I'm with you about crazy capes : here's a Chris Bachalo page of Batman I got years ago!

Well, I can't speak about your intent, but the quoted text reads this way: I have more experience in the interwoven fields of writing and statistics, so you should take it from me, when I tell you that quantification isn't appropriate here. You didn't address any specific point.

As for me thinking that my opinion is better than yours, I don't know you well enough to go down that road. Certainly, saying that Conway was better than O'Neil doesn't bode well, but it could be a fluke.

Why you won't be able to debate a number is particularly baffling. I'd say that the difference between ratings expressed in numbers is already quantified, and thus, self-evident. I can't know, on the other hand, how much better one adjective is, compared to another.

But since your 6.7 out of 10 is completely different in meaning to someone else's 6.7 out of 10, the meaning of 6.7 is just as unclear and indistinct as an adjective. Numbers only have absolute values as a counting device/sum, when used as a rating they are just as subjective as words and have multiple meanings that are not apparent in just the number, especially when no context is given with the number. 6.7 out of 10 in the American education system as a grade/rating of a student's work is barely passing and likely rudimentary or barely competent work, but only because everyone in the educational system uses the same scale and understands the meaning of it. If your grades out of 10 were the same standard as everyone else rating comics, then there might be some inherent and universal applicability to them, but you are the only one using that scale, so they are just numbers bereft of meaning to any one but you.

Numbers in math may have universal meaning, but when used as a rating they become a value judgement of the person using them, which means they now have subjective meaning and lose their universal quality. They are no different in that case than a random adjective whose real meaning is only known to the person using it. Even if you have a rubric that you are using to generate those numbers, it is still subjective because you are deciding what is in the rubric and you are deciding how each element is weighted, and you are deciding how to apply that to each comic. All of which is subjective, not objective and cannot generate objective results. Also, if you are the only one doing the reviews, you are generating the "data" not accumulating it. Rating comics is not a science and scientific methods don't necessarily work because there is no universal accepted scale of measurement used. The numbers you come up with using your system are essentially useless as data because hey do not correspond to a system that is universally accepted and used by everyone rating comics. The numbers don't make your system better or worse than any one else reviewing comics, it's just one more subjective scale thrown out there in a non-scientific field. No better or worse than the 5 star system used by CBR reviews or Shaxper's letter grade system used in his review threads. It's your system, it works for you, that's great. But the meaning you think is in those numbers doesn't communicate to anyone else really without you expanding on and articulating the meaning in a concise, clear, and complete manner because it is a subjective scale relevant only to you. Context is everything. As I said 6 out of 10 in the American education scale is barely competent, but 6 out of 10 votes in the American electoral system is a landside victory and an overwhelmingly positive response, 6.0 on the CGC scale is a mid-grade book, 6 hits out of 10 at bats in baseball is an impossible pace that has never been done over an entire season, but a goalie making 6 saves out of 10 shots is terrible and likely not playing at a professional level, etc. etc. all of which are 6, but none of which have a universal inherent meaning without context, because the numbers aren't math/science here, as I said they are value judgments and hence simply a functioning as just another adjective.

But then we had this discussion before when you first introduced your rating system on these boards and you pretty much did the same thing then as you are doing now-dismissing any criticism or questions of/about your system, so I am not sure there is much point to discussing it.

-M

Could you please sum it up here? If I find it relevant i'll investigate further on your site. It's just that at first glance, it seems just as subjective as anyone's opinion, because I don't know you, I don't know what you seek in comics. Many seek them out for very different and specific reasons at polar opposite poles.
Or let's do it like that : I'll give you one specific comic I know, and you can show what numbers come out of it according to your grill. That would help understand it much better.

To stay within the recent halloween theme, let's take a widly available and recognized comic, like Sandman's first issue by Neil Gaiman and Sam Kieth from 1989 DC.

Are those really bad or are they not just run of the mill monthly 80ies lazy and boring superhero pages. I sure would run away from those comics, but then again, my inclination already is elsewhere as I never really enjoyed 70ies/80ies superhero team books, appart from the Bwahaha JLA and some New Mutants for Sienkiewicz (I'm not even sure I managed to actually read those).

Something wonky about the way her breasts hang from her body. Almost like it's beginning to float up.