The 1-10 rating system needs to go

[Jebus]

I always had a problem with the 1-10 rating system that is so often used, especially when rating the physical attractiveness of another human. If someone says she is a 10, it should mean that her attractiveness is above the 90th percentile compared to all other women in the world the observer has seen, while an "8" should be between the 70th and 80th percentile of all the women the observer has ever seen. Yet this is rarely the case. The same confusing 1-10 system is used in the "Rate the song above you" thread.

I suggest simplifying the system into a 100 point percentile system, where a 50 is the average of all the women in the world one has seen, and where a 99 means that she is more attractive than 99 percent of the women one has ever seen. Similarly when rating a song a 99.9 would be better than 99.9 percent of all the songs one has ever heard.

I have used this system for years and my acquaintances, even though reluctant at first, have usually found this system more fun, and it has become the standard withing my circle of acquaintances.

[Red]

I thought that's how it worked. Out of 100 is just a pain in the ass, and it's much easier to divide it by 10. It's still similar to the out of 100 thing.
People give or take points depending on something's strengths and weaknesses. That's what I generally use it for.
It generally goes like this
0- Godawful
1- Abysmal
2- Terrible
3- Bad
4- Poor
5- Mediocre
6- Fair
7- Good
8- Great
9- Superb
10- Essential
Are you saying we should give ratings based on the other things we have seen?

[Jebus]

Out of 100 is just a pain in the ass, and it's much easier to divide it by 10.

Not at all. Most of us understand the concept of percentiles so it is both easier and more accurate. As an example, there is a huge difference in attractiveness between a 91 woman and a 99 woman (believe me, I can still get 91s while I am invisible to 99s). In the 1-10 system, if used as you thought, they would both be 10s.

[Red]

Out of 100 is just a pain in the ass, and it's much easier to divide it by 10.

Not at all. Most of us understand the concept of percentiles so it is both easier and more accurate. As an example, there is a huge difference in attractiveness between a 91 woman and a 99 woman (believe me, I can still get 91s while I am invisible to 99s). In the 1-10 system, if used as you thought, they would both be 10s.

Well what if you were to just give it like a 9.4/10 instead of just a 9/10? Now thinking about it, I don't really see a difference between the 2 systems.

[Jebus]

Well what if you were to just give it like a 9.4/10 instead of just a 9/10?

This would be better, but no one does that. Either way, I don't see how that would be more clear than a 100 system since percentiles is what's taught in schools.

I'm guessing the 1-10 system originated in the U.S., (there was even a movie entitled "Perfect 10" if I recall.) United Statsians are good at complicating things when it comes to numbers (Canadians too, although they have got a lot better), and I'm not just referring to the empirical system. Other examples:

In sports they speak of teams being over or under 500 (meaning they have won more or fewer than 50% of their games).
When discussing alcohol they speak of proof (about twice as much as percentage) instead of simply using percentages.
In betting they use the awkward fractional system rather than the much easier decimal system.

[Red]

This would be better, but no one does that. Either way, I don't see how that would be more clear than a 100 system since percentiles is what's taught in schools.

Are you sure? What about video game and movie critics?

In sports they speak of teams being over or under 500 (meaning they have won more or fewer than 50% of their games).
When discussing alcohol they speak of proof (about twice as much as percentage) instead of simply using percentages.
In betting they use the awkward fractional system rather than the much easier decimal system.

Well it depends. Are they arbitrary numbers?

[Jebus]

Are you sure? What about video game and movie critics?

Movie critics usually use a 1-5 grading system. Don't know what you mean by video games; rating of video games? Either way I wouldn't know since I haven't played one since 1986.

Well it depends. Are they arbitrary numbers?

What???

[Red]

Movie critics usually use a 1-5 grading system. Don't know what you mean by video games; rating of video games? Either way I wouldn't know since I haven't played one since 1986.

Yeah, the rating of video games. If you go to a site like IGN or GameSpot, they don't just rate it a number out of 10, they give it ones like 8.3, 5.6, 6.9, and so on.
What're your opinions on critics who use x out of 5 scales? What about Roger Ebert with him giving scores out of 4?

What???

I'm saying if the number makes sense, and not just an asspull.

[miniboes]

These scores usually don't refer to how good something is compared to other things. For example, look at test scores*; a 1 means you got nothing right, and 10 means you got everything right. I think that's how most people interpret it; ranking something from worthless (1) to okay (5.5) to perfect (10). If I get a 7 on a test, it means i did pretty good. It does not, however, mean I did the test better than 70% of students. I got a 7.3 for a test recently which put me in the 80th percentile, while a 7.8 on another test put me in the 50th percentile. I did the first test better in relation to my other students, but worse in terms of how much I got right. I think that's a sensible way of rating things, but I like having a percentile too. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other. For example, if all laptops stopped working after an hour of use, a laptop that stops working after 2 hours of use may be better than any other laptop. But it's still crap.

By the way, Mr. Purple actually made a list of what every score in the 'Rate the song above you' thread means for him, which I use too. The numbers of 1-10 are often short hand for categories.

*European test scores, that is. Americans use a weird F to A system if i'm not mistaken.

[brimstoneSalad]

Only relative scores make sense, though, because they help the consumer decide between one item and another.
The only problem with using that in classrooms is that the students aren't in competition; they're just trying to learn the material. So there, percentage of material learned makes more sense than comparing students. Particularly because a comparison within a single classroom can vary wildly from semester to semester, and it discourages cooperation in learning.
There's not such a clear way to objectively give things like movies, games, and attractiveness such percentages. They need to be compared to each other.