What does your ratings system look like?

Here's the scoring system that I've been using for a very long time now:

5 – A perfect masterpiece. Only the elite of the elite.

4.5 – A premium top-tier example of its type with minimal flaws.

4 – A high quality example of its style that you hold in high esteem.

3.5 – A generally enjoyable record that’s worthy of the occasional listen but you wouldn’t gush over.

3 – A release that wasn’t horrible but wasn’t interesting enough to hold any replay value.

2.5 – A poor example of its style that’s more disappointing than genuinely horrible.

2 – An obvious failure that holds no interest for you whatsoever.

1.5 – A painful, cringe-worthy listening experience.

1 – An absolute unmitigated disaster. Complete musical incompetence.

0.5 - Is this even music?

What does yours look like?

Same as yours, Daniel, but similar to the American academic grading system:

5 - A+ (or more +'s)

4.5 - A

4 - B

3.5 - C

3 - D

2.5 - F

2 and lower - F- (the lower the rating, the more -'s)

To be honest, I've never rated an album lower than 2.5 stars, so even when a poor album (for me, non-metal albums in the middle of a mostly metal discography) has an F, that album never has any minuses. Perhaps I'm such a positive reviewer, I don't know. It would take a real bag of sh*t that stinks worse than a skunk bathing in a garbage dump to make me rate an album 2 stars or lower...

Would you like me to find you an album worthy of a 2 (or lower) so that you can break your cherry Andi?

Your wish is my command Andi. Enjoy!

Andi,  if you've never rated an album 2 or less then you're not listening to enough black metal bedroom warriors.

My system looks a lot like Daniel's, except that I may be a bit too generous with my 5 star ratings sometimes. I don't know if there's that many "perfect" albums, if you define perfect as every track being a 5/5. Even stone cold classics often have one track that's a bit less awesome than the rest. I rate more on how an album makes me feel and how much I would want to hear it again, so it doesn't have to be perfect as long as it gives me that indefinable feeling that I know makes it a classic - to me at least, in other words a "go to" album.

4.5s are second-tier great, with maybe a very minor niggle.

4s are very good to good albums that have plenty of replayability.

3.5s are decent to good but flawed and may get the odd airing in future.

3s are kind of OK but unlikely to feature much in my future listening. 

2.5s are the bottom limit to anything that I would even consider listening to or a poor album with one or two good tracks.

2 - 1 not interested. May not even have got through the whole album.

0.5 Intolerably awful. An affront to music. If a metal album gets this rating (and some have) then I consider it to be execrably poor and it's probably some form of nu-metal!

I normally use one-word descriptions but I can expand upon it here. Doing this has made me realize I might need to really nail down what each of these mean for me. 

5 - Irreplaceable

    Something wholly unique that offers an amazing experience, or has a very large personal connection.

4.5 - Outstanding

    Something that is extremely good but doesn't make the cut to be something truly special. 

4 - Great 

    Very good, minimal complaints. Would recommend confidently. 

3.5 - Above Average

    Something that is good enough that it distinguishes itself from the pack and has some redeeming, unique qualities about it. 

3 - Average

    The ultimate Meh rating. Something that is not bad, but doesn't do anything great either. Complete middle of the road.

2.5 - Below Average

    Something that just isn't quite right or makes some questionable decisions that I find take away from the music.

2 - Lousy

    One or two major flaws, or extremely derivative or dry. Running out of positive things to say about it. 

1.5 - Terrible

    Genuinely dislike. Will tell other people how bad the album is. 

1 - Offensive

    Something went horribly wrong in every way. I wonder how something like this was even released. 

0.5 - Hardly Even Music 

    Personal hatred towards even the idea that something like this was released or towards the artist for making it. 

My system looks a lot like Daniel's, except that I may be a bit too generous with my 5 star ratings sometimes. I don't know if there's that many "perfect" albums, if you define perfect as every track being a 5/5. Even stone cold classics often have one track that's a bit less awesome than the rest. I rate more on how an album makes me feel and how much I would want to hear it again, so it doesn't have to be perfect as long as it gives me that indefinable feeling that I know makes it a classic - to me at least, in other words a "go to" album.

I don't define a perfect album as having every song being a 5/5. It's more about the average being closer to a 5/5 than a 4.5/5. So you can afford one 3.5/5 track as long as the rest are right up there. You probably couldn't have any real duds or else the average won't be able to recover.

My system looks a lot like Daniel's, except that I may be a bit too generous with my 5 star ratings sometimes. I don't know if there's that many "perfect" albums, if you define perfect as every track being a 5/5. Even stone cold classics often have one track that's a bit less awesome than the rest. I rate more on how an album makes me feel and how much I would want to hear it again, so it doesn't have to be perfect as long as it gives me that indefinable feeling that I know makes it a classic - to me at least, in other words a "go to" album.

I don't define a perfect album as having every song being a 5/5. It's more about the average being closer to a 5/5 than a 4.5/5. So you can afford one 3.5/5 track as long as the rest are right up there. You probably couldn't have any real duds or else the average won't be able to recover.

Fair point Daniel.

I had to give that Exterminator album a listen and I can't believe the artwork isn't the worst thing about it. That accolade must go to the guitar "solos" - truly the worst I've ever heard.
This ain't kvlt.. this is shit. (Think I'm gonna get that phrase on a T-shirt!)

My system, which I originally wrote when I first joined RYM, and have generally stuck to since, is:

5 stars = Legendary. An absolute classic, a true pinnacle of its respective style, it has me enthralled from start to finish. I'll return to it over and over, and keep on finding more to appreciate.

4.5 stars = Brilliant. More or less succeeds perfectly, only lacking in that extra special something to make it truly legendary.

4 stars = Good. A good, solid album. The odd problem/duff track, but only to be expected. Really enjoyable all round, well worth a go.

3.5 stars = Decent. Has some issues holding it back, with the flaws being bigger/more apparent than a 4-star. Still decent and worthwhile if you're a fan of the band/genre, but there are better.

3 stars = Mediocre. Has its moments and good songs, but I have little desire to go back to it. Ultimately forgettable, being neither particularly good nor bad.

2.5 stars = Weak. The crap starting to outweigh the good now, serves little real purpose. Has some nice points here and there, but plenty of rubbish too.

2 stars = Poor. Maybe a handful of good moments/aspects in the whole thing. A definite let-down from any reasonable band.

1.5 stars = Terrible. Hardly any saving graces. Even if it isn't genuinely offensive there's nothing of real worth either.

1 star = Crap. A terrible excuse for an album which I had to force myself to get through. Worthless.

0.5 stars = Atrocious. An insult to music, barely even qualifies as listenable. Something has to be fundamentally wrong with the artist or this particular attempt to warrant this score.

Key points for me are that the 5 and 0.5 scores are for special cases. A 4.5 from me basically has nothing wrong with it (and a 1.0 has basically nothing right), it just doesn't quite have the extra wow factor to go even further beyond (thank you, Goku).

And 3.5 is my own "good" threshold, even if 3.5 still has some noticeable issues. It's the point at which, if I've tried out an album first, I'd want to add it to my physical collection. Anything below that, even if not terrible, I'd pass on actually purchasing.

That's pretty much exactly the same as my own Tymell.

Yeah, likewise. Although I'm only really buying physical copies of 4 star or better albums now as I've switched to almost exclusively buying vinyl and the price is making me a bit more selective in my purchases.

5 - exceptional

4 - good

3 - solid

2 - inconsistent

1- piecemeal

Simple man, simple means.  That's what I use for owned albums.  It's the same for reviewing only I add a 0 and 0.5 just specifically for anything Machine Head release nowadays.

I give your rating system a 4. 

Mine would be something like...

5 - A perfect (or as close as you can get to perfect) release. One of the very best!

4 - A really great release, and one that I'll go back to time and time again.

3 - A decent release. Very listenable, but either inconsistent or fails to stand out from the crowd.

2 - A pretty bad release. I'll rarely if ever listen to it again.

1 - A terrible release that's basically unlistenable.

It's the same for reviewing only I add a 0 and 0.5 just specifically for anything Machine Head release nowadays.

And the Disillusion feature release apparently.

It's the same for reviewing only I add a 0 and 0.5 just specifically for anything Machine Head release nowadays.

And the Disillusion feature release apparently.

Back to Times of Splendor?!? I think that's the perfect progressive metal album!! I would give it 6 stars if I could! I guess some things can get both an A+++ and an F---...

Anyway since we came back to this thread, I kinda enjoyed that small challenge 9 months ago of listening to a torturously atrocious d****ebag of an album that deserved a super low rating, and I feel up to doing that again to break my cherry and once again prove that I'm not always a positive reviewer. So I think it would be a great challenge if anyone could please find me an album worthy of 2 or lower. Bring it on!

Here you go Andi. I'd actually take the Exterminator album over this one. I'll ask Ben to add Cremator to the database.

Thanks Daniel! I have a review for another album planned today, so I'll give the Cremator EP a listen and a review tomorrow. I'll later unleash my f***ing fury...

It's the same for reviewing only I add a 0 and 0.5 just specifically for anything Machine Head release nowadays.

And the Disillusion feature release apparently.

The "vocalist" in that band is stealing a living.

I actually have 2 different rating systems depending on the context. On sites like RYM where all music is included, I have a pretty standard "3 is decent, less is below average moving towards awful and more is good moving to masterpiece." However, since I love metal so much, most metal gets 4 stars or higher when compared to all other music. Because of that, I have to adjust for sites that are exclusively metal, else all my ratings would be really positive. And so...

5 - These albums affected me on a personal level, and are consistently the highest quality of music from start to finish.

4.5 - As good as an album can possibly be without having some intense personal appeal. 

4 - A masterpiece when compared to all music. 5 stars on other sites start here - however, metal can still get better than this...

3.5 - These are albums where about half the songs enter my permanent rotation. Very difficult for non metal, but my favorite genres (I.E. Thrash, Death, Doom) score here reliably.

3 - Great album, about average for a metal album.

2.5 - Very good album, somewhat mediocre against other metal.

2 - Good album, would rarely revisit outside of certain songs.

1.5 - Decent, probably listen to a few times and then never again.

1 - A bad album, and quite a feat for me to dislike metal this much.

0.5 - A horrible album by every standard.

I've been listening to Sodom's 2016 album Decision Day this morning. I thought "Actually this is a really solid album", but despite that, because it's Sodom and I know what the band are (were?) capable of, I couldn't in good conscience give it better than a 3.5. Now, had that album been put out by an unknown band, would I have scored it better? Maybe. Anyway I got to thinking and came to the conclusion that I subconsciously have a problem with great bands producing good, not great, product. So my question is, what are your conscious or unconscious biases when rating albums - and please don't tell me you don't have any, because if you think that's the case then, sorry, you do, you just don't recognise any of them!