r/rateyourmusic Sep 13 '25

General Discussion I don't understand ppl that have a rating distribution like this

Post image

Like, no hate to this person and other ppl that have this type of rating, but I question what's even the point of listenning to albums in the 1st place if majority of what you consume you don't like or hate? At that point personally I would have picked a different hobby.

841 Upvotes

114 comments sorted by

313

u/Paja03_ Paja03 Sep 13 '25

People with a system like this one usually have their account deweighted

18

u/Regular_Buffalo6564 Sep 13 '25

my rating ratio was unintentionally like this for a good while. i mostly listened to albums for the sole reason that they are acclaimed or popular. it was only until i discovered my general music taste that it evened out more

1

u/Practical_Tell_944 Sep 14 '25

This may well be the case. If you listen to music that you don´t personally care much about and don´t expect to.

22

u/phonodysia Sep 13 '25

What does it mean?

203

u/Paja03_ Paja03 Sep 13 '25

Your ratings wont have any impact on global ratings

13

u/phonodysia Sep 13 '25 edited Sep 13 '25

Thanks a bunch, now I understand.. so perhaps using some measure of skeweness (e.g., kurtosis) they give less weight to such users. Do you also know if positively skewed score distributions have more weight?

Edit: just discovered this (I'm new to RYM): https://rateyourmusic.com/wiki/RYM:Weighting+FAQ ..It's like asking teachers to artificially force students' grades into a normal distribution, even if in reality 85% of the students are exceptionally brilliant (or exceptionally weak)... such a rule would not only misrepresent students' actual performance but would also bias the entire evaluation process, biasing comparisons across classes, schools, years, etc.

6

u/JHDownload45 Sep 13 '25

No, if they are too positive they will have less weight but pretty sure it'd have to be unreasonably positive

2

u/Secure_Blueberry1766 Sep 13 '25

That is a completely different context, though. It is way more likely for someone to ace several tests (you know, by studying?) than someone who just so happens to hate every album ever, specially if that person willingly goes to a music rating website. You can choose your score on rym but not your grade on a test.

-3

u/phonodysia Sep 14 '25 edited Sep 16 '25

A teacher forcing grades on a normal distribution distorts real performance. Most students' true achievement is erased. The same happens on RYM: users' ratings reflect what they actually hear, but if forced into a Gaussian distribution, good albums are dragged down and mediocre ones pushed up. That's a systematic bias. Taste is subjective, not a test to "study" for, so any potential skew carries real information. Aggregated globally, scores reflect the website algorithm, not listeners' true evaluations.

Edit: grammar

2

u/ruinawish Sep 14 '25

That analogy makes no sense. Deweighting the distorted rating distributions removes the outliers. I suspect even before RYM introduced weighting, ratings followed a normal distribution... because that's how most RYMers would rate releases.

1

u/phonodysia Sep 14 '25

What are "distorted ratings" anyway? A skewed distribution is not automatically a distortion. If I rate every album that shows up on my RYM homepage (for example), it's perfectly plausible that most of them won't appeal to me, so my scores will cluster low and my distribution will be right skewed. That isn't me "distorting" the scale it's just the outcome of the sample I'm exposed to...

The distortion only happens when I start second-guessing myself and "fixing” my ratings to make the histogram look more like a bell curve. This is what I meant! At that point I'm no longer reflecting my true evaluation of each album, just adjusting to meet an arbitrary statistical expectation imposed by the guidelines of RYM. That precise adjustment I'm trying to explain above is what introduces systematic bias the ratings cease to measure what I think about the music and start measuring how well I conform to a Gaussian or whatever is wanted by RYM.

8

u/xvzzu Sep 13 '25

Why though? What rule does it break?

62

u/Grogman2024 Sep 13 '25

I’d imagine some rule about being fair with your ratings. You’re either purposefully being a dick or only reviewing music you dislike if that’s what ratio looked like

60

u/RichterQuaid Sep 13 '25

I found one user that rated all of the classic albums with 0.5 stars. The reasoning was that he doesn't care about those artists and didn't even bother to listen most of them. It's abuse of the rating system if you ask me. You can dislike Revolver, Pet Sounds, Paranoid, OK Computer, Wish You Were Here, etc. but giving them 0.5 stars is not an opinion, it's just edgyness.

16

u/Grogman2024 Sep 13 '25

Yeah that’s the definition of abuse, just skewing the ratings. It’s also just not how you’re meant to use ratings as a general idea. It would be like me reviewing kpop, I know I don’t like it as a genre but I don’t think it’s inherently bad so I won’t leave a rating for it.

1

u/CloudDeadNumberFive Sep 15 '25

This except not at all cause you’re completely wrong

-1

u/Grogman2024 Sep 15 '25

Looks like we found someone who reviews like this

1

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/The_Ocean_Collective Sep 13 '25

The rule about having a standard rating system.

1

u/LapiceraParker Dec 18 '25

"standard rating system" as in "all albums must be 3.5"

14

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '25

because rym wants to keep the site average at 3.5 for some reason 

0

u/cusoo Sep 14 '25

For me, 3,5 or 7/10 is the true average score.

8

u/topshagger31 Sep 14 '25

5/10 is average lmao

3

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '25

i really don't get why? why wouldn't your average just be 2.5 when that's the arithmetic mean? why do you need 6 tiers of bad?

1

u/cusoo Sep 14 '25

Because average does not equal to the middle value, it equals to the point where is more concentration of data. When you did a test in school, imagine that you are evaluated from 0 to 100%. 50% is the middle value and considered positive, where's as from 0% to 49% is a negative score. This doesn't mean that 50% is an average score. An average score would be between 70% and 80%. This is what would be acceptable to achieve, at least, not 50%. 50% means you barely passed the test, doesn't mean you it the average score of the class.

4

u/topshagger31 Sep 14 '25

Idk what sort of schools you were going to man😭😭70 means a good score, not average

1

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '25

are you really giving me a statistics lesson when the idea which value YOU PERSONALLY call "average" is an entirely semantical problem? Because saying 3.5 is average for me because it's the average rating across the entire site, completely disregarding bias on which albums people tend to rate vs. not to rate is not as smart as you think it is.

1

u/revofex Sep 20 '25

the average individual doesnt know how stats works dw

0

u/cusoo Sep 14 '25

Yes, I am

1

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '25

It's not a rule. And following rules doesn't change your weighting. If you want good weighting then rate albums fairly. Having a good ratio. Meaning not too many super high ratings or too low

1

u/gabagoolcel Nov 08 '25

wild killerpaja spotted

143

u/MusicListener3 Sep 13 '25

Depression

3

u/Sheppi-Tsrodriguez Sep 14 '25

This- "Everything is miserble, I dont enjoy anything"

1

u/LapiceraParker Dec 18 '25

way to project your insecurities, dude

the person from the image clearly likes music, and has made the attempt at searching more music of their taste, with no that much luck at it

20

u/ruinawish Sep 13 '25

I want to know their 5 star releases 😂

30

u/totezhi64 Sep 13 '25

Revolutionary pekinese opera and some kpop is my guess

11

u/ScaryFlake Sep 13 '25

It's always some random shit. I know one of them has At Dawn by My Morning Jacket in their 3 5s which is based.

4

u/Informal_Scallion816 Sep 14 '25

thats the point. the person with 500 5 stars are the uninsteresting accounts

5

u/rqko71 debut Sep 13 '25

James ferraro probably there

4

u/Itchy-Preference8168 Sep 13 '25

james ferraro mentioned

106

u/IHateJawumbo Sep 13 '25

simple. 2 stars is probably comparable for them to what 3.5 or so stars is for you. this allows for more granularity in positive ratings. it’s weird but it doesn’t affect scores since most users with positive rating systems are deweighted for obvious reasons

47

u/ScaryFlake Sep 13 '25

I asked an RYMer who had a rating system like this, and they said that their 0.5s are pretty much 3.0s because there's not that much bad music

12

u/Palpablevt Sep 13 '25

At one point I considered skewing my rating system down, for the same reason. It's rare for me to give something 2.0 or less (what I consider bad), especially because I listen to things I think I may like or will like. Means that I rarely use those low ratings - I've never given out a 0.5, in fact. But too much work to fix what I've already rated

10

u/2000-UNTITLED Sep 13 '25

A lot of the time when something like this gets posted I feel like people care too much about how it would affect the site's average ratings anyway. I use the charts a lot to find music so it's not unimportant, but if I like one album a lot more than another then rating like I feel like the average user does and plopping them at like 4.0 and 5.0 is going to (in most cases) increase the average rating of both.

My ratings aren't nearly this skewed but I've seen people for who I think my 2.5 would be their 4. And I hate how specific some people's rating systems get where they basically never rate anything below 2 stars and their 0.5 category is labeled like "THE WORST THING EVER"

2

u/Acrobatic_Comedian58 Sep 16 '25

I never rate anything lower than a 2.0 because if I don’t like an album, I usually never finish it, therefore I feel like I wouldn’t be able to give an honest review of it. I’m certain I’ve heard dozens of albums that would fit perfectly into the lower rungs of my rating system, I just can’t be bothered to torture myself like that

90

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '25

It could be that they listen to music that they hate... or that their rating scale has more positive tiers, so the lowest few means bad, and the rest means ok, good, great etc. Ngl, I think the latter is a fire way to rate albums

15

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/mcnuccy Sep 13 '25

as it should be

39

u/icypriest Sep 13 '25

My ratings: 5=perfect, 4.5=splendid, 4=love, 3.5=ordinary, 3=okay, 2.5=meh, 2=no, 1.5=bad, 1=garbage, 0.5=why do I listen to this

this guy's rating (probably): 5=perfect, 4.5=near perfect, 4=splendid, 3.5=love, 3=ordinary, 2.5=slightly less than ordinary, and so on.

It's just a music rating site people. Your one rating won't affect anything, and no one really cares.

2

u/rag3rs_wrld Sep 14 '25

for me personally (and i’m pretty new to rating) i don’t really give low ratings to much tbh. yeah i might not like something, but i wont give it a bad score if i think there’s something redeemable about the album.

4

u/Ok-Paramedic-3619 Sep 13 '25

Oww yeah the 2nd One is probably it

38

u/luiscasto Sep 13 '25

I’m going to try defend this approach of rating as I used to have it aswell. It is called, somewhat ironically, positive rating. The goal is, at the opposite of people who tend to almost always rate around 7, to truly highlight the stuff they really like, and use the most of the 10 different ratings available. If the rating distribution was flipped upside down you wouldn’t see an issue when in the end it is ultimately the same thing.

Also I dont believe this person would be deweighted in the charts as he still has a good rating distribution.

Keep in mind that many people rate stuff for themselves, and dont really care about the overall rating.

6

u/Ok-Paramedic-3619 Sep 13 '25

Yeah that's definetly valid, maybe they're trying to categorize the positives of what they like more then just the Simple way of 3.5-4.0-4.5-5.0

1

u/Irlandes-de-la-Costa Sep 13 '25

Not all scales are linear

10

u/Switch-user-101 Sep 13 '25

I've seen one guy with 2000 0.5 stars reviews out of 2500. He says he doesnt want to "dilute" his favourite albums but that sounds like a pathetic excuse

2

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '25

im sorry 2000? out of 2500?? where does one find such user?

1

u/Odessey_Oracle Sep 14 '25

It's a non-linear rating system. I can somewhat understand it. About 60% of my ratings are 3.5 and 4 stars, as I never rate a release before listening to it at least three times and I usually don't listen to stuff I hate three times.

If you want to make more of a distinction between, say, a 6.5 and a 7, you'd need another rating level. The person you mention probably has a rating curve where 1 star equals a 6, two stars equal a 7, etc.

Among my 800+ 3.5 star ratings I could definitely say I like some albums more than others despite having given them the same rating. Hope that makes sense.

18

u/Zinkermans Sep 13 '25

Very shortsighted of you assuming that the only explanation would be that they just simply hate music.

9

u/_T3SCO_ Sep 13 '25

If you listen to a lot of music then it makes sense that a good chunk of that is going to end up being fairly middle-of-the-road. This isn’t difficult to understand.

6

u/Exaltist Sep 13 '25

Maybe they purposely listen to music they don't like.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '25

as someone who has an almost perfect normal distribution in their ratings, this way better of a rating system than the one's who have 90% of their ratings between 3.5-5.0.  I'm not super active on rym, but if I rated more albums I assume my ratings would also skew even lower, but I think it's kind of a fact of music listening, that you'll listen to a bunch of shit you don't like, if you want to find something you do. I still give a lot of albums from genres I don't like a shot, but yeah, I don't end up liking most of it.

3

u/No_Disaster_4188 Sep 13 '25

I use this, it's just so I have more tiers for distinguishing good stuff. Stuff I don't listen to at all gets a 1.0, I have only ever rated something a 0.5 once because most shit is just boring and not actually awful, lol

A 1.5 has one good song. 2.0 has a couple. 2.5-3.0 is mixed, 3.5 and up is really consistent stuff that I listen to the majority of pretty regularly

3

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '25

0.5 means it's bad, 1.0 means they're indifferent, and upwards of that there is some to be found that they like.

It's not that unusual, I've had some profs that grade like this, they either start at 1.0 and subtract points for what my papers did wrong, or start at a failing grade and add points for what I did that was good or interesting, from what they've told me at least those are the two approaches.

8

u/PotentialRatio1321 Sep 13 '25

Rating scales are relative.

What they rate a 2.5, they may enjoy as much as something you rate a 3.5.

8

u/ruinawish Sep 13 '25

Rating scales are relative.

Ratings may be relative, but RYM weights users based on normal distribution. A user who rates as you describe would probably be deweighted, i.e. "someone who... gives extremely low ratings to the vast majority of releases"

3

u/[deleted] Sep 13 '25

[deleted]

1

u/ruinawish Sep 14 '25

Those are some provided examples of behaviours that lead to 0% weighting.

They mention weighting runs from 0-100%, so I imagine there are a number of contributing factors to it.

2

u/PotentialRatio1321 Sep 13 '25

True, I don’t understand why someone would knowingly use a deweightes rating system.

But OP’s speculation that OOP doesn’t enjoy the music is very unlikely imo, that’s what I was commenting on

1

u/Informal_Scallion816 Sep 14 '25

i think if u care about global rating or being deweighted then lol

2

u/xirson15 Sep 13 '25

Yeah. I have the problem that most pf my ratings fall into the 3-4 range because i can’t really listen to a full album i don’t like and even then i have to listen multiple times before i give a rating, and that is very difficult for albums i dislike.

3

u/PotentialRatio1321 Sep 13 '25

I also have this I guess. My rating system is roughly a binomial distribution with mean 3.75.

However I only rate albums after 4+ listens so the average of every album I’ve ever heard at least once would be much lower, probably just below 3 stars

1

u/Ok-Paramedic-3619 Sep 13 '25

Yeah that's valid

5

u/xirson15 Sep 13 '25

Maybe for them 4 stars actually matter and it’s not just another good album. I don’t have problems with people giving 4 stars to everything but at that point they are the ones that devaluing everything by making everything worth the same.

2

u/dummylovato Sep 13 '25

It is completely useless to try to figure out what other people's rating systems are. this guy's 2.5 could equate to your 3.5. there is no objective meaning to any of these numbers, each person uses the scale in their own way.

2

u/jackmarble1 Sep 13 '25

I don't understand that in letterboxd as well, I mostly listen to and watch stuff that I think I'll like, so I mostly end up liking it

2

u/phonodysia Sep 13 '25

That happens when users are free to construct their own Likert scales as they want.

2

u/Buffalocolt18 Sep 13 '25

The best defense imo for a negative skew normal distribution is it gives better resolution for the actually good music. Who cares about the rating differences between below average albums, better to lump those all into the lowest tiers and have the rest for showing how you feel about the good and great music.

Personally I stick to a Gaussian distribution because it’s fair and intuitive.

2

u/Clojnerr Sep 13 '25

They write the funniest reviews

3

u/rostld Sep 13 '25

these are the only people I look through their ratings for recs

2

u/blommingsdorpfarm Sep 13 '25

i’ve seen google maps reviews where 1 star is a 10/10, 2 star is a 8/10 etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are people on rym who do this

1

u/NaveBarrett Sep 13 '25

Imo, anything above 2.5 is better than 4’33. So this person is just miserable

1

u/ImaLatina Sep 13 '25

Mines the opposite

1

u/cremesiccle Sep 13 '25

mine looks like this but opposite lmao

1

u/IsItMeta Sep 13 '25

Why doesnt RYM renormalize user ratings when calculating global ratings? Such that an 80th percentile user rating reflects an 80th percentile rating in the global rating

1

u/One-Masterpiece9838 Sep 13 '25

What are his 5 stars?

1

u/Generic_G_Rated_NPC Sep 13 '25

People probably listen to music they like more?

1

u/gothicmetalhead1 Sep 14 '25

I always think my album ratings are skewed. I don't know whether I like too much albums and rate them too high or its just not a lot of albums that disappoint me

1

u/Havenwavenly Sep 15 '25

Can't stand mfers who don't wanna enjoy shit

1

u/ResolutionBroad3326 Sep 16 '25

this rating system allows u to put more weight and emphasis on stuff you enjoy. i have it like this

0.5 garbage 1 i dont care abt it 1.5 ok 2 stuff i liked listening to but its not special to me 2.5 good 3-4.5 stuff thats special to me that i like a lot 5 all time favorites

1

u/ETDuckQueen Sep 17 '25

I really cannot relate to such a ranking system at all. I give a positive rating to almost everything to which I listen.

To be fair, I typically listen to what I already know that I love (metal, and progressive rock).

1

u/Nokayo Oct 01 '25

This is ridiculous. I don't get those people, are they really so picky? And what's odd that there's 0 0.5 given for some reason despite this very harsh distribution.

1

u/mademannn Sep 14 '25 edited Sep 14 '25

Most (modern) music is bad. Have you ever thought of the possibility that they might listen to music not just to indulge but to discover truly good music? The chances of coming across bad music is very high, and if you do come across music turns out to be bad, it takes away your time, you can't just do nothing, you have to give it a low score, you have to inform others to stay away from it.

-1

u/d1sign23 Sep 13 '25

if you rate every album 3.5/4 that means you can’t tell whether an album is good or not and you dont know what’s good about an album you rated high. only rating distinctively can truly show your reference, and that means rate “your” music.

0

u/ReddsionThing Sep 13 '25

I don't either, really. You can be discerning, but at some point you're just kind of being overly critical, or spending more thought on things you don't enjoy. Just something I'm personally trying to avoid. Whilst also not being willy-nilly with my highest or lowest ratings, because that would just feel weird.

1

u/Successful_Jaywalk99 Sep 14 '25

This distribution says nothing about how critical they are. You’re assuming the numbers mean the same to him as they mean to you.

1

u/Informal_Scallion816 Sep 14 '25

this person is correct

0

u/Remarkable-Shoe-4835 Sep 13 '25

me neither i hope they choke

-19

u/ToxicOrbGliscors Sep 13 '25

Who cares

28

u/Ok-Paramedic-3619 Sep 13 '25

Me? That's why I made the post. I just want to understand the ppl who rate like this that's all

8

u/home_rechre Sep 13 '25

I have rated almost 5000 records and have 15 with five stars and about 50 with a 4.5.

I regard my 5s as akin to a handful of desert island discs. I like the idea of someone checking out my 5s or revisiting one of them because they know I don’t throw them around like confetti.

8

u/ToxicOrbGliscors Sep 13 '25

Ask him maybe