i am pretty dumb and sometimes i can't actually tell if a review is good or bad, so numerical scores really help me.

thanks dis

we all get lazy some times and want a quick score outa 10. I'm happy to see an opinion in numerical form.

There are lots of records that i think deserve more than a 7/10 but not quite an 8/10. Obviously it's for people to make their own minds up about a record, and they should get a clearer idea of whether something might be worth investigating by the content of the review, but sometimes, and because i'm a lazy bastard, i just flick through the scores and anything that gets an 8 i look into.

I even like the Pitchfork decimal point style.

What I hate is marks out of 5.

i.e. "A-", "B+", etc.

to presume everyone wants to read every single review is slightly egotistical, a lot of people look for a good score and then skim read or read properly if they like it. to stop doing numerical scores would be DiS cutting of its' nose to spite its face

I want the review to describe it to me and then I'll decide on the basis of that. Otherwise, what's the point in the review in the first place?

Joe - www.anewbandaday.com

What exactly are the criteria that you're marking it on? I mean, take the new Isobel Campbell / Mark Lanegan effort that I think got 5/10. Most of the reason that it rated quite badly was the fact that it wasn't a progression at all from the first album - they were just re-treading familiar ground. But if you don't have the first album, or you're not too fussed by musical innovation then surely it shouldn't be penalised for this.

Maybe records should have lots of marks out of 10?

Songwriting / 10
Variety / 10
Innovation / 10
stuff like that?
or would that be worse?

I have always supported the .5 movement instead of full numbers, though.

why would I trust some randomers idea of what is good?

I'd prefer to read about it and see if it sounds like it might be something I might dig, but I rarely do that anyhow.

There, sorted.