Question/Discussion about the rating system

[artfreakydude]

I was having a conversation the other day with me gal, and I asked her for her honest opinion on where i stood currently as a minature painter. She asked me, \"on what scale?\" and I told her 1-10 where 10 is the best model ever. She game me a 5 (which im fairly happy with atm.) But then I got to thinking, \"CMON rates minatures on 1-10 where 5 is only tabletop quality.\" I may be missunderstanding the definition of tabletop, but to me it means the bare minimum required for gaming. I also got to thinking about the spectrum of good models out there versus the spectrum of not so good models. And the spectrum of good models is considerably larger than the not so good. So why is it that the current rating system has equivilant room for both sides. Wouldnt it seem logical to have the minimum work required be lower on the scale, thus allowing more \"rating room\" for different levels of high quality models. What i\'m thinking of looks something like this.

1- I\'m sorry, but that\'s terrible
2- Basecoated, keep painting
3- Tabletop quality
4- Little bit better than tabletop, needs more depth
5- Cleanly painted model (with room for improvement)
6- Decent shading and good pallete of colors
7- Great model good craftsmanship
8- Fantastic!
9- Phenominal!!
10- Simply the best model ever

I\'m curious as to your perspectives on the matter.

apologies if a similar topic exists, my search-fu is not strong.

 

[A Luna]

My scale is something like this:

1. you should have left it black.. seriously..
2. basecoating
3. 1 or 2 highlights, not smooth
4. more highlights in the model, still looks so-so
5. taking the whole miniature, not just threw paint onto it, also painted smaller details.
6. painted smaller details better.
7. blending
8. whoa! nice!
9. Incredible!
10. Dahhhh... *drool* (or I get the \'I want to have that miniature\' effect.)

I think it depends on the painter. If your standard lies around the 9.5 you will vote lower for miniatures. Since you got a lot of experience and you know where to loook at and what to judge on a miniature.
Just my humble opinion

 

[Rdrunner]

Funny, that\'s sort of how I rate the minis here too. Intuitively, at least. Nice too see that approach put into words, A Luna!

Past threads on this topic often point to the huge difficulties you\'d face if you changed the current ratings system. With almost 130,000 pics on the site already, there\'s simply no way to go back and adjust prior scores to match a new rating scheme.

Roadrunner

 

[Ritual]

But the standards for the ratings HAVE changed over time. Nowadays I think a lot of people vote more or less according to what the thread starter suggested.

 

[No Such Agency]

I haven\'t had an 8 in ages... it\'s certainly harder to get good scores than it once was. /repeat ad nauseum

SRSLY, and it HAS been discussed ad nauseum, I think it\'s well-known that the 5 that is \"tabletop standard\" here is clearly \"a standard that an adult gamer would not be embarrassed to have their army painted to\", not \"11 year old GW fanboi three-colour minimum\". Here... that is more like a 2. Of course it is also the standard that many, many armies are painted to

/doesn\'t understand why you\'d spend $100\'s on an army, then paint it like sh*t

 

[Einion]

I\'m going to start with this as it might leave a negative impression with you if read last:

Originally posted by artfreakydude
apologies if a similar topic exists, my search-fu is not strong.

This is code for you didn\'t look. Come on, be honest!

A search just for the word \'rating\' - the most obvious search term, in the very forum in which you began your topic - brings up multiple hits. I can remember at least three threads directly on aspects of rating from the last year or so; there are easily 10, a dozen discussions on it here.

Other words to look up might be \'tabletop\', \'sniping\', \'scores\', \'scoring\', \'enhancement\'.

Originally posted by artfreakydude
I may be missunderstanding the definition of tabletop, but to me it means the bare minimum required for gaming.

To me tabletop means good enough - colours in the right places, neat enough, basic shading, not stuck directly to an unpainted black plastic base. Mentally I think of this as \"Average?\"

Originally posted by artfreakydude
Wouldnt it seem logical to have the minimum work required be lower on the scale, thus allowing more \"rating room\" for different levels of high quality models.

Even if I agreed - even if lots of us agreed that this was a good idea - it\'ll never happen; get used to the way things are, they\'re not gonna change.... Realistically if the scoring guidelines were to be altered all older submissions would have to have their scores reset to zero, and everything would have to be rated again from scratch. Ain\'t gonna happen.

Originally posted by A Luna
1. you should have left it black.. seriously..

lol

Einion

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by Einion

Other words to look up might be \'tabletop\', ..... \'enhancement\'.

really? i would be scared to search for that considering the occasional spam post that gets through!

 

[ScottRadom]

Ah good ole\' Einion, the Sheriff of Search-function county! lol

As fro the rating system, if you do a search as Einion has been polite enough to remind so many of us to do, you\'ll find every single person has a different point of view. The rating system sucks, snipers, I\'m leaving CMON \'cause you\'re all a bunch of jerks who gave my mini only a 7 etc.

It\'s all so subjective. One thing it does typically indicate is that if your score are staying roughly the same,or climbing higher, then you\'re painting mini\'s people think look better then what you previously submitted. Not much real chance of changing the system I think.

But the sliding scale you outlined sounds like the way I think of things.

 

[Einion]

It\'s ma job:

Einion

 

[demonherald]

ha ha .. done to death indeed...
I do have to point to a slight flaw in the hreadstarters scale..
\"10-simply the best model ever\"
using that as a guide a 10 would only ever be given once and all 10\'s to the same model. and that would be to THE best model ever but which woud that be????

funny that A.Luna mentioned that a 9.5 artist would rate things a little lower.. I find the opposite happens a lot as the higher ranked painters have anappreciation for technique that average joe space marine fan doesn\'t and will tend to vote higher on that merit... I personally don\'t do as much voting or commenting as I would like as to be honest there is so much poor quality goes through it can get painful. That isn\'t knocking the work in general but moe importantly crap pics. when I do vote or particularly comment I do try and look at what the person has done before and rate an extra point or two if there has been improvement ......knock a point off if the standard has slipped.

anway signing off as this is in dangr of turning into another ratings discussion....:beer:

 

[Alchemist]

I approach this somewhat differently. Being a new painter (I started last year around Thanksgiving, but haven\'t painted anything in the last few months due to work) my current level is in the 5-6 range. I start with that as a barometer: Does it hurt my eyes to look at (1-3)? Is it noticeably worse than what I can do (4)? Could I have painted that quite easily (5)? Is it closer to my better work (6)? Just beyond what I can do (7)? Something to aspire to (8)? A near masterwork (9)? A true masterwork (10)?

So I try to objectively look at my own skill level--which is currently stalled around 6 to 6.5--and rate accordingly.

 

[Infidel Castro]

I see myself as a 7\'s painter (right figure and right application) and I judge according to what I can or can\'t do. Anything better I\'ll rate as such, anything worse I\'ll work out in my head by just how much. I don\'t sweat over it - my decisions are split-second.

 

[Einion]

Originally posted by demonherald
funny that A.Luna mentioned that a 9.5 artist would rate things a little lower.. I find the opposite happens a lot as the higher ranked painters have anappreciation for technique that average joe space marine fan doesn\'t and will tend to vote higher on that merit...

I find I\'m generally critical of things in higher-rated minis that I\'d let slide in lower-rated minis. I\'m a critical judge, but despite this I do find myself often rating something (5s to 7s usually) higher than the mini\'s current score; most of the time I rate 9s and 8s at least one point lower than the average score.

Originally posted by demonherald
anway signing off as this is in dangr of turning into another ratings discussion....:beer:

:beer:

Originally posted by reverend
I don\'t sweat over it - my decisions are split-second.

I think that\'s the way to do it basically - once you\'ve voted 100, 200 times it becomes a gut call, more than something cerebral.

Einion

 

[Crackpot]

Well I am here for some years now and I feel that the ratings have changed a bit over the years. Nowadays it\'s a bit more difficult to get a really high score. You really have to publish something splendorous to get high scores. IMHO this is because the overall standard is getting better an better. A mini that was 2 years ago a good 7 is now only a 5-6. The painters are getting better, everyone can watch tutorials and acquire new / better techniques and so the published minis are watched more critical than before.
I think this is a good thing, it shows that we are all advancing.

One last thing I would like to add: This is COOL mini or not, so not only the painting is rated but also the complete scene. If you look at the top 10 you will see many conversions or dioramas. Its not enough to take a common mini, put it on a black base and paint it neatly. You have to tell a story or deliver some kind of emotion! So your categorisations of the rating system don\'t work for me. It\'s not all about blending technique, choice of color, freehands or osl effects. The whole scene has to \"work\"!

 

[generulpoleaxe]

it\'s all about the tits.








running before those with tits, or the total tits linch me hehehehehehehe

 

[Aliengod3]

Here is my scale:

1. Find a new hobby
2. Keep trying, best of luck
3. At least no plastic is showing
4. It is better than a dipped miniature
5. Tabletop quality
6. Looks like you learned how to highlight and shade
7. You are learning the fun of blending
8. Blends and composition have potential
9. Better than what I can do
10. You cheated some how lol

 

[waghorn41]

It\'s about the whole appearance for me, not just the mini. A fan of Space Marines will give a better score to an SM mini than to something they don\'t like. I\'ve seen some good paint jobs but the \'whole\' just doesn\'t work so I score it lower - it\'s not a \'cool\' mini.

 

[Godlikebuthumble]

The official GBH Ratings Scale (tm):

1: Bare stock mini, possibly primered. You f****n\' kiddin\', right? Bandwidth ain\'t free.
2: Fingerpaints. As done by an elephant. I\'m not being mean on purpose, but this is very poor. Try the usual susp..., I mean, hints: thinning paint, using a small, good tipped brush, and so on and so forth. We have an articles section. Look it up.
3: I think I see what you\'re going for. Still needs work, though. Keep at it.
4: Flat colours, but decent coverage, mostly in the right place. Possibly basic basing (department of redundancy department?) Getting there.
5: Clean. Smooth paint. Neat. Based (even if it\'s only flock/painted sand). Eyes. Maybe even some highlights and shading (drybrushing and quickshade/inkwashes count). Decent. Noone should be ashamed fielding an army of those. Feel free to stop, or march on to...
6: More elaborated version of 5. Shade, base, highlight colour done on all parts. Based. Eyes and details done (those pesky lil\' buckles and stuff). Watch those mould lines. Neat-o.
7: Still better. More layers (perhaps starting to experiment with blending, glazing, and all that jazz). Nice freehand, possibly. Fine mixed materials base. Depth. An army of those would be mighty fine.
8: Very good. Good combined use of advanced techniques. Smooth transitions, *effective* use of \"mood\" techniques: freehand, OSL, weathering, etc. An army of those would kick more donkey than Chuck Norris stuffed with Jack Bauer. I consider this the current upper limit of my ability. Keep reaching for:
9: I don\'t think I could pull this off. Awesome. Award quality. Technique as 8, only, well... better. This requires experience mixed with talent and know-how.
10: :wow: ... A 9, with at least one of the modifiers (see below). Again:

Modifiers:
-Mood and Composition: -1 to +2: if it fits together, and manages to convey an appropriate emotion, I\'m more generous.
-What lies beneath: +2 to -2: You can gild a turd, but why? +1 for cool \"raw\" minis, +2 only if the paintjob\'s so good, it elevates a fugly mini.
-Base: -1 to +1 if it is relatively plain or particularly nice, respectively.
-Photo: The bane of many a painter: from -2 (dark *and* out of focus *and* too small) through -1 (one of those) to +1 (crisp, well lit, detail shots). Obiously only applies to online ratings.
-Modification/Conversion: -1 if it breaks the \"feel\" of the Mini (e.g. skipping Marines instead of \"running\"), to +2 if executed well and in style.
-Scale: +1 if the given base quality is achieved on particularly small (<15mm) or large (>54mm), to compensate for the additional challenges that arise in those formats.

Greens/Kitbash, no paint: Texture, proportions, pose, detail bear the burden usually shouldered by the paintjob. I will not vote this a 10. Ever. Sorry, but even a mini with great potential (e.g. Rackham Dirz Clone bust, or a certain lizard rider) can be (and often is, alas!) screwed up by the paintjob. If I see this painted, though, I mostly *will* give it the bonus point for cool base mini. Fair trade, methinks.

*No Vote*:
- Photo so bad I don\'t see the mini: Might be the best mini EVAR, but I won\'t know. Pity. Can also apply if the colours are obviously way off in the photo. I really can\'t judge that fairly, so I\'ll pass.
- \"Another Miniature\". Ok. You can\'t be bothered, I can\'t be bothered. If you don\'t know what it is precisely, call it Harvey the Tank if you must. Sorry. Pet peeve.
- Third+ pic of the same mini in the same state of completion. Detail/side shots, green pics and before/after shots I get. You want to show the photo in best possible quality, and collages hurt that, I know. But I don\'t feel the need to vote on three different pics of the same \"4\".

...

Wow. That took a while. Awesome topic, made me really consider what actually goes through my noggin when clicking that vote button. Huh.