Do you try to rate "objectively" and what do you think of people who rate "objectively"?

_Maneki-Neko_ said:
I don't see how you could rate art "objectively". At best, I could think about what other people might like about this anime, but that's not something that affects my personal experience and my rating.
I think my list should tell something about me and what I personally like anyway.

_Maneki-Neko_ said:

How? Even if you judge characters by how well they are developed, you will get a dozen of different answers, because you can't look at people without personal bias. First you have to turn in a robot to do that.
If you wanna judge a story or setting how well-developed it is, you can do the same.
Art isn't there to be judged objectively. It's not natural science, therefore it must be subjective.

iunne said:
Yes, I do try and rate "objectively" - but wait a bit and let me explain.

Before you try and tell me "objectivity" is impossible with art or whatever - no need to continue, I already agree with that when using the standard definition of "objective." But in this context, by "objective" I don't mean something that everyone will have the same opinion on, but something that I am taking into consideration outside of my own personal feelings or interests. "Objectivity" here is removal of my personal (subjective) tastes.

Kaasfondue said:
What is that "something" you take into consideration? Like what do you believe you can look at without any bias? I assume you mean the criteria you have chosen, which is all subjective. And even then, for you to be able to apply it to art objectively, would require you to be able to look at a piece of art objectively. Both impossible, so you rate subjectively. Unless you believe your thoughts to be truth, even overriding the visions of the creators.

inim said:
I'll add a third point: weights. Assuming you (a) have picked criteria and (b) can look without bias , there's still (c) how important the criteria from (a) are for you. No two beholders will put the same weights on their criteria, even if they pick the same. This is a major source of subjectivity. An extreme example would be a deaf person, who can enjoy anime with subtitles nevertheless. Their weight on sound design will be zero, for example.

Hrybami said:


You realize there's no objective standard to grammar right? Those are just arbitrary rules written by a bunch of dudes in a office. The grammar didn't originate from the nature. When you apply some arbitrary rules, that doesn't make your judgement objective just because you're relying on a guideline.

Kaasfondue said:
What is that "something" you take into consideration? Like what do you believe you can look at without any bias? I assume you mean the criteria you have chosen, which is all subjective. And even then, for you to be able to apply it to art objectively, would require you to be able to look at a piece of art objectively. Both impossible, so you rate subjectively. Unless you believe your thoughts to be truth, even overriding the visions of the creators.

Satyr_icon said:

The only true subjective question is: did I like it or not? There's a lot that can be analysed under an objective lens through comparison with other works or through the study of narrative in literature and cinema, but whether this lot suits one's taste is completely up to subjectiveness.

Satyr_icon said:

Whether or not the answer to these questions is good or bad is up to subjectivity, after all "complex" characterisation is not always a good thing, but these are all things that can be assessed as well.

inim said:
I'll add a third point: weights. Assuming you (a) have picked criteria and (b) can look without bias , there's still (c) how important the criteria from (a) are for you. No two beholders will put the same weights on their criteria, even if they pick the same. This is a major source of subjectivity. An extreme example would be a deaf person, who can enjoy anime with subtitles nevertheless. Their weight on sound design will be zero, for example.

I wanna quickly stress my first beginning point again: it's not "objective" in that it's meant to be transferrable to a second person - this is a rating that only exists within my own scope of criteria. As I mentioned above, I already agree with "objective" being an impossible label on art if we're using the standard definition. The standard definition I'm referring to goes along the lines of based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings (one entry from Cambridge). So my ratings are not "objective" according to this definition.

Galarrdo said:
By that logic I can argue, that the word "objective" doesn't mean what you claim it does [...] If you don't see conventions as objective, then there's no point to any type of conversation as nothing will ever be agreed upon.

Clubby said:


I never said I was never wrong. I said that you can't say someone's opinion is wrong because you don't share that opinion.

iunne said:
I wanna quickly stress my first beginning point again: it's not "objective" in that it's meant to be transferrable to a second person - this is a rating that only exists within my own scope of criteria. As I mentioned above, I already agree with "objective" being an impossible label on art if we're using the standard definition. The standard definition I'm referring to goes along the lines of based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings (one entry from Cambridge). So my ratings are not "objective" according to this definition.

Moving on to chosen criteria:
Are the values I set up "not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings"? Absolutely not, there are as many answers to what the qualities of a good show are as there are the number of people.
What makes a show good is indeed shaped by the values I have, but when I say I rate a show "objectively," it means I am separating my interests into two categories: what is relevant, and what isn't irrelevant. Simply put, I don't think all my preferences are relevant. Values I have that are relevant to what makes a show good are turned into my criteria. Values that aren't relevant are discarded - for me these values include enjoyment and favoritism. So when I'm claiming to try and "rate objectively," what I really am trying to get through is that my ratings are not based on surface-level reactions to the show. "Surface-level reactions" may sound negative, but that truly isn't my intention.

To reiterate, using the standard definition of "objectivity" I am by no means rating objectively, however what I do try and do is cut-off what I consider "empty/irrelevant" pleasure and displeasure. If you don't like me saying that I try to rate objectively - that's fair. I mainly only refer to my rating system as "pseudo-objective" when I want to distinctly convey to someone that my rating doesn't correspond to enjoyment or my personal favorites - simply because that's the default assumption most people have for a rating system.

Edit: May not be relevant, but one thing I want to clarify is that I don't believe my rating system to be any more right or "objective" (standard definition) than anyone else's. I'm simply aiming to describe it. For example, even though I don't take enjoyment as a direct factor, I don't think rating systems based purely on enjoyment are bad or inferior.

Galarrdo said:


By that logic I can argue, that the word "objective" doesn't mean what you claim it does because it's some arbitrary definition given by someone to a random assortment of shapes. This then in turn apply to all written and also to spoken language if you replace shapes with sounds. I get what you are saying from a theoretical perspective, but from a practical one it doesn't make any sense. If you don't see conventions as objective, then there's no point to any type of conversation as nothing will ever be agreed upon.

TheBigGuy said:
OP, you have opened Pandora's box. May the big fat voluptuous round anime tiddies have mercy on your soul.

AnimeLeviathan said:


Lmao. I've yet to read all replies in this thread and I doubt im ever going to.

I haven't even exposed what side I agree with yet LOL.

peachyixxy said:
Also such a good point here. I love character analysis, don't get me wrong, but I think some people focus too much on how complex a character is without even realizing that they can still be a bad and unlikeable character. (I mean, characters can be unlikeable but still well-written/fully fleshed out... but sometimes the most "complex" characters are unlikeable AND bad)

Hrybami said:


I don't see conventions as objective because they are not. I have no problem in accepting them and agree with them. The good thing about subjective conventions is that we can adapt them ergonomically and modify them with the current needs of a constantly progressive society and ideology.

Why does so many people here think that being subjective = denying everything? It's fucking annoying.

Galarrdo said:


What you are referring to is an objective attribute which are more or less facts. The primary definition of the word objective refers to the act of "doing something while disregarding personal feelings or opinions" with the emphasis on "doing something" and "personal". If you change the definition to only doing something based on facts, which I feel like you are, the existence of the word doesn't make any sense, because everyone action taken by a conscious person is influenced by some sort of personal bias.

If you don't agree I would like you to provide me with an example that proves me otherwise.

IEatAnimeAss said:
I think they should objectively try to get some bitches

Hrybami said:


Yes that's the whole point.

It's not that the existence of the word objective doesn't make sense, but rather that it should be applied at the right places. To consider something as objective, the thing should be firstly not abstract and it has to be possible to measure it precisely and exactly.

The common mistake is that people consider anything objective whenever there's an agreement in the community. Though, the agreement in itself doesn't prove that something is objective since it wasn't measured in the first place. Every action taken are influenced by prior decisions which in the end of the line were completely bias actions. So, if I decide the write a word the correct way, it is because there were people from all time period and regions who decided individually each part of the concept of spelling from the writing, the letters, the syntax, the definition. This accumulation of the past knowledge are founded from biased decisions. By choosing to abide to this writing method, we relayed every subjective decisions taken beforehand to shape this method.

-Ecliptix- said:
No one here rates objectively. I have never come across a system that is widely used for objective rating and review of anime. If it is objective every single person who rated objectively would have an identical rating.

To be objective it has to be devoid of emotion, any form of bias, and be done through a system of checks and balances to adhere to some sort of set of rules that make it objective.

Ratings which are essentially micro reviews cant be done objectively by an emotional being that thinks for itself. Art in of itself is entirely subjective from creation to consumption. This whole idea that you can rate objectively is asinine. It is possible to rate more objectively than another person but not entirely objective.

Also before someone says that a sociopath can rate objectively which has been thrown at me before. Sociopaths have emotions generally dulled down and they don't empathize with others, they are not devoid of emotion they just structurally are much different in their emotional states and reasons etc.

Energetic-Nova said:
I see a difference in rating based on quality and rating based on enjoyment.

Example, if I rated more objectively, meaning rating and reviewing by a set if standards with reasons, and not allow myself to rate End of Evangelion 1/10 because the art and animation and sound are all fantastic. Which yes, is an opinion but it doesn’t toss all of that out to call it hot Garbage and which is always what I want to do. I want to say “ this is shit and has no redeeming value” voice acting. Excellent. Beginning middle and end yes? Do I like the writing? No. I hate it.

I also wouldn’t rate Yuri on Ice so highly because it does have art flaws (going off model) and plot becomes tournament hell and feels the need to show each person compete rather than only focus on the people who matter. But I toss all that out and say 10/10 best anime ever.

Anime with no endings couldn’t be 10/10 if I rated objectively. Anime with poor pacing would have to be consistently marked down.

This is all opinions yes, subjective. But when we say objective it means a score determined by [evidence] and not just whatever you felt that final episode. And anime with a good start will be given credit for that start. An anime with a mediocre middle will have the score reflect this. And so on.

So if half of Naruto is filler garbage and the other half is masterpiece Battle Shounen it should only get a 5/10. But I gave it a 7/10.


“Objective reviews” keep in mind positive and negative qualities. And they consider audience members who are not them. It is I suppose, a kind of empathy. And the end score will reflect this.