It's probably right not to rate on popularity, since it unnaturally skews the overall rating. The point of a aggregate is to take the average over individual ratings, and it only works if the individual ratings are independent of each other. If everyone tries to guess the aggregate, then the actual aggregate will be an aggregate of the estimated aggregates, and will be spoiled and no longer accurate. Let the aggregate do its job of averaging the popular opinion, and you do yours. But don't think for a second that anything you just said has anything to do with subjectivity versus objectivity. TL;DR:
Why can't people just use the word they actually mean, instead of shoehorning all this into one word? I bet you people think this is a valid argument: P1. Fire is hot. P2. Touching things that are hot burns. P3. Lindsey is a girl who is hot. C1. Touching Lindsey burns. P4. That new Billie Eilish track is hot. C2. Touching CDs burn. P5. That curry dish is hot. C3. Touching curry with your hands burns. That's not how it works... |
katsucatsJun 13, 2019 6:21 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» Who is your Favorite Waifu in Pokémon?Jackof-allspades - Yesterday |
35 |
by Jackof-allspades
»»
52 seconds ago |
|
» Does a person die the moment they become egg custard or the moment they're eaten as an egg custard?Dragevard - 1 hour ago |
5 |
by Zarutaku
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Will Wit Studio be more successful in money for the next 5 years?GoatPieceLuffy - 10 hours ago |
7 |
by perseii
»»
14 minutes ago |
|
» The decline of MananimeJoeChip - 4 hours ago |
19 |
by Nurguburu
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» Need an anime expert to help answer my questionsCovertSphinx - Yesterday |
13 |
by perseii
»»
22 minutes ago |