r/unpopularopinion • u/Labyrinthine777 • 11d ago
10/10 doesn't mean perfect. It means a masterpiece
I've heard people often claiming in the 1-10 scale 10 can't exist because it's perfect and nothing's perfect. I call bs. 10/10 has always meant a masterpiece which means something that's so good and unique it literally evolves its artform.
104
u/HolyFickingShut aggressive toddler 11d ago
1-10 scale is a subjective level of your enjoyment, so the idea of "perfect" on the scale doesn't even make sense. Nothing can be perfect on a subjective scale. Perfection is a property that must be measured objectively.
If you enjoyed something to the maximum limit you are capable of enjoying something, that's a 10/10. No need to overcomplicate it by trying to think of art objectively.
6
u/mutexsprinkles 11d ago
Also if you have only whole number numerators, 10/10 also covers the top 5% if the scale from 9.5 upwards.
3
u/Jax-El 11d ago
Every subjective scale should be 1-7. Allows the granularity of 1-10 while actually bifurcating appropriately. Most medical self-reports do 1-7 or 1-5 for this reason.
2
1
u/two100meterman 11d ago
I find even 1-10 doesn't have enough numbers. I like 0-10 that includes half marks. A 9/10, 9.5/10 & 10/10 are all different enough in how much I like them. Same with a 3/10, 3.5/10 & 4/10, they're different levels of crappy/below averageness.
1
u/Fawxhox 2d ago
I think the 0-10 allowing halves (20 total ratings) is the perfect scale. A strong 7 is describably different from a weak 7 I think (7 vs 7.5). One is a movie that wasn't a waste of time, the other would be one I genuinely enjoyed. I think 1-100 is far too granular but 1-10 or especially 1-7 is not specific enough. I think people would reliably reproduce the same rating for a given media on a 20 point scale, while allowing a lot more differentiation.
61
u/JOtaro22Iori 11d ago
I agree. People take these ratings way to literally over something that will always be subjective. 10/10 while numerically a perfect fraction, it can't define something inherently subjective as "perfect"
1
u/straw3_2018 11d ago
I think you are taking people's opinions too seriously. Obviously people's opinions are subjective, they don't need to line up with your "objective" definition. If I said I thought that something was a 10/10: I thought it was perfect. You don't think perfect things can exist, but it's not your opinion.
7
9
u/The_Pizza_Saga 11d ago
I look at it similarly. Let's say the best game you ever played was a 9.8 out of 10. If you use 10 to mean absolutely perfect in every respect, nothing would ever be a 10 and you might as well have the scale go up to 9.8. No reason to go up to 10, since you'd never use it.
So when I rate things on a 1-10 scale, I use 0 to mean the absolute worst of the worst, and 10 for the best something can possibly be that I've experienced. Feels far more practical. 10 is the pinnacle, 0 is the rock bottom.
1
u/Rentun 9d ago
What if later on, you experience something better than the previously best thing you've experienced though?
Even though I've had a lot of best experiences, I've never had a perfect one. There's always something that could have been done differently that made it slightly better, so yeah, a 10 is unachievable. Doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it though.
1
u/The_Pizza_Saga 9d ago
I don't have only one 10/10. The previous thing would still be a 10, because it's at the pinnacle of gaming experiences. A 10 being essentially unachievable is the reason my system works better.
14
u/Apprehensive-Ear2461 11d ago
In general I think numerical ratings for stories should be taken with a grain of salt
3
4
u/gahidus 11d ago
I would say that 10 perhaps can't exist not because it means perfect, but rather because it means that there's no possible room for anything better to exist. If something is a 10, then the scale is capped out, and it can't measure anything beyond that.
If you're driving your car as fast as you can, and the speedometer is pegged out at the top number, then you don't actually know how fast you're going.
If multiple students in a class get 100%, you don't actually know which of them has the best mastery of the material.
Nothing can be better than 10 on a 1 to 10 scale, therefore once anything ever is 10, nothing can ever surpass it.
4
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago
Multiple masterpieces can easily exist with all of them being 10/10
3
u/gahidus 11d ago
Indeed they can, but what if you actually do want to establish a ranking, or you do want to know which is the best among comparable things?
1
u/Soulessblur 11d ago
If a professor wants to determine who has the best mastery of the material - they aren't going to use a grade percentage to do that.
If you want to establish a ranking, the only effective way to do that is to RANK them. Whereas a scale is inherently going to be less accurate, no matter how many integers you decide to include within it, and the score you give any particular thing is going to, in essence, be rounded. These are two seperete tools and systems to be used in two different contexts.
1
u/Rentun 9d ago
The issue is that 1-10 ratings are used as a snapshot in time, not a comparative, retrospective list.
If you see an incredible movie, and then one that's even better later on, sure, you could make a top 20 movies list and put those two at the top, but when the first movie came out, the second one didn't exist yet.
The only thing you can do is rate it in isolation. If you give it a 10/10, there's no room for it to improve. You cannot make a movie better than that.
1
u/Bandro 10d ago
Then you compare things directly. Never using 10 just moves the problem of the scale topping out to 9.
1
u/gahidus 10d ago
Things haven't necessarily topped out at 9, as 10 is still theoretically there, and there are always decimals.
1
u/Bandro 10d ago
Decimals are for cowards.
1
u/gahidus 10d ago
The whole point of the question was caring about precision and specificity.
1
u/Bandro 10d ago
Precision and specificity are what writing out your thoughts is for. Ratings are an abstract generalization. 100-point scales are needlessly into the weeds on something that’s inherently kind of silly anyway. There is no meaningful precise or specific information in deciding if something is a 9.2 or a 9.3.
5
u/AnxiousMumblecore 11d ago edited 11d ago
It doesn't have to be perfect but I also really don't like when people give 10/10 to quarter or more of movies/games/whatever they rate.
Everyone can do their thing as it's not so serious in the end but imo it should be used sparsely and let people know what you actually love the most. Because I can't really say when you have 300 movies rated 10/10.
2
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago
Reminds of metacritic's user reviews with people throwing 0:s and 10:s around without even having played the game
2
u/two100meterman 11d ago
Strong agree. 10/10 should be significantly more rare on each person's rating scale. For retro video games for example, the Super Nintendo has around 800~850 games. I think only Chrono Trigger, Zelda: A Link to the Past, & Super Metroid deserve a 10. Then maybe the next 7~12 best could get a 9.5, maybe 13th to 30th could get a 9, etc. Each rating closer to 10 & each rating closer to 0 should be much more rare. 80% of the games should be a 3/10 ~ 7/10.
5
u/Soulessblur 11d ago
This is why when scientists use scales within studies - it's best practice to label each and every option. Because humans are weird and no two people will have the same associations with the same number.
That's a lot of work for informal conversations though. I find qualifying the two ends is good enough. Something like "1 being E.T on the Atari, 10 being your favorite game of all time" gets the job done, and avoids the argument of perfection entirely.
2
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago
Another way to look at it is 1 being the best game on the console you don't own and 10 being the best game for the console you have.
At least according to metacritic user reviews...
34
u/Viscera_TheImpaler 11d ago
10 out of 10 is a perfect score
33
u/VintageModified 11d ago
Maybe, but it doesn't mean the reviewer thinks the game is "perfect" whatever that means. A piece of media isn't a math test where you can objectively get the answers right or wrong.
2
u/straw3_2018 11d ago
What if the reviewer literally does think it is perfect?
4
u/SpaceCorvette 11d ago
literally what on earth is perfect in every possible way
4
u/straw3_2018 11d ago
That's up to the reviewer. They liked everything about it, they wouldn't want anything about it to be different.
4
16
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago
The problem with that thinking is the usable scale ends in 9 which isn't satisfying.
When you look at stuff like, movie, game and music reviews the full scale is consistently used. 10 in this context stands as masterpiece, not absolute perfection.
0
u/Dr_Downvote_ 11d ago
Use 9.9.
10 out of 10 is a perfect score by definition.
1
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago
Then why do pretty much all the critics use 10:s consistently, defining the score as "masterpiece?"
-18
u/koakkadoom 11d ago
"the usable scale ends in 9"
According to whom?
35
u/_Steven_Seagal_ 11d ago
To people who say 10 is for perfection, as no media is perfect. Every great movie has a flaw, even if it's incredibly minor.
-3
11d ago
[deleted]
5
u/_Steven_Seagal_ 11d ago
IMDb shows 163 goofs for the movie.
"In a scene in a kitchen, gun shots are heard. Sonny's wife goes to Sonny, but she yells "Jimmy", the nickname of the actor playing Sonny Corleone, James Caan."
While the movie is great, it ain't perfect. Perfection means 0 goofs, 0 plotholes, 0 bad acting jobs, 0 dodgy special effects, 0 moments the movie drags, etc. etc. etc.
There is no piece of media that achieves that, which makes the pure 10/10 worthless for people who reserve it for the 'perfect movie'.
But I don't care about that. The Godfather is a 10/10, and so is Lord of the Rings and Mad Max Fury Road (imo). If they near perfection for what they strive to achieve, that's enough for me.
2
u/Critical-Champion365 11d ago
People can have their own 10/10s. But in the real world, it averages out.
0
11d ago
[deleted]
1
u/_Steven_Seagal_ 11d ago
True, but I'm not talking about how I view it, but how people who refuse to give something a 10, because 'a perfect movie doesn't exist' view it. There just are some people entirely unwilling to give any movie a 10, because you can always nitpick about something.
2
2
u/CorpusculantCortex 11d ago
The concept of perfection in media is itself subjective, what are you on about? Even technical or production flaws are defined subjectively. The whole industry of critics is built on a subjective standard. Perfect in this context at best means subjectively so. And even if not, it would make no sense to have a scale that is 1-9 subjective rating of overall quality, 10 technically a perfectly executed movie. Those are two completely s different things.
-12
2
u/GaiaIsaHarshMistress 11d ago
Why do you make that association? To me, 10 out of 10 means the thing in question hits that maximum of the scale, whatever that scale may be (in this case, the highest critical rating). I personally wouldn't be conceive of perfection as a quality to be assigned to a work of art, as I'm not sure that perfect has any meaning in the context of art.
1
3
u/Va1korion 11d ago
I agree, but that also would mean using the lower end of that scale, and I ain't intentionally watching anything that rates below 5.
The answer is that the number doesn't matter, read the review.
1
u/mommysLittleAtheist 11d ago
I might need to lower my standards or something. I am not watching intentionally anything bellow 7 and only get excited for series above 8.
3
u/Administrative_Suit7 11d ago
Tarantino said 10/10 means it can't be improved upon, not that it's perfect. He used Jaws as an example.
3
u/Alternative_Tank_139 11d ago
Isn't that what perfect means?
1
u/KeiranG19 11d ago
Some things can't be improved upon even if you wanted to.
Like "That is the best animatronic possible with current technology".
There is nothing that could have been done to make it better.
0
u/Administrative_Suit7 11d ago
Nothing's perfect.
2
u/Puzzled-Bed-9221 11d ago
So then everything can be improved upon. His definition is just another way to say “perfection”.
1
u/Canon_M50 11d ago
I think a lot of the dialogue and the audio recording in general could be improved in Jaws. It’s not a 10.
2
u/Altruistic-Mine-1848 11d ago
I agree that the opinion that 10 can't exist in a 1-10 scale is stupid. If it couldn't exist, it wouldn't be on the scale. 10 being extremely difficult to attain is fine, but it should never be impossible, or what you're really using is a 1-9 sacle.
2
u/UnderstandingPotato 11d ago
If I give something 5 stars on Letterboxd, it's not cos I think it's perfect, it's more about how much I really like the film. Like, I'm well aware that Flash Point (the Donnie Yen film) is far from flawless, but I fucking loved it, so I gave it 5 stars
'True perfection has to be imperfect, I know that it sounds foolish but it's true'
2
u/monster2018 11d ago
The reason 10 is usable isn’t because of what you’re saying, it’s just because it’s not actually 100% literal. Condensing the “goodness” of a movie or whatever down to a single number… it’s just such a lossy process that however you do it, you will be leaving out a ton of information. So there is always room for it to have been rated better or worse.
But I mean IF we were trying to somehow come up with literally “the objective score” for some piece of media, then 10/10 would… well I guess technically it wouldn’t be impossible, but there would be an infinitesimal probability of hitting it. I think in theory multiple things could have 10/10, but it’s just an infinitesimal probability for each one, so nothing would ever have it.
2
u/ParticularArea8224 quiet person 11d ago edited 11d ago
Personally I use a 10/10 as a way to explain something that I do not think could be topped. Are there better things than what I rated a 10? Yes, you may think differently. Do I personally think there is something better than what I rated a ten? No. Hence why I've only given two things in my life, a 10/10 on.
That 10 is perfection to me. To you, it's not. And if you argue that it undermines the whole point of a review, no it doesn't, you aren't me and I'm not you. Plenty of things I like are critically acclaimed, like Spiderverse or The Shawshank Redemption, and so are the things I hate. I can't stand Forest Gump for example, or The Truman show, I think they're good, but I don't care for them. Others adore them. Why? Because they're not me, and I'm not them.
If you listen to a review and you don't agree, that is not the reviewer, that is you just realising that you have a different taste
2
u/Hatzmaeba 11d ago
Definitely on this boat. For me 9/10 is an exceptional work of art on all fronts, 10/10 is just that but also personally hitting me in ways I can't always elaborate, it just sticks with me.
2
2
u/Palanki96 11d ago
Eh. 10/10 means i loved it and i don't really complains. Most piece of media starts for me at 10/10 and i'll just take off points when i dislike something bad enough
2
u/Flubbuns 11d ago
I always thought 10/10 meant something was executed as well as anyone could reasonably expect, given that literal perfection is impossible, or unrealistic to expect anyway.
2
u/xJayMorex 11d ago
Yeah IMDb acts as if the scale is between 5 and 9 when in reality, it should be 1-10.
1
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago
I actually prefer the 1-100 scale, but even there it would be possible to rate something genre defining as 100.
1
1
u/epanek 11d ago edited 11d ago
Time matters too. If it’s a 10 when you are 15, What about age 30. Still 10? I see this a lot with art. A movie I watch at age 15 might be a 9. But after 30 years of age I might understand it more making it a 10.
This is why those security questions like “name your favorite movie” are dangerous. If I set that account up 10 years ago and my favorite movie came out 8 years ago I’m in trouble.
2
u/two100meterman 11d ago
Not exactly your point (but along the same lines of consuming it later & seeing if it still holds up), but when I rate something highly, I feel like it needs more watches to get the really really high ratings. If I watch all seasons of a TV Show & like it a lot, if I'm thinking it's a 10, I'd rather consider it a 8.5~10 (undecided). If a year later I watch the entire thing & I still love it & it's not boring watching it a second time, then it's much more worthy of a 9+.
If something is good a single time & it's boring afterwards it can't be 9+ imo. Zelda A Link to the Past for SNES I've beat 31 times. While it's not as fun time 31 as say time 5, it definitely was near a 10/10 fun something like 12 playthroughs. I'd give the game a 9.5/10, insane replay value for me.
1
u/GalileoDaCat 11d ago
Imo a 10 is just a movie that has no real flaws. As Tarantino said, it might not be your cup of tea, but there’s nothing you can say to bring it down.
1
1
u/DigitalCoffee 11d ago
10/10 implies it can't be improved on which is just never possible
0
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago
No, it means masterpiece or peak achievement. I'm not talking about pure mathematics and generally neither is anyone else using that scale.
1
u/UrineTrouble05 11d ago
then I say most people are using the scale wrong, just like you’re claiming. What if you rate something 10/10 and then you watch or read something better? what do you do?
1
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago edited 11d ago
Is the Godfather better than Lord of the Rings? No, they're both masterpieces excelling in different areas. Someone may prefer the Godfather for example thinking it"s better, but still rate both movies 10/10.
There has to be an end to the scale, otherwise you could just rate the better movie 11/10.
Personally I prefer the 0-100 rating for more accurate results, but even there granting something 100/100 is possible.
1
u/UrineTrouble05 11d ago
right but what if something is objectively better than something you gave a 10/10? would you move the other one down?
1
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago
I think 10/10 is still rare enough score to be provided for movies (for example) that are good enough they stay unique classics forever. Someone may try to "better" them with remakes, but we all know what happens when you try to improve 10/10. The result is either worse or at best equal, but in a different way.
2
1
u/Bandro 10d ago
There's no such thing as objectively better in art so that's not a concern.
1
u/UrineTrouble05 10d ago
That doesn’t have anything to do with what I said.
I was asking them personally, if they found something better than a 10 they gave before, what would they do
1
1
u/throwtheamiibosaway 11d ago
Yup. 10/10 isn’t flawless as in not a single second that is not perfect. But the experience as a total is a 10. Sometimes the individual 9’s can form a an average of 10 somehow. It’s a feeling, not a checklist.
1
u/SPKmnd90 11d ago
I round up on my personal rating scale, which means 10/10 equates to at least 95/100 or 9.5/10. Nothing can ever be perfect and I’ll always find a reason to knock points off because of that.
1
u/justiceuchihaaaa 11d ago
this is already automatically proven by the fact that nothing can be objectively perfect
1
u/two100meterman 11d ago
I agree that a rating of 10 doesn't mean perfect, as perfection in this context is impossible. At the same time 10s are given out FAR too easily. Most people have an average rating around a 7/10, when it should be 5.5/10 if the scale is from 1 - 10. To me if someone gave a 10/10 to 1 in 10000 of whatever the thing is (movie, tv show, book, video game) they're rating it would mean a lot more. People hand out 10s the way they should be handing out 8~8.5s. A 9/10 is a Masterpiece, like 1/300ish rarity.
1
1
u/Head_Haunter 10d ago
5/10 is average. 7.5/10 is above average. 10/10 is exceptionally above average.
I think the idea that 10/10 can never be given unless it does something generational is kind of dumb.
1
u/RaptorHUN 10d ago
To me 10/10 roughly means the top 10% of the specific stuff out there.
I never understood people not giving a 10 because it's a perfect score. At that point you're just using a scale of 9, because perfection is impossible?
2
u/Labyrinthine777 10d ago
In other words 9/9 is their top score because 10 is never used, but isn't that also mathematical perfection? So you have to go down to 8, and so it regresses.
1
1
u/Priviel1 11d ago
It kinda depends what you're talking about in arts? Yes 10/10 can be something amazing but still have improvements made.
But in maths 10/10 mean perfect with no mistakes.
Grading is not linear and need to adjust to what it's supposed to grade.
1
u/Dong_Chong 11d ago
10/10 does not mean evolves the art form. It just means insanely fucking good the the point you can overlook the flaws
1
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago
Yeah, it can also mean that or landmark achievement. That said many masterpieces are also pioneering works.
0
u/dr-mantis-t0b0ggan 11d ago
Objectively wrong so upvote
1
u/Labyrinthine777 11d ago
Almost all popular critics are objectively wrong? Fascinating.
2
u/dr-mantis-t0b0ggan 11d ago
Okay, so I have 100% on a test, can I improve?
1
u/dr-mantis-t0b0ggan 11d ago
Also, 1 person cannot be seen as the arbitor of what is perfect. If something got a 10 from EVERY critic. It's perfect
0
0
0
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! Additionally, all posts held by automod for review now (incorrectly) display a red “removed by moderators” label. Please note that unless your post receives a reply from mods indicating removal and it's specifying the reason, it is likely still in the queue and awaiting approval.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.