Chrono....I can call torture "alternate interrogation techniques", it doesn't change what tortue is. We can stop saying 10 is "perfect" but that won't change anything as far as how a map is reviewed or the perceived perception of what a 10 is. Impossibility of "perfection" is irrelevant to this entire thread anyway and if it must be discussed I'm sure a thread in general chat can be opened and this can be philosophized from there. Also I don't hear any complaints about giving out more 1's....you know no 1's or 0's have ever been given out either. That would imply a completely broken map devoid of any redeeming factor. Basically the opposite of perfect. So this perceived unfairness is always one way because people get the impression they are being short changed because of a forced asymptote on scores. This score "buffering" works on the other end to, for people that might of had a really, really, bad map, they would be getting scores around 3 to 4 instead of 1 which according to our rating system is below average to bad. (not horrible or broken). So if the complaint is the completely superficial outlook that we say our scores be out of 3 to 9 based on the majority of scores given to this point, what happens if I want to give a map a 9.5? What happens if I want to give a map a 2.7? A decimal system of scoring means the highest and lowest scores might be hard to get directly but we can get very close. It might seem unfair to use the word "limits" but essentially they are and that is important they stay that way. In the end if people really care about the philosophical nature of getting a "10/10" or a 0/1 than this is not the place to discuss it.
This is why I've considered expanding the score range to 11 where 11 is simply unattainable thanks to the fact that perfection is unattainable. But Sarge (and Tusk therein) is right. Based on every review ever done on Forge Hub the assertion one would make is that a 9 is the closest to perfect you can get in a map since not a single 10 has ever been handed out, ever.
But it does change the perception. It's not wrong to call a 10 "perfect" or just "the best of the best", but there is a difference, and it does have to be addressed, that's all. RH already has their stance established, so it's fine. I'd also say it is relevant if it influences how new members might choose to approach their reviews. Knowing how attainable a 10 was, not to mention how other scores relate to the whole scale, would definitely alter my style.
Final scores are taken as the average of the sum of each section. Knowing that a 10 is attainable or not attainable is inconsequential to the review process. I as well as all other review hub members have given 10's in specific sections. Giving a 10 is every section is theoretically possible, albeit very difficult. That is all I've been trying to say and even though my own hubber's are contradicting me Like I said, it's a perception without an understandable application. People should know our reviews are fractional. Therefore they should know that scores close to 10 are possible if not 10 itself. I'm not seeing how that affects people actions regarding getting a map reviewed or wanting to review maps themselves as there is no solution to a philosophical problem. Organite making an 11 wouldn't solve anything because, as you know, our scores are based on point weightings that add up to 100. While that system can and (should) be improved over time to fine tune the amount of points given, a system out of 11 would seriously mess up how we review things.
If a 10 is possible, don't call it perfect. It's inconsequential anyway, so it won't matter, right? Also, I'm TG already, so I'm not doing both.
um ok...I'm not sure if this is a stick in the mud situation or something. I can't control what other members of Review Hub say or public perception of what a 10 is. I can stop saying perfect sure...It's just a word.
I use the term "perfect" very lightly. This stems from my acting experience, where a play without any screw ups is commonly called a "perfect" play. I'm agreeing with Pac here, even though the terminology might seem contradictory. Just for clarification.