You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anyone else notice how completely retarded and biased Metacritic is?
- Thread starter x Twilight x
- Start date
If you average the nurabers together it comes to 75.751. If they round up to the nearest 10 it would be 80. This would be a fair way to do it if they did it for all their averages, but they don't. In fact I decided to click a random album to see what the average review is according to them and then figuring it up. I ended up with Alphabeat: This Is Alphabeat. Their average according to them is 76. The scores are 100, 80, 80, 60, 60, 60. The real average is 73.3 repeated. Round down to the nearest whole and we have 73. A whole 3 points off. Interesting. Alkaline Trio: Agony & Irony's scores average to 68.1, but the average they list is 71. Its 3.1 points off, 3 if you round. It seems like the average score on the site is always a bit high.
I don't think I've ever read a music review (outside of this site that is). I just listen to what I like. I'd be hard pressed to find all my genres in one place too so I wouldn't get much out of it at all really.
That, and out of curiosity I went to their site and none of the albums on the music page look familiar. Hey they rated that Tom Waits album a 92! How awesome. Never heard it but.. he's the only artist that looked familiar.
That, and out of curiosity I went to their site and none of the albums on the music page look familiar. Hey they rated that Tom Waits album a 92! How awesome. Never heard it but.. he's the only artist that looked familiar.
iLackCreative
New member
There is, I'm just having issues communicating it properly.
How about a really extreme example.
Person A wrote a song. It involves tapping your foot every half-second and simply singing whatever comes to mind.
Person B wrote a song. Person B happens to be Mozart and the song happens to be String Quintet in D Major.
Though some might "like" the simpler song more, I think we can all agree that Person B's song is "better".
How about a really extreme example.
Person A wrote a song. It involves tapping your foot every half-second and simply singing whatever comes to mind.
Person B wrote a song. Person B happens to be Mozart and the song happens to be String Quintet in D Major.
Though some might "like" the simpler song more, I think we can all agree that Person B's song is "better".
♥i have an answer♥
New member
Okay, I'm gonna have to bump this thread again, because I am absolutely confused by this.
Luck In The Valley reviews at Metacritic.com
One critic (Pitchfork) gave this album an 82. The others reviews were six 80's and a 70. How does the metascore become 82?
Luck In The Valley reviews at Metacritic.com
One critic (Pitchfork) gave this album an 82. The others reviews were six 80's and a 70. How does the metascore become 82?
lVloonLite
New member
I think what he tried to say is "a way that is purely objective"
Anyway.. I disagree. Just because of common belief that Mozart is a great composer the value of the song enhances.
As Einstein mathematically concluded, everything is relative. And of all people person A will never admit that Mozart's song is better than his song because he's ego can't take it. So not all of us will agree that person B's song is "better".
I think you can only talk about suitability when it comes to music. There isn't better and worse, just suitable for someone in some context and unsuitable in some other context.
Anyway.. I disagree. Just because of common belief that Mozart is a great composer the value of the song enhances.
As Einstein mathematically concluded, everything is relative. And of all people person A will never admit that Mozart's song is better than his song because he's ego can't take it. So not all of us will agree that person B's song is "better".
I think you can only talk about suitability when it comes to music. There isn't better and worse, just suitable for someone in some context and unsuitable in some other context.
I agree with the general assessment if not the conclusion here.
Reviews are definitely all biased in one way or another, but they can be helpful if you either find a critic/publication that you generally seem to agree with or get a feel for what a particular critic/publication looks for and how you feel about that sort of thing. It works if you only look at it as a rough guide, and in that, it's legitimate as a(n admittedly subjective/editorial) form of journalism as long as it's well written.
That metacritic fudges the math is silly and lame, but honestly, it's hard to take a nuraber as meaning anything as far as reviews go anyway.
Reviews are definitely all biased in one way or another, but they can be helpful if you either find a critic/publication that you generally seem to agree with or get a feel for what a particular critic/publication looks for and how you feel about that sort of thing. It works if you only look at it as a rough guide, and in that, it's legitimate as a(n admittedly subjective/editorial) form of journalism as long as it's well written.
That metacritic fudges the math is silly and lame, but honestly, it's hard to take a nuraber as meaning anything as far as reviews go anyway.
Metacritic is basically just an other list and lists shouldn't be taken very seriously (even although I keep one myself).
What lists should be used for is simply to look over and see what groups and artists have released albums or to see if any of them interest you.
I some times look over Metacritic but I'm not remotely interested in the actual ratings. The reason I do so is because sometimes you will see a release you hadn't realised had been come out or a description of an album will make you curious to hear it.
The actual rating system is the least important aspect of the whole thing.
What lists should be used for is simply to look over and see what groups and artists have released albums or to see if any of them interest you.
I some times look over Metacritic but I'm not remotely interested in the actual ratings. The reason I do so is because sometimes you will see a release you hadn't realised had been come out or a description of an album will make you curious to hear it.
The actual rating system is the least important aspect of the whole thing.
No, I'd say THAT particular rating is actually very accurate. Have you played Gears 2? The single player is pretty good, but the multiplayer is COMPLETE sh*te. It took upwarRAB of 20 minutes to find a match when the game was released, and when you finally did, it'd either be really laggy or everyone would get booted because of some kind of error.
They did improve the MP, but that's not saying much. It's still unacceptably laggy. Epic Games really failed with Gears 2's MP, and that pissed off a LOT of the fans.
They did improve the MP, but that's not saying much. It's still unacceptably laggy. Epic Games really failed with Gears 2's MP, and that pissed off a LOT of the fans.