The term "principles" may seem a bit strong here. Review ratings are hardly considered an area of ethical problems generally, much less a subject on which one would have a principle of using them or not, but that is the case for me. In this post, I'd like to explain a little bit about why I have such strong feelings about star ratings and why I refuse to use them in my reviews.
First of all, I would like to be clear that my dislike of star ratings (or any numerical rating really) only applies to things that I would consider as coming under the umbrella of "art". While of course this naturally includes fine art such as paintings and sculpture, I would also define films, books, music, and other forms of popular media as belonging to this category.
The reason why I feel star ratings work for other products but not for art is essentially due to ambiguity of purpose. Let's take an example of a non-art product, in this case a water jug. Generally speaking, if someone is looking to buy a water jug, they are evaluating potential options by standard practical criteria: is it sturdy, is it a good size, will it last, is it easy to use, and so on. Some people will value certain aspects of it more highly than others (e.g. some people want a larger jug while others want one that's drop-proof), but the things that constitute a good water jug are broadly universal. We know what a water jug is supposed to do; we know its function. When we give a water jug a star rating, such as the ones on Am*zon, we are judging how well it performs this function. A 5-star water jug can be expected to do its job well; a 1-star water jug, less so.
The function of a water jug is sufficiently well-defined that there is a limit to the impact of personal preference on assessing one. Some people might care more about how it looks, for example, but it would be bizarre for a person to give a jug five stars just because the colour is nice if said jug breaks after the first use. The result here is that there is a shared understanding among those who rate and use the ratings of water jugs or most other non-art products. Ratings, in this case, can communicate briefly and effectively the perceived value of products.
In the case of art, ratings do not work nearly as well. The problem again comes back to how we perceive the purpose of a product and if we share an unspoken system of assessment for its effectiveness in achieving that purpose. Something like a water jug has this; art does not. Art is infamously hard to evaluate with anything approaching objectivity, partially because nobody can agree of what purpose it's even meant to serve. It makes sense, in a way, given that we can't even agree on what counts as "art" in the first place. The other problem is that art often functions by affecting us emotionally or psychologically, possibly the most personal and immeasurable ways one could be affected. I might like a painting because it makes me feel happy, while another person might hate it because it makes them feel sad. Still another person might find it sad but appreciate it for that very reason, seeing the purpose of that art as being to elicit that emotion. Yet another person will dislike it because it seems too emotionally raw and not thought-provoking enough. Then one more person will love it or hate it purely depending on if it suits their aesthetic tastes. All of this is immensely personal as well as next to impossible to quantify.
This is not to say that evaluating art is pointless. I evaluate art according to my own standards every time I rant about a book or recommend a webcomic. The debates about what constitutes art, what its purpose is, and how we judge the value of artistic work - these are fascinating discussions to have. They are also much too nuanced and complex to be reduced to simplistic star ratings. Even a single-line verdict, for all its brevity, can provide more useful information. This is why, when I have to provide a brief summary of my thoughts on a piece of art, I prefer to use these rather than star ratings.
I think that there are reasons why star ratings have become popular, but only some of them have to do with effectiveness. This post is long enough though, so I'll have to go into more detail about that another time. In any case, I hope that this post has answered the question of why I don't use star ratings, at least not in the case of my book and film reviews.
As always, I would love to hear what you think. Do you like star ratings, or do you hate them? Do you think that they work for some things better than others? Please feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments or let me know directly.
As with most things in life, star ratings have evolved through a need for bench marks. I will start with films. Whilst not every body likes romantic films, those that do can look up a romantic film and check its rating and have a fair idea as to whether it's worth watching or not. The same applies to sci-fi. If someone looking for a sci-fi film sees a romantic film with 8+ stars they can then view that rating in context of romantic films and other films. It does not mean that they will like the film but people who have watched it generally like it. Back to the water jug. A high rating for a water jug just means that people generally like it. If they want a blue water jug and the highly rated one is clear, it does not mean that it is the right one for them but they could consider it as people generally like it. I think the rating system serves a purpose but has to be put into context.
ReplyDelete