| i suggest this descriptions 10 masterpiece 9 amazing 8 great 7 very good 6 good 5 average 4 bad 3 very bad 2 awful or hateful or painful 1 horrible this is what MAL has at the moment 10 masterpiece 9 great 8 very good 7 good 6 fine 5 average 4 bad 3 very bad 2 horrible 1 appalling i reference some of it on the IGN new scoring descriptions btw here https://youtu.be/y6HYAOYVWXU  |
degJan 7, 2020 4:35 PM
| It doesn't change anything but still I agree with this suggestion |
| There is no need to implement this since they're is nothing wrong with the current score names. |
The word elitist is stupid since it's just used by people who can't defend their favorite shows and use it on people who criticize their favorite shows.  |
GreenClock said: There is no need to implement this since they're is nothing wrong with the current score names. my thinking is that fine (6) is so similar to good (7) and that 8 and 9 score descriptions needs some better descriptions like how IGN does it since "very good" as 8 is somewhat lacking that impact, also appalling is not that of a common word? |
| Yeah who the hell uses the word appalling |
 plz @ me |
| I’m quite happy with the current score description. Their current descriptions are the ones that I think best suit them and are similar to what my thought process of what a 6 and so on is. Although, I doubt I would lose any sleep if your changes were implemented. |
 |
Xstasy said: I don't mind but what is even a point? Most MAL users don't use full scale or even abide by score description anyway. well for those people that uses the score descriptions like im starting doing now i would like this changes if most people do not use it then most will not mind this suggestion too |
| I mean I wouldn't be against it but I'm not sure how much it really matters. At the end of the day it's still the exact same 1-10 scale regardless of what words you put beside them, and people will always end up using said scale however they feel like themselves |
  |
| ok i change the last poll option to this "neutral (im fine either way) " |
| I'm against proposed change because the difference is insignificant, and there will be people unhappy with the change who will want to go back to old words or get something different this time. Waste of time and manpower either way. If you don't agree with MAL's choice of words, you can just put on your profile what each score means to you, a lot of people did something like this. |
 I'm watching anime since 2012. I also play games, sometimes. Don't bother me if you want to 'become friends' or things like that. It's tiresome. I know you just want to collect some meaningless numbers. Thought: How many people sparked H. Charlotta just for blue pot? |
| I don't really care for the most part, but "average" has always meant fuck all on the scale. |
| Sieg Zeon! |
Hakaminah said: I'm against proposed change because the difference is insignificant, and there will be people unhappy with the change who will want to go back to old words or get something different this time. Waste of time and manpower either way. If you don't agree with MAL's choice of words, you can just put on your profile what each score means to you, a lot of people did something like this. this is so easy to implement it will only take 1 manpower and 5 minutes at most to do plus if majority of people do not care about this then it will at least benefit us that uses the score descriptions the right way @Korishi how about awful be change to hateful or painful? |
degJan 7, 2020 4:35 PM
deg said: the right way And with that small bit your suggestion became completely invalid. Congratulations. |
I'm watching anime since 2012. I also play games, sometimes. Don't bother me if you want to 'become friends' or things like that. It's tiresome. I know you just want to collect some meaningless numbers. Thought: How many people sparked H. Charlotta just for blue pot? |
Hakaminah said: deg said: the right way And with that small bit your suggestion became completely invalid. Congratulations. i should have said the default way then and not the right way |
| No good reason to change anything. Same problem as with the previous system: Too many descpriptions. In fact I can't even really differentiate between "a little bit shit" and "a little bit more shit" and "a lot of shit" (scores 3, 2, 1) - and I'd be even okay if there was only 1,3 ,5 (no 2 and 4 to use) and some more score options at the top. But they won't change anything. As for the descriptions at least less could be used. And I won't vote a yes (I'm neutral here ... both versions are crap the existing one and the one suggested) unless it is something like: 1 description 2 3 description 4 5 (des ription) 6 7 8 description 9 10 description That would totally be enough. (Maybe then more people would care about descriptions. In fact I'm using - as most others - my own system mapped to the 1-10 at MAL atm.) Edit: The 6 as "fine" seems a bit problematic though ... if you change that and people really use it strictly according to the descripton. (+ the 7 if this gets a bit better as well.) "fine" seems more like "okay-ish" and a "good" would make it sound better with the new desciptions and people might need to change their scores and get unhappy - if they previously cared a lot about the definitions. In fact doing the opposite would be better. ;) (Fine at 7 and then good, great, masterpiece or something like that. Then less people would criticize that people with meanscore 6-7 are scoring too high or are "too easy to entertain" - if they mostly liked only "fine" stuff.) |
LuthandoriusJan 8, 2020 9:07 AM
| It doesn't really help with people who don't use the descriptions like me. I just use the scores to rank all my series comparatively. To me, the score only tells me level of enjoyment, but it has nothing to do with the level of quality (what the score descriptions are). |
| I don't think inconsequential changes will ever occur and 6 shouldn't be considered good. |
 |
| I am appalled by this horrible suggestion. The descriptions are fine as they are. They don't have to be great or a masterpiece. As long as the average Joe understands them it's a good indicator. They're not bad, much less very bad. In fact I'd say that they're in general very good. |
 |
Orhunaa said: I am appalled by this horrible suggestion. The descriptions are fine as they are. They don't have to be great or a masterpiece. As long as the average Joe understands them it's a good indicator. They're not bad, much less very bad. In fact I'd say that they're in general very good. *claps* that wordplay for the score descriptions was sugoi |
Orhunaa said: I am appalled by this horrible suggestion. The descriptions are fine as they are. They don't have to be great or a masterpiece. As long as the average Joe understands them it's a good indicator. They're not bad, much less very bad. In fact I'd say that they're in general very good. Yep, I will rate your comment as masterpiece. Anyway, I don't get how 5 is avarage since in the 1 to 10 scale the actual avarage is 5.5 |
| heh. |
| 10: best and 1: worst would suffice and it won't throw arbitrary descriptions in your face. |
| The system the way it is alright although I've never really been a fan of 6's description being "fine" since that can be used as a really high grade compliment like how something can be a "fine wine" or how it's sometimes used in such a way that it means something is just serviceable like "eh it's fine" I'm for ridding "fine" and moving 9,8, and 7 down a spot like you did and adding "amazing" for 9 but I like the way 1-5 is currently. Edit~~ Also I use the word appalling :( I've always though of it as fun to use lol |
| i actullat really enjoy the score descriptions, so ya |
 |
| No need to change score descriptions. Nothing's gonna change even if you change the descriptions. |
 |
| utterly pointless. and if the descriptions were to be changed, which if i wasn't clear enough already, i don't think they should be, it should be done in a more scientific way. UK: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2018/10/02/how-good-good US: https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2018/10/11/how-good-good |
| I would say I'm neutral, but lean slightly towards yes. The thing is, I think no matter how they change the descriptions, there's no way everyone is going to be happy with them. It's also not the most important thing to be focusing on. But, if they had nothing better to be working on, then sure, I'd say go for it. But there are just so many other things that would need to take priority over this. At the same time, it really would not take that much energy to change, would it? So, yeah, neutral/yes. My main problem with the current description is this part: 8 very good 7 good 6 fine 5 average 4 bad 3 very bad 2 horrible It makes no sense. 5 is neutral, so 6 & 4 should be opposites, 7 & 3 should be opposites, and 8 & 2 should be opposites. If 7 is good, then 3 should be bad. Why is 3 "very bad" if 7 is just "good" and not "very good"? The problem is 6 says "fine" and there is not an opposite for 6 in this list. 6's opposite is 4, and yet 4 says "bad" which is the opposite of good, not the opposite of fine. The opposite of fine, in my opinion, is "poor". So, I'd redo this part of the list like this: 8 very good 7 good 6 fine 5 average 4 poor 3 bad 2 very bad Strictly just so that it actually makes sense with 6's opposite being 4, 7's opposite being 3, and 8's opposite being 2, since they all center around 5 being average. The list you propose does fix the issue though, by removing "fine" and going straight for "good" and keeping the opposites in-tact. 2 being awful is okay, but "painful" or "hateful", not so much... I don't see 7 as "very good", it's only good, but that's just my opinion and goes back to the whole "you can't please everyone" thing. |
KiyomiceJan 17, 2020 1:22 AM
"Wonder is always difficult until you forgive whoever destroyed your love of surprises" — Edmond Manning  |
| @Kiyomice yep this suggestion will only take like 5 minutes at most by 1 person programmer lol so this change is so easy to implement i just want better defaults since ye a lot of people have different score descriptions anyway but for the people like me that uses the defaults then i like this change to be implemented |
deg said: @Kiyomice yep this suggestion will only take like 5 minutes at most by 1 person programmer lol so this change is so easy to implement i just want better defaults since ye a lot of people have different score descriptions anyway but for the people like me that uses the defaults then i like this change to be implemented why do you bother with using the defaults if you'd rather to it another way? |
| I suggest allowing .5 scoring because i personally there are many anime that don't fit within the same levels of just simply 4 or 6. Some are inbetween and i'd agree the naming could be changed around. This is how i try and do it even if some think its "harsh": 10:Masterful 9.5:Incredible 9:Exceptional 8.5:Splendid 8:Significant 7.5:Enjoyable 7:Competent 6.5:Adequate 6:Average 5.5:Plain 5:Medicure 4.5:Boring 4:Dreadful 3.5:Distasteful 3:Terrible 2.5:Horrible 2:Appealing 1.5:Atrocious 1:Rubbish |
| SniperKnighter- Dubbed Enthusiast/Purist I classify myself as an above moderate anime advocate with more than likey different tastes than yours. I've scrolled through many MAL favorite lists and the amount of plebeian nonsense i've seen is astounding to me. Honestly bringing anime mainstream i feel ultimately will be its downfall but i'm not dumb enough to think it wasn't beneficial in some ways as well. MALs "top anime list" i feel is a joke and if you feel different i'm not gonna stop you, just don't shove the "holy" FMA:B down my throat and were good. |
Roevhaal said: deg said: @Kiyomice yep this suggestion will only take like 5 minutes at most by 1 person programmer lol so this change is so easy to implement i just want better defaults since ye a lot of people have different score descriptions anyway but for the people like me that uses the defaults then i like this change to be implemented why do you bother with using the defaults if you'd rather to it another way? i do not want to do it another way? im just suggesting to change the defaults and if others that use the defaults agrees with me |
| Let us be honest for a moment and just admit to ourselves that the actual ratings that this site goes by are these: 10. Great 9. Good 8. Decent 7. Mediocre 6. Poor 5. Bad 4. Abysmal 3. Worse than Hitler 2. Cthulhu has awoken 1. Abandon all hope ye mortals who desire to live without fear of becoming sacrificial lambs. For he who waits beneath the darkness and makes the Gods themselves scream in fear has come. The universe trembles as the eighth mouth of the seven mouths of the apocalypse begins to scream the curse that ends all existence. Hail Satan. I mean seriously. It's an open secret that MAL ratings are inflated. Even absolute hot garbage like "My Sister, My Writer" has a rating of 5, making it technically an "Average Anime". Yet MSMW is actually one of worst rated shows of 2018, being a textbook case of 'seasonal trash'. |
The_WalkerJan 26, 2020 2:40 AM
More topics from this board
» Local Language districtskuroneko99 - 6 hours ago |
3 |
by traed
»»
4 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Add list setting to make notes private (on public lists)S_h_a_r_k_93 - Nov 12, 2022 |
25 |
by anonymate
»»
Apr 20, 2:02 AM |
|
» Corporate imagesNoctisnox - May 15, 2023 |
19 |
by himanshi122
»»
Apr 19, 5:51 AM |
|
» Reply button should show text that will be quoted.Euthymia_Gerv - Apr 15 |
8 |
by Alexioos95
»»
Apr 18, 10:22 AM |
|
» @ sign spam/attackkuroneko99 - Apr 16 |
3 |
by Jhiday
»»
Apr 17, 11:11 AM |