I don't know how to search for them... I'm not sure you can. But I noticed the other day that At The Drive-In's "Relationship of Command" has a user rating of 9.8. Not surprising.
I have to admit that I don't pay too much attention to the user rating scores because the extremes seem to point out the idea that the "users" have some agenda to push the score a certain way. Reviewers ("Critics") often have an agenda too. And not to sound like a troll, but I do believe that the Kate Bush scores will drop for both numbers.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Critics often have agendas I'd agree. And also, much greater power of influence. Which is why I'm interested in what the discrepancies may or may not say about some reviewers.
Why not pay attention to them? I find it potentially interesting.
You could argue that a more equal score would be evidence of a fair and un-biased review.
And... I'd rather just wait and see where the ratings end up than predict (do you know something we don't Matt F? )! Why should this necessarily drop from here? There are plenty of very average records* in the same points range at the moment!
Critics often have agendas, but that agenda is *not* to reduce a number on a website.
Also, critics' score distributions are more normalized, a bit less skewed. A critic might give a 40, a few 50s and 60s, a lot of 70s and 80s, a few 90s, and a 100. A user will give a whole lot of 10s and a whole lot of 0s and 1s.
I agree that Kate Bush's score will drop more. Any high score can be predicted to drop simply because of 'Regression toward the mean'. In this case I think she'll end up in the low 80s.
Another problem with user ratings...people who have a neutral opinion toward something won't review it. They'll only rate it if they really love it, or really hate it. Critics rate things they love, things they hate, and things they're neutral to.
Fandango: The other 'average' records that have an 89 already have 20+ reviews. Kate Bush's new album only has 8 so far.
"Critics often have agendas, but that agenda is *not* to reduce a number on a website."
Hmmm, I DO like the new Kate Bush but you might be reading too much into my example here. I'm thinking of times where websites have damned an artist, only to later praise them on the next record when the winds of fashion change. Either way, the end result _will_ often equal an unfairly low or high score (all in someones opinion of course). Whether they're indexed by Metacritic or not!
"A user will give a whole lot of 10s and a whole lot of 0s and 1s." Agree, but might such extremes not end up cancelling each other out?
I'm just surprised more isn't being made of this feature of the site somehow, or that the opinions of the public aren't taken as being (in theory!! ;D) reliable and worthy of some attention.
I'm not arguing that they should influence the final metascore. But yeah, I would _like_ to be able to compare best of critics votes with users votes! call it a feature request
It wouldn't replace sites like:http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/, http://rateyourmusic.com/ but a small combination of their qualities would entertain me.
No, they wouldn't cancel each other out. What would happen is, the user ratings would represent more of a percentage.
Meaning, the 'love it or hate it' albums would end up lower than the genuine 'mediocre' albums, because users who hate mediocre albums will ignore them, and users who hate very popular albums will try to drag them down just to make a point.
There are a few sites that are just fashionable, but I believe most of them actually rate based on their actual enjoyment of the album. User ratings also usually come from people who don't listen to a very broad range of music, which doesn't give them much of a context, and user ratings are *unbelievably* influenced by what's fashionable. Mainstream listeners rate things higher or lower based on whether it's socially okay to like or hate them, and hipsters rate things lower just for having mainstream success.
Long story short, critics can sure be biased, but relatively less biased than user ratings. And, I don't find the user ratings remotely informative as to whether or not I will like an album. But, the metascore has historically tended to give me a better odds to like an album.
Originally posted by fandango: "I'm just surprised more isn't being made of this feature of the site somehow, or that the opinions of the public aren't taken as being (in theory!! ;D) reliable and worthy of some attention.
Hmmmm . . . kinda like the popular vote versus the electoral college . . . ?!?
I agree that the ratings posted by users are probably bound to be quite biased; however, I think that fandango is making a good point here. It would be interesting to have sortable user ratings lists.
The reviews from users are just as important (if not more) as the professional reviews when I'm evaluating an album. I know what I like most of the time, but Metacritic can come in handy on occasion.
I'm sure some (many?) of the users as as knowledgeable and/or qualified to post reviews as some of the mags and websites that get pumped into the Metascores, but with a REAL review you generally get some substance. Many of the user posts are inane crap like 'this rocks' or 'this sucks' and that really doesn't make me feel comfortable with the source.
I personally don't really care what the user scores are...but then, I don't really pay attention to the Metascores, either. I just like to read the content of the reviews, where they are linked, because I usually make my buying decisions based on things beyond what the critics and/or the fans like or dislike. I have to imagine, from the MC end, it would be easy to add a tally to data on each record with the user score, but I could also imagine that street-teamers and spammers would simply post 10's for the same record a number of times (probably with the same genius comments that street teamers make in the Forums!), making the user scores somewhat worthless.
Still, the user scores give a feel for what regular music fans like me are thinking. Sometimes they don't overanalyze like reviewers do. So I find user scores useful. I know what you mean - there are the inane user reviews - but you can sort them out if there are enough. But as I said, it's very rare that I need any advice.
I don't think user ratings actually do do that, actually...they aren't a representative sample of music fans, and they don't always represent the rater's own opinion accurately.
The only people represented in user ratings are people who really liked it or really hated it, and those people don't always rate based on their actual feelings; they rate to influence the average.
I don't care what the metascores or user ratings are, but I feel the metascores correlate with my opinion enough to use them as a filter.
Now, if there were a user rating based on people who listen to a wide variety of music instead of a single genre, and all those people were rating based on their feelings and not based on influencing the average, and those people rated every album they listened to instead of just the ones they really liked and really hated, then I'd care a lot more about the user ratings.
But then again, I get all those things by reading posts on these forums!
I don't question the meaningfulness of non-critics' opinions; I do question the accuracy of the statistic, the way it's measured.
I participate in those user ratings, and I'm definitely not trying to bring a score up or down. Personally, I have found enough to like. In fact, I'd say there are fewer professional reviewers that I like.
Now, if there were a user rating based on people who listen to a wide variety of music instead of a single genre, and all those people were rating based on their feelings and not based on influencing the average, and those people rated every album they listened to instead of just the ones they really liked and really hated, then I'd care a lot more about the user ratings.
But then again, I get all those things by reading posts on these forums!
I don't question the meaningfulness of non-critics' opinions; I do question the accuracy of the statistic, the way it's measured.
Yeah, that's a good point. I'm far more inclined to buy an unknown commodity if someone who likes the same kind of stuff as I do mentions it in the Forums than I would ever be to buy something that got a high Metascore or, even worse, universal user acclaim. If 100 out of 100 users LOVED a record and the Metascore was high, I'd still want to hear what someone whose opinion I trusted would have to say. If LinnTate or Peewee or mark f (etc) raved about it, I'd be more willing to take a shot. That's what the Forums are for...
Originally posted by MattD: I participate in those user ratings, and I'm definitely not trying to bring a score up or down. Personally, I have found enough to like. In fact, I'd say there are fewer professional reviewers that I like.
I wasn't implying that everyone did...but I guarantee you that if the user scores were tabulated on the main MC page that the record label interns/street teamers would be posting annoying dreck about how awesome the new Black Eyed Peas record is ALL DAY LONG. I'm sure MOST of the users are legit folks and probably as well-considered as the critics...personally, i think critics carry their aesthetic axes on their sleeves (to mix metaphors) ready to grind at all times, and I find that makes me distrustful of criticism. That's why I prefer to read the reviews rather than look at the (fairly arbitrary) scores/numbers/ratings...
I agree that the user scores shouldn't be added to the Metascore. They are too unscientific for that. But I think I can tell who carries axes on their sleeves pretty well. The pro critics do it all the time. We'll have to agree to disagree on how useful the user ratings are.
)! Why should this necessarily drop from here? There are plenty of very average records* in the same points range at the moment! 
