U2start.com | thoughts on boot ratings

i was curious to see how ppl feel generally about how the bootlegs are rated by various users.
ive downloaded a few shows where almost all reviews have the recording at 4.5-5 stars.
there are a handful of times where ive been utterly disappointed. i dont really want to mention specific shows out of respect for tapers doing the work i havent done.

i guess what im looking to see is if anyone else feels 4 stars and up are thrown around too loosely
i know the reviews are opinion, but they also serve as a guide so its a bit of a gray area i think

pesto

14 years

sorry, wrong place to post i guess. im still getting used to the way it goes here

germcevoy

14 years

the ratings are mostly based on the reviews of those who have downloaded them. Opinions rule. Everybody has different standards.

In the meantime, if you feel anything is incorrect then throw it in this topic : http://www.u2start.com/topic/494/

Remy

14 years

Moved it to Stuck In A Moment, no problem.

Well yes, people think too quick a recording is great. That's why our rating is often lower than the average sound quality rating of the reviews. But sometimes, Nice is an example, we lowered our rating due to the low average rating by users. It's often a difficult mix and indeed a grey area.

Difference is, we give ratings based on all other 1100 recordings.
Users give ratings based on their judgement after one listen, not in perspective.

pesto

14 years

Originally posted by Remy:Moved it to Stuck In A Moment, no problem.

Well yes, people think too quick a recording is great. That's why our rating is often lower than the average sound quality rating of the reviews. But sometimes, Nice is an example, we lowered our rating due to the low average rating by users. It's often a difficult mix and indeed a grey area.

Difference is, we give ratings based on all other 1100 recordings.
Users give ratings based on their judgement after one listen, not in perspective.

yeah, i agree and with the post above. when i first found the site (thank you again

) that after i downloaded a show, id be writing the review a few songs in to listening to it, then would hit a patch of songs were the bass faded or bono's voice got overpowered, ect.

totally understand it's opinion that rules, but at the same time, as i said before, it does serve as guide. but i suppose with bootlegs, its somewhat hit or miss no matter what, and even a rough guide is a million times better that picking one up blind off ebay or something

and as always,

to all the tapers/mixers ect. im just benefiting

gng007

14 years

Originally posted by Remy:Moved it to Stuck In A Moment, no problem.

Well yes, people think too quick a recording is great. That's why our rating is often lower than the average sound quality rating of the reviews. But sometimes, Nice is an example, we lowered our rating due to the low average rating by users. It's often a difficult mix and indeed a grey area.

Difference is, we give ratings based on all other 1100 recordings.
Users give ratings based on their judgement after one listen, not in perspective.

Remy, how do I distinguish between U2Starts' ratings and the users' ratings? All I see is a single rating. For example, I think 2 shows so far from this tour have a 5 star rating. Whose rating is that?

Remy

14 years

Originally posted by gng007:[..]

Remy, how do I distinguish between U2Starts' ratings and the users' ratings? All I see is a single rating. For example, I think 2 shows so far from this tour have a 5 star rating. Whose rating is that?

On the right side there's U2start's rating, and in the review block there's the users rating.
The crew member who adds the bootleg determines the rating, and sometimes together with other crew members. So it may be mine, or Risto's, or Gerard's.

Remy

14 years

Originally posted by pesto:[..]

yeah, i agree and with the post above. when i first found the site (thank you again ) that after i downloaded a show, id be writing the review a few songs in to listening to it, then would hit a patch of songs were the bass faded or bono's voice got overpowered, ect.

totally understand it's opinion that rules, but at the same time, as i said before, it does serve as guide. but i suppose with bootlegs, its somewhat hit or miss no matter what, and even a rough guide is a million times better that picking one up blind off ebay or something

and as always, to all the tapers/mixers ect. im just benefiting

Absolutely, it's just a guide. There's always a difference between the rating given by us and the real value. But it's never the case that when we give something 5 stars, that in real the bootleg is just 3 stars or something. We're never more than one star apart from reality

pesto

14 years

Originally posted by Remy:[..]

Absolutely, it's just a guide. There's always a difference between the rating given by us and the real value. But it's never the case that when we give something 5 stars, that in real the bootleg is just 3 stars or something. We're never more than one star apart from reality

that in itself is good to know
i always thought the overall boot rating was an average
thanks

Genaro92U2

14 years

i do not like how people are just rating a bootleg thats new or has a good performance a 5 on SOUND. it might be a misleader. i have myself am pretty honest about the sound but it seems people are rating too high just cuz they where at the show, w.e.

markp91

14 years

Originally posted by Genaro92U2:i do not like how people are just rating a bootleg thats new or has a good performance a 5 on SOUND. it might be a misleader. i have myself am pretty honest about the sound but it seems people are rating too high just cuz they where at the show, w.e.

Thats why you should judge the reviews on what people wrote