Why does AMG have no 3.5 stars?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

4.5 stars are common, 2.5 stars are much less common, and I think I've only seen one 1.5 stars ever. But absolutely no 3.5. I've even viewed the source to see if my computer was just not loading the image correctly. Nope, the AMG just skips over that image entirely. Ned, Sean C., or someone else on staff care to explain this one?

― Vinnie, Thursday, 24 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The 3.5-star rating is reserved specifically for limited edition release, and the release must also be posthumour which is why it doesn't appear too often.

― Sean Carruthers, Thursday, 24 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Posthumous, that is. Seriously, er, I have no clue. I've wondered that myself, from time to time. It reminds me of the Steven Wright routine about a phone without a 7.

― Sean Carruthers, Thursday, 24 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

No no, posthumour makes much more sense.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 24 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It does, at that.

― Sean Carruthers, Thursday, 24 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Good question! Our star ratings are based on a numeric scale.

2 = 1 star
3 = 1.5 stars
4 = 2 stars
5 = 2.5 stars
6 = 3 stars
7 = 4 stars
8 = 4.5 stars
9 = 5 stars

Personally, I have a major problem with this. The reasons are pretty obvious. I've been told the issue might be remedied at some point. My fingers are crossed.

― Andy K, Thursday, 24 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Half stars look dumb. A five pointed shape just isn't meant to be cut in half. Last time I checked, the AMG print books didn't cut stars in half.

― Curt, Thursday, 24 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

NEW QUESTION, prompted by another friend of mine: Why does AMG online have no designation for artists from this new decade? All artists that formed in 2000 and 2001 apparently were "active in the 90s". Is it some bureaucratic thing where people can't decide whether it should be the 00's or the 2000's, or something like that?

― Sean Carruthers, Friday, 1 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Many artists have been assigned the distinction that they formed/performed in the first decade of this century -- the '00s or whatever you wanna call 'em. However, we have to make a complete pass through over half a million artists before this is reflected on the site.

― Andy K, Friday, 1 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.