Average Scores - not a diss of the voting system

[Coyote]

I\'m not complaining about the voting.

I\'m curious though. Since voting is based on 5 being table top (and usually, pretty good table top from what I\'ve seen) it\'s probably not the average.

Does anyone have a guess what the average score is? Yes, there are some really great painters that have high scores, and really bad painters who have low scores.

But, percentage wise, how many people get an 8?

Probably not that much. I think people should probably be more proud out a 6, because it\'s much more above average then they think.

That\'s just my thoughts. Don\'t change the voting system, don\'t change how you vote. Just curious about what a score means in relation to the average.

 

[dauber22]

Some one a while back did dsome extensive statistical analysis of the voting. Unfortunately, I can\'t remember who. I want to say it was Lurch, but I can\'t say for sure. Anyways, its here in the forums somewhere.

Now wasn\'t that helpful?????

 

[U4-Welcome]

I know that at the time my Mira reached 8+ (now she\'s down to 7.9, still mourning ) I took a look and exactly (it was surprisingly precise, actually) 10% of all minis on CMON had 8.0 or more. I don\'t suppose it\'s changed much since - it\'s only been, what, 2 weeks .

 

[Corvus]

Lurch\'s info

Here\'s the info Lurch provide us with in a thread called \"Number crunching ranks vs ratings\":

Originally posted by Lurch
I decided to do a little number crunching to determine, out of all people ranked at this time, what is the average rating, etc.
Here it is:
As of this writing, 878 artists are ranked:
The painter in first place has an average rating of 9.59.. Pretty impressive.
The painter in last place has an average ranking of 3.87.
The shocker however was the mid-carder.
At the absolute middle of the pack, artist # 439 had an average rank of 6.77 :wow:

so out of 878 artists:
*17 have a rating of 9.59 to 9.0
*112 have arating between 8.9 and 8.0
*234 hav a rating between 7.9 and 7.0
*343 have a rating between 6.9 and 6.0
*154 have a rating between 5.9 and 5.0
*15 have a rating between 4.9 and 4.0
*one person has a rating below 4.0

So lets take a look at the Photos themselves:
As of this writing there were 15762 photos listed

*The top photo was marked at 9.7 as of this writing.
*The bottom photo was a 2.2
*The absolute middle photo at 7874 was 6.5

Out of all photos:

*210 were listed 9 or above
*1370 in in the 8\'s
*3614 were in the 7,s
*5553 were 6 to 6.9
*4026 were 5.9 to 5.0
*906 were 4.9 to 4.0
*68 belonged in the 3\'s
* and 8 were below 3.0

(Yes I know this equals 15755 but I wasnt about to go redo my numbers to find the extra 7 photos)

Interesting numbers ehh? :]

 

[darthfoley]

Actually, based on these numbers, a 6 is below average.

If ever there was proof that the scores here mean nothing, you just got it. Enjoy your hobby, listen to comments you get, and go about your business.

 

[Corvus]

Other interesting numbers are your rank vs your score.

For example: I am currently ranked 242nd, with a score of 7,54.

 

[Lurch]

Posted originally by Corvus
For example: I am currently ranked 242nd, with a score of 7,54.

AARGH.. How\'d you get in front of me? lol :|~
I\'m 247 with a 7.50.

Get ready for the flurry of 1 ratings Corvus! This is ratings war!!
lol :bouncy: lol :flip: lol :|~ lol

 

[Corvus]

Okay, then I will call all my friends to start voting 10\'s on my minis... :innocent:

To battle we go
\"Do you want to live forever?\" lol

 

[ozjohnd]

Originally posted by Coyote
I\'m not complaining about the voting.

I\'m curious though. Since voting is based on 5 being table top (and usually, pretty good table top from what I\'ve seen) it\'s probably not the average.

...

That\'s just my thoughts. Don\'t change the voting system, don\'t change how you vote. Just curious about what a score means in relation to the average.

what perturbs me is the apparent general failure to give a 5 for table-top quality pieces ... I am constantly seeing pieces with an average of below 5 that are easily good quality playing pieces.

It seems that one has to actually impress with high quality painting to get above a 5 ... I rarely vote below a 5 unless it is a piece that is badly painted and would be embarrassed to have as a playing piece.

Let\'s just take as an example this piece submitted recently (I did a browse setting scores 4-5) ...

http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=28309

This piece at the time I post this message has 17 votes with an average of 4.6. Its not a stunning piece and certainly to vote more than a 6 would be excessive but why is this rated less than 5 where clearly some effort has been made to paint in details ... sure, no NMM, no shading, ... but in my opinion it is good enough for a table-top piece?

Also I believe that many painters submit here to be able to learn ... I\'d like to see more constructive comments ... even from those who are more experienced and can produce high quality minis. I know when I get a posted comment I get a buzz especially if it contains advice on how to improve.

/rant off

 

[Corvus]

Originally posted by skeeterThis piece at the time I post this message has 17 votes with an average of 4.6. Its not a stunning piece and certainly to vote more than a 6 would be excessive but why is this rated less than 5 where clearly some effort has been made to paint in details ... sure, no NMM, no shading, ... but in my opinion it is good enough for a table-top piece?

Agreed, you could easily use this piece for gaming purposes. But from a painter\'s point of view, I don\'t think it deserves a 5. Yes, there are some small details on the mini, but also some mistakes that bring the score down: over-paint, rough and thick paint, and even missing paint on some places.

I just guess \"table top standard\" is a very subjective name... My personal gaming standard usually has two highlighting stages, to make them a bit more appealilng than using just flat colors, but also not spending too much time on them. I have even seen players at tournaments painting their ultramarines completely blue except for the eyes, those were painted red. Of course you can play with those minis, but do you think it would reach a 5 on this site?

Cheers.

 

[Chern Ann]

The average score in the system is 6.5. That\'s an average of every single miniature.

 

[dauber22]

[quoteI just guess \"table top standard\" is a very subjective name...[/quote]

And therein lies the crux of all these voting debates. We\'re dealing with a diverse group of people who interpret \"table top standard\" in diverse ways. No one\'s way is wrong as long as it is applied consistantly and fairly.

 

[Coyote]

Like it has been said, Table top quality is very subjective.

A 5 for me requires 1 basecoat, no highlights or shading, but painted cleanly and neatly.

Of course, someone may add highlight and shading, but lose marks for leaving out a mold line, thus becoming a 5.

I also have a very high standard for my own table top quality, as evidenced by my inability to paint a full army. Only recently have I progressed enough to paint fast at the standard I like.

It\'s also why I\'m close to cinching a deal to paint for a mini manufacturer.

Anyway, thanks for the response. Hopefully people will read the numbers right and take comfort in their score. It may look like everyone paints better then you, but in reality you are pretty good.

 

[Corvus]

for example

just take a look at some of my Tau minis, which I use for gaming only.

1) Tau Firewarriors: these guys aren\'t expertly painted, just up to my tabletop standard. Two stages of highlighting on the armour some lens effects, and some small details. But I didn\'t pay much attention to the smoothness of the paint and the base, so this mini strands at 6.5, which is quite good for what I painted this mini for I think.
http://www.coolminiornot.com/index.php?id=18831&c=All&m=All&nm=none
2) My Tau Gun Drones: painted up to the same standard, but they show a lot more errors: parts of the disc have been cut off, really bad highlighting, overpaint, and a bad base. Therefore it has a rather low score: 5.6. Which I think is a bad table top quality for me...http://www.coolminiornot.com/index.php?id=18832&c=All&m=All&nm=none

 

[ZaPhOd]

Bah

Considering the raw talent in the world, it is actually within reason to assume that a tabletop quality paintjob is well below average! Why not? No one seems to have thought of that. I bet we could all post 100 minis each that are \"tabletop quality\" and they would bring the average Chern quoted at 6.5 right down to a 5 or so...

So what\'s the big deal? Posters are more likely to post better quality stuff. That is why tabletop quality is below average... and rightfully so IMO.

 

[kittykat23uk]

Its all subjective. I vote depending on my own level of skill. So most of my stuff is in the 7-8 range, with some scoring as low as 5.6 ish. So I use mine as a basis and score according to that. Now that Gandalf mini that was posted, I\'d consider to be a 4 to 5. more likely I\'d give it a 4 to be honest because it\'s not that neat, and could use a lot of shading and highlighting, or at least and ink wash or 2. .

I think we really need to better define what each rating means. Tabletop quality in particular is open to a lot of debate.

Regards

Kat

 

[Coyote]

everything is open to debate. I don\'t think we need to redefine the scores. Except to make it 1 is the best, 10 is the worst, and confuse the heck out of everybody.

Jen Haley logs on to check her latest scores.

1.2 average! What the heck!

 

[kittykat23uk]

LOL mybe Chern could do that for an april fools joke eh?lol

Kat