Should a review be "objective"?

[Drahken]

I disagree. If reviews are purely objective & only state cold hard facts about a series, then there is no point in having more than 1 review for each series.
On the other hand, a purely subjective review is no good either. A good review needs to be a blend of the 2. It needs to give the reader the writer's opinion and impression of the series, but it also needs to back up those opinions with facts.

This is even more true in relation to this site. The recommendations on here do not provide for a liked/disliked aspect, they only serve to say "this series is similar to that series". Aside from the reviews, there is no place here (besides ranting on the forum of course) to say whether a series is worth watching or not. Simply saying that a given series is about mecha or harems or whatever doesn't give any indication as to whether it's a good mecha/harem/whatever series or a bad one.


If you want to read a negative review, try my review of the 3rd ronin warriors ova: http://www.anime-planet.com/forum/sh...d.php?p=172024

[LeaT]

To put my few ideas in here, I would say the best review doesn't necessarily neither be completely objective, subjective or a great mix of both; it all depends on the author. I have seen well written reviews that just stinks and badly written reviews that could be great if the improvements were at the right places. I am not sure, but I get the feeling that when it comes to reviews, the only way to write them is to first of all, train, train, and train and of course, ask others what they think about it. When it comes to writing a good review, the content shouldn't matter but the form should. Ack, why haven't I got a reply for becoming anime reviewer here? :(

[sothis]

hmm - if you are talkin gabout the reviews alias, it's not really checked anymore (ill change those steps tonight). what we ask for site reviewers is that interested parties post reviews here in the forum reviews section, and ask for feedback from our established reviewers (vivisqueen, vivafruit, sheex, arcanum, etc) - their feedback to me determines if someone will be added or not. ^_^ regardless, anyone can post their reviews here in the forum.

[AstroJunkie]

HA HA, this thread is funny, I read the first and last page, but hell you guys have alot of content here. This thread started a year or so after I stopped posting, and I'm way too late coming in to this to make any sort of addition to it.

Good times Good times, it appears from what i've seen however that you've all come to a decent conclusion that no review can be completely subjective or objective but that it must include elements of both, the objective portion is like the item you come to purchase and the subjective portion is like the service you get by the employees that keeps you coming back to your favourite video store :D

[Gundevil]

Alas, the age old argument of subjectivism and objectivism.

I will say this. My Favorite Animes are much different from what I feel are the Best Animes.

I believe a review must be both objective and subjective. It must be subjective because you must take into account whether you enjoyed it or not. Still, you must give it ratings right? Ratings are in and of themselves contradictory to the whole concept of subjectivism. Scores are objective, words are subjective. Why? Because numbers are concrete absolutes and words are abstract and open to interpretation.

Thus we get to the question-- Can you judge art-- meaning can you judge it objectively? Isn't anime, and even film making an art form??? Still, we can objectively select criteria, (such as say, engaging, interesting, entertaining) and judge art based on those criteria. Then the answer is emphatically YES, we can judge art forms with certain sets of criteria. That doesn't mean you throw subjective opinion out the window. There just needs to be a balance of your own subjective opinion and your objective view of certain sets of criteria.

[VivisQueen]

Originally Posted by Gundevil

Still, you must give it ratings right? Ratings are in and of themselves contradictory to the whole concept of subjectivism. Scores are objective, words are subjective. Why? Because numbers are concrete absolutes and words are abstract and open to interpretation.

Hehehe. I haven't visited this thread in years because it wore me out. But nothing like being bored at work to make me repeat myself one-hundred pages later.

Regarding the above, the statement is misleading. NUMBERS are objective. RATINGS are not. Just because the rating takes the form of a number does not make the two synonymous. A rating assigns MEANING to a certain number, which is precisely why the ratings are useful for reviews, and numbers are not. So for example:

VivisQueen: I think a 5 means 'average'

Sheex: I think a 5 means 'poor'

Notice that we both use the objective number 5 in order to come to completely different subjective conclusions about what it means. As such, the ratings are part and parcel of the subjectivity of the review. Heck, in theory, we could completely do without the numbers and just have one-word labels like 'poor' and 'great' and 'average'. It'd do the exact same thing. The numbers are incidental, really.

Also, numbers strictly speaking are abstracts too. They're just labels we made up. Mathematicians generally are working with abstracts which are represented by tangible symbols e.g. '2'.

[Gundevil]

Originally Posted by VivisQueen

Hehehe. I haven't visited this thread in years because it wore me out. But nothing like being bored at work to make me repeat myself one-hundred pages later.

Regarding the above, the statement is misleading. NUMBERS are objective. RATINGS are not. Just because the rating takes the form of a number does not make the two synonymous. A rating assigns MEANING to a certain number, which is precisely why the ratings are useful for reviews, and numbers are not. So for example:

VivisQueen: I think a 5 means 'average'

Sheex: I think a 5 means 'poor'

Notice that we both use the objective number 5 in order to come to completely different subjective conclusions about what it means. As such, the ratings are part and parcel of the subjectivity of the review. Heck, in theory, we could completely do without the numbers and just have one-word labels like 'poor' and 'great' and 'average'. It'd do the exact same thing. The numbers are incidental, really.

Also, numbers strictly speaking are abstracts too. They're just labels we made up. Mathematicians generally are working with abstracts which are represented by tangible symbols e.g. '2'.

Good points. I already knew about your viewpoint though and I know where you are coming from because different people DO use different measurements for their ratings. Which is probably why a universal site scale that defines what each score is needed. *cough* Look at any magazine that reviews anything and though they have several reviewers, they all use the same scale that the magazine creates, which keeps it from being confusing.

Ratings all have to do with levels of measurement:

Measurement scales. Variables differ in "how well" they can be measured, i.e., in how much measurable information their measurement scale can provide. There is obviously some measurement error involved in every measurement, which determines the "amount of information" that we can obtain. Another factor that determines the amount of information that can be provided by a variable is its "type of measurement scale." Specifically variables are classified as (a) nominal, (b) ordinal, (c) interval or (d) ratio.

1. Nominal variables allow for only qualitative classification. That is, they can be measured only in terms of whether the individual items belong to some distinctively different categories, but we cannot quantify or even rank order those categories. For example, all we can say is that 2 individuals are different in terms of variable A (e.g., they are of different race), but we cannot say which one "has more" of the quality represented by the variable. Typical examples of nominal variables are gender, race, color, city, etc.
2. Ordinal variables allow us to rank order the items we measure in terms of which has less and which has more of the quality represented by the variable, but still they do not allow us to say "how much more." A typical example of an ordinal variable is the socioeconomic status of families. For example, we know that upper-middle is higher than middle but we cannot say that it is, for example, 18% higher. Also this very distinction between nominal, ordinal, and interval scales itself represents a good example of an ordinal variable. For example, we can say that nominal measurement provides less information than ordinal measurement, but we cannot say "how much less" or how this difference compares to the difference between ordinal and interval scales.
3. Interval variables allow us not only to rank order the items that are measured, but also to quantify and compare the sizes of differences between them. For example, temperature, as measured in degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius, constitutes an interval scale. We can say that a temperature of 40 degrees is higher than a temperature of 30 degrees, and that an increase from 20 to 40 degrees is twice as much as an increase from 30 to 40 degrees.
4. Ratio variables are very similar to interval variables; in addition to all the properties of interval variables, they feature an identifiable absolute zero point, thus they allow for statements such as x is two times more than y. Typical examples of ratio scales are measures of time or space. For example, as the Kelvin temperature scale is a ratio scale, not only can we say that a temperature of 200 degrees is higher than one of 100 degrees, we can correctly state that it is twice as high. Interval scales do not have the ratio property. Most statistical data analysis procedures do not distinguish between the interval and ratio properties of the measurement scales.

The Statistics Homepage

All it all depends on how you view the ratings on the site, as either Nominal (which is Vivis arguement) meaning that numbers are only assigned to abstracts or Interval (which is my argument assuming the site had its own definition of categories) meaning that you can tell which score is better than the other based on a certain scale.

In the end, 9 is larger than 8, which is larger than 7. I think with a little organization, we can at least strive to make it a little more fair on the reader of the review. It's hard to put them in a situation where one reviewer says they watched an average anime at 5 and another says they watched a poor anime at 5. It's simply much too confusing and unfair to the reader.

[therik]

Originally Posted by Gundevil

In the end, 9 is larger than 8, which is larger than 7. I think with a little organization, we can at least strive to make it a little more fair on the reader of the review. It's hard to put them in a situation where one reviewer says they watched an average anime at 5 and another says they watched a poor anime at 5. It's simply much too confusing and unfair to the reader.

Interesting, but I don't agree. Some reviewers (myself an exception) use their profile to tell people what their ratings mean. Any interested party can access this, which is fine.

As for me, the first review I wrote here didn't even have a rating. Admittedly it didn't have sections either, but that's besides the point. In my opinion, what a reviewer says is hundreds of times more important than the number they cook up at the end. If people just want numbers and don't have the patience to read the review, they're welcome to take a look at my - or anyone else's - "watched anime" list so they can see the star ratings. If they want to know what was good and what was bad about an anime, that is what a review is for.

Numbers are arbitrary. I'll go ahead and confess right now that I pluck a lot of mine out of the air. One day I might give Kyouran Kazoku Nikki's characters a 7.5. On another day, they might get 8.5. It depends on how I'm feeling. But what won't change is what I write about them. I know what I liked and what I didn't like about any given anime, but even 14 years of education in maths isn't enough for me to quantify to my feelings with an integer, or even a decimal.

Also, bear in mind that we're not professionals here. Asking reviewers to stick to a company guide on how to rate things seems too much like work to me. I do this in my spare time, because I like to write, and I like to watch anime, and I like to speak my mind. If one day I'm made to feel like I'm writing reviews because anime-planet's readers demand it, and because the site admin is expecting me to, then that's the day I'll stop writing them.

I understand what you're saying, I honestly do. I recognise that it's helpful for readers to be able to compare review ratings. However, if they're not prepared to read what a reviewer says - which will always make the reviewer's opinion abundantly clear, with or without numbers - then they shouldn't have wasted their time opening the review link in the first place.

~D

[valondar]

I try to keep my numbering internally consistent.

7-10 is good.

1-4 is bad.

5-6 is okay.

That's why I guess I've used more than one '4.5' - anything I give that is something that just barely fails at being okay. It's pretty much the same warped logic I use for my normal ratings system.

[VivisQueen]

Therik: Gundevil does have a point. I'm only guessing this, but I do wonder whether one of the reasons sothis hasn't created a standard scale for the ratings (yet) is because she doesn't want to lower our freedoms regarding reviews. Site reviewers are hard to come by (literally finding you and valondar around the same time was like sothis striking gold). The last thing you want is to put reviewers off with lots of rules etc. However, theoretically speaking that would be the best way to ensure continuity for the site. So we all know that five means average (or whatever she would set it as).

On the other hand, standardised ratings aren't half as important as ensuring your ratings are INTERNALLY consistent i.e. that whenever someone looks at your ratings they know when you say 5 = average, it means average ALL THE TIME for you. My guess is you pluck the ratings out of the air because you've only done a handful. With a scale of 10, that's a lot of space to fit your reviews. After you starts getting into the tens level, my guess is you'll probably start giving it a bit more thought to it. Otherwise you might find your favourite anime being lower than some you thought average just because there wasn't much thought put into it.

Ratings are important only as rough indicators. So frankly, no reviewer should give them more than 1% thought (0.5% if you can help it). The other 99% should be the words used to describe the anime itself. *shrug* But still, they shouldn't be TOTALLY random.

Valondar: I like your scale. Very flexible but still ranked in a way that would be helpful. Hmmm... I might switch to something like that at some point. By the way, shouldn't this be going into the 'how do you use your ratings thread? GAH!'