commit 979b1119f1665d1da7bc3ae84d8c3c4c5b85b0ed
parent 06b21ab793de17aaba715c59d2fc2e4c6b77a7b4
Author: Shimmy Xu <shimmy.xu@shimmy1996.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 12:28:28 -0500
Add translation and touch up for TIReD: A Personal Rating System
Diffstat:
3 files changed, 207 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/content/posts/2020-07-17-tired-a-personal-rating-system.en.md b/content/posts/2020-07-17-tired-a-personal-rating-system.en.md
@@ -5,14 +5,14 @@ slug = "tired-a-personal-rating-system"
draft = false
+++
-As the pandemic gives me a change to look through my backlog of movies, shows, and books (read: anime and manga), I started to consider establishing a personal rating system to ease up writing (hypothetical) reviews.
+As the pandemic gives me a chance to look through my backlog of movies, shows, and books (read: anime and manga), I started to consider establishing a personal rating system to ease up writing (hypothetical) reviews.
## Guiding Principles {#guiding-principles}
Typical rating scales feature 10 or more levels, which is in my opinion way too wide a range to choose from, not to mention those featuring a 100-point-scales. Even the most common 5-star system gets cumbersome fast as soon as we take half-stars into consideration. What exactly differentiates a 6 from a 7 or a 4.6 from a 5.1? Higher granularity could be useful in aggregated ratings, but not so much from an individual reviewer's perspective. I much prefer the approach [s1vote](http://s1vote.com/) took: give the users fewer but more distinctive levels to pick from.
-My anecdotal evidences show that most online ratings converge around the 70% mark, a rating just as safe and useless as [predicting a 40% success rate for anything](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/29/this-one-quick-trick-will-allow-you-to-become-a-star-forecaster/). In other words, the lower half of most rating scales are underutilized: how often would you rate something one-and-a-half-star instead of just one? Besides, more often than not, I read ratings and reviews to find out about good shows, not the bad ones. It should be sufficient to only focus on "the better half": why would I sit through the entirety of a bad show and take the effort to give it a rating anyways? Think there is no half-star in Michelin.
+My anecdotal evidences show that most online ratings converge around the 70% mark, a rating just as safe and useless as [predicting a 40% success rate for anything](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/29/this-one-quick-trick-will-allow-you-to-become-a-star-forecaster/). In other words, the lower half of most rating scales are underutilized: how often would you rate something one-and-a-half-star instead of just one? Besides, more often than not, I read ratings and reviews to find out about good shows, not the bad ones. It should be sufficient to only focus on "the better half": why would I sit through the entirety of a bad show and take the effort to give it a rating anyways? There is no -1 star in Michelin Guide, is there?
Summarizing the quality of anything with a single metric seems unfair. I want the rating system to be more expressive, capable of conveying the different aspects of a show that I find enjoyable. At the very minimum, an opinionated pick should be distinct from something with a more general appeal.
@@ -30,17 +30,18 @@ Enter the TIReD scale! The following uses anime/tv shows as the example here, bu
Tangible aspects of a show include visual style, animation, soundtrack, CG quality, special effect, etc. To put it simply, how physically well-made a show is. Starting from a score of 0, a show would be scored a
-- +1 if the show is overall attractive to watch and either has very few shortcoming (perfection) or utilizes unique ideas/techniques to great effects (genius);
+- +1 if the show is overall attractive to watch and either has consistent high quality with very few shortcoming (perfection) or utilizes unique ideas/techniques to great effects (ingenious);
- +2 if its physical quality/way of expression alone would be sufficient reason to watch the show, even if it gets a 0 in all other categories.
-Intangible aspects include story, character building, plot pacing, popular culture reference, etc. This quality should be relatively medium independent, i.e. I would enjoy a faithful recreation of the story in other art forms at least just as much. Criteria for scoring is similar except for remakes/adaptations with an clear intent to follow the original and when I have seen/read the source material: scoring would be based on the source material's intangible score adjusted downwards by 1 point, with at most extra 1 point adjustment based on quality/difficulty/effect of the remake/adaptation with in the range of 0-2. For instance, a mediocre retelling of a +2 story should only be awarded at most a +1. Remakes and adaptations probably have an easier starting point than original contents, so I wanted to adjust for "how good the show could have been", provide an answer to "should I still see this if I've seen the original", and pick out the "watch this instead of the original" shows.
+Intangible aspects include story, character building, plot pacing, cultural reference, etc. This quality should be relatively medium independent, i.e. I would enjoy a faithful recreation of the story in other art forms at least just as much. Criteria for scoring is similar except for remakes/adaptations with an clear intent to follow the original and when I have seen/read the source material: scoring would be based on the source material's intangible score adjusted downwards by 1 point, with at most extra 1 point adjustment based on quality/difficulty/effect of the remake/adaptation with in the range of 0-2. For instance, a mediocre retelling of a +2 story should only be awarded at most a +1. Remakes and adaptations probably have an easier starting point than original contents, so I wanted to adjust for "how good the show could have been", provide an answer to "should I still see this if I've seen the original", and pick out the "watch this instead of the original" or "transcended and elevated the original story" shows.
-Revisit-ability, as the name indicates, represents whether I would want to revisit/rewatch the show later. This correlates more with my own taste or nostalgia. Think cult classics but with a one-person following. However, in event of remakes and adaptations, this point should generally only be rewarded to the best version of the work in my point of view.
+Revisit-ability, as the name indicates, represents whether I would want to revisit/rewatch the show later. This correlates more with my own taste or nostalgia: is this something that I would gladly jump into in an leisure afternoon. Longer shows tend to suffer a bit by this metric, so I would take into account of especially memorable segments/episodes. However, in event of remakes and adaptations, this point should generally only be rewarded to the best version of the work in my point of view.
Discretionary point should be awarded sparingly and only when a show doesn't already achieve full scores in all other categories, making the possible maximum score 5 instead of 6. This is used as an adjustment for shows that I feel the current rating system doesn't do it justice. Common situations where this applies include but are not limited to:
- categorical superiority: best of its kind;
-- quality in spite of subjective limitations, especially for older shows or those with a tight budget.
+- a tight coupling between tangible and intangible aspects of the work: it simply won't be the same without one another;
+- quality in spite of objective limitations, especially for older shows or those with a tight budget.
## Format {#format}
@@ -50,23 +51,33 @@ A TIReD rating is recorded as `X=T/I/Re[+D]`. For instance:
- a show scoring 1 in tangible, 2 in intangible, 0 in revisit-ability, and 0 in discretionary would be recorded as `3=1/2/0`;
- a show scoring 1 in tangible, 0 in intangible, 0 in revisit-ability, and 1 in discretionary would be recorded as `2=1/0/0+1`.
+Shows that I abandoned halfway, meaning I won't be able to give a rating, will be marked as `DNF` (did not finish).
+
## Self Q&A {#self-q-and-a}
Some fragments of thoughts that I came across when designing TIReD.
-**Q:** How should tangible points for books be awarded?
+Q: How should tangible points for books be awarded?
+
+A: I'd say it's how good the writing is at face value, i.e. is it "literature" worthy. While I not really confident in my ability of identifying great works, but a +2 should at least be something better than _Harry Potter_.
+
+Q: How should world settings built up in previous/related works affect the rating?
+
+A: World building actually fits into both revisit-ability (if the system/world is interesting and makes me want to read more about it) and intangible quality (whether the character actions are justified).
+
+Q: How was the rule for discretionary point determined?
-**A:** I'd say it's how good the writing is at face value, i.e. is it "literature" worthy. While I not really confident in my ability of identifying great works, but at least something like _Harry Potter_ is not +2 material for sure.
+A: The best shows should always get full score regardless of the exact scale, so awarding them discretionary points is meaningless. However, there are seemingly not-so-impressive works that really show the passion/devotion/love/good faith of the production team/author and shows whose existence alone is a boon for its fans. I want to express my enjoyment in a way that still allows me to assess the tangible and intangible aspects of a show on an absolute scale, as any further complication can be taken account of as discretionary point.
-**Q:** How should world settings built up in previous/related works affect the rating?
+Q: What happens to ratings for a remake before and after you watch the original?
-**A:** World building actually fits into both revisit-ability (if the system/world is interesting and makes me want to read more about it) and intangible quality (whether the characters are memorable).
+A: I'll adjust score for the remake now that I have experienced the original.
-**Q:** Should discretionary point be awarded only to works that achieve full mark in at least one of the first three categories?
+Q: A lot of details could be lost in translation. How to deal with translated works?
-**A:** Probably not, some seemingly not-so-impressive works really show the passion/devotion/love/good faith of the production team. There are shows whose existence alone is a boon for its fans. Just elaborate the reason, no need to pick a specific category for this extra point.
+A: For now I will treat these the same way as remakes: adjust the rating if someday I came across the original.
-**Q**: How did you come up with the name "TIReD" (and name for the categories)?
+Q: How did you come up with the name "TIReD" (and name for the categories)?
-**A**: The first category to have a concrete name is revisit-ability. From there on it's mostly just playing around with words and initials. I almost settled on "TIRD", but ended up deciding against it thanks to [Urban Dictionary](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tird). Besides, not everything is sh\*t. 😜
+A: The first category to have a concrete name is revisit-ability. From there on it's mostly just playing around with words and initials. I almost settled on "TIRD" thanks to [Urban Dictionary](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tird). Well, not everything is sh\*t. 😜
diff --git a/content/posts/2020-07-17-tired-a-personal-rating-system.zh.md b/content/posts/2020-07-17-tired-a-personal-rating-system.zh.md
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
++++
+title = "TIReD：我的评分系统"
+date = 2020-07-17T21:30:00-05:00
+slug = "tired-a-personal-rating-system"
+draft = false
++++
+
+疫情给了我更多时间来回顾想看的电影、节目和书籍，所以我考虑建立一套自己的评分系统，以简化写（如果有的话）评论的过程。
+
+
+## 指导原则 {#指导原则}
+
+一般的评分标准具有10个或更多级别。这个选择范围在我看来太大了，更不用说那些采用百分制的评分系统了。即使是最常见的五颗星系统也会在引入半颗星后变得繁琐。6分与7分或4.6分与5.1分间究竟有什么区别？较高的精细度在汇总大量评分中可能会有用，但从单个评论者的角度却不是这样。我更喜欢[S1漫区投票](http://s1vote.com/)所采用的方法：让评论者在更少但区别更明显的几个级别中作出选择。
+
+我的身边统计学表明，大多数在线评分都聚集在70％周围，这是个与[预测任何事物的成功率都为40％](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/29/this-one-quick-trick)一样没用的分数。换句话说，大多数评分系统的下半部分都没有得到充分利用：我想不到任何我会给出一星半而非一星评价的情况。此外，我查看评分和评论的目的在于了解高质量的作品，而不是差的那些。一个评分系统仅关注“更好的那一半”就足够了：为什么我在忍受完一个糟糕的节目后，还要给它一个评分？《米其林指南》可没有负一颗星，不是吗？
+
+单纯地用一个分数来概括任何东西的质量都不怎么公平。我想有一个更具表现力的评分系统，以传达我对所喜欢作品不同方面的看法。至少一个恰好对上我的波长的作品应该和一个更具大众吸引力的作品得到不一样的评价。
+
+
+## 评分方法 {#评分方法}
+
+隆重推出TIReD评分系统！以下主要以动画/电视节目为例，但这种方法中的许多内容也适用于其他艺术形式。每个作品会在以下项目中进行评分，分数之和构成最终评分：
+
+| 项目 | 范围 |
+|------------------------------------|----|
+| 有形（<strong>T</strong>angible） | 0-2 |
+| 无形（<strong>I</strong>ntangible） | 0-2 |
+| 回味（<strong>Re</strong>visit-ability） | 0-1 |
+| 酌情加分（<strong>D</strong>iscretionary） | 0-1 |
+
+作品的有形方面包括视觉风格、动画、配乐、CG质量、特殊效果等等。简单来说，作品的制作是否精良。以0分为起点，评分标准为：
+
+- 1分：如果作品总体上吸引人，且维持了稳定的高质量、缺点极少（完美）或利用独特的想法、技术产生了非常棒的效果（高妙）；
+- 2分：作品采取的表现手法本身就足以作为观看的理由，即使作品在其他项目中得分全部为0分。
+
+作品的无形方面包括故事本身、角色塑造、剧情节奏、文化背景参考等等。这些特质应该一定程度上独立于作品的具体表现介质而存在：我至少可以同样地享受基于其他艺术形式对作品的忠实再现。评分标准与之前类似，不过对于明显遵循原作内容的翻拍或改编作品，且我看过原作时，评分标准会有所调整：评分将以原作在无形方面的得分-1为起点，视翻拍、改编的质量、难度、效果作出最多1分的调整后舍去超出0-2分的部分。例如，对+2故事的平庸重述最多只能授予+1。翻拍和改编的起点往往比原创容易一些，所以我想以“作品本来可以有多好”为基础作出调整，对“如果我看过原作，还应该看吗”这类问题作出回应，并方便挑选出那些“不必看原作”或“已经超越了原作”的作品。
+
+回味，顾名思义，衡量我是否想重温这一作品。这更多地与我自己的口味或怀旧之情相关：这应该是我会在一个无所事事的午后重新观看的作品。较长的作品在这一指标上会处于比较不利的地位，所以我会将特别令人难忘的片段也计算在内。在翻拍和改编的情况下，这一项目的得分大多数时候都应该仅授与我认为最好的版本。
+
+酌情加分不应该轻易使用，且对已经在其他三个项目中获得满分的作品无效，这使得最高总得分为5分而不是6分。设置这一项目的主要目的是对于我认为作品优点没能很好地被现有评分标准体现出来时作出调整。适用的常见情况包括但不限于：
+
+- 类型天花板：同类最佳；
+- 作品的有形和无形方面有着紧密的联系，缺一不可；
+- 超越客观条件限制的质量，尤其是对于年代久远或预算紧张的作品。
+
+
+## 记录格式 {#记录格式}
+
+TIReD评分记录的格式为`X=T/I/Re[+D]`。例如：
+
+- 一个有形得分为1分、无形得分为2分、回味得分为0分、酌情加分为0分的作品会被记录为`3=1/2/0`；
+- 一个有形得分为1分、无形得分为0分、回味得分为0分、酌情加分为1分的作品会被记录为`2=1/0/0+1`。
+
+对于我半途放弃看下去的作品（意味着我无法给出评分），会被标记为`DNF`（did not finish）。
+
+
+## 自我问答 {#自我问答}
+
+我在制定TIReD时的一些想法碎片。
+
+问：应该评定书籍的有形得分？
+
+答：我觉得应该就是看行文本身的质量，例如其能否称为“文学作品”。虽然我对自己鉴定优秀作品的能力并不那么有信心，但是至少获得2分的作品应当比《哈利波特》要好。
+
+问：在其他相关作品中建立的世界设定如何影响评分？
+
+答：世界设定会影响回味得分（系统或世界是否有趣、让我想进一步了解）和无形得分（人物背景是否合乎其行为）。
+
+问：酌情加分的规则是如何确定的？
+
+答：不论分数范围多大，最好的作品始终会获得满分，所以给它们再加分没有什么意义。另一方面，有一些看似不起眼的作品却充满了制作团队、作者的热爱和诚意，还有一些作品存在本身就足以称为爱好者的福音。我想在保证较为客观地评判作品的有形和无形方面得分的前提下表达自己的欣赏，而酌情加分提供了一个途径。
+
+问：在看原作前后，改编或翻拍作品的评分会如何变化？
+
+答：在看过原作后，我将调整改编或翻拍作品的分数。
+
+问：翻译常常会漏掉一些细节，如何处理翻译作品？
+
+答：处理方式与翻拍相同，在看过原作后评分会被调整。
+
+问：“TIReD”（以及分项得分名称）是怎么确定的？
+
+答：第一个有具体名称的项目是回味（revisit-ability），后面的大部分时间都花在玩单词排列和缩写上。由于[Urban Dictionary](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tird)，我差点将这套评分标准命名为“TIRD”。不过，至少不是所有的作品都是\*。😜
diff --git a/org/2020.org b/org/2020.org
@@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ DigitalOcean上DNS记录的记录ID也可以通过[[https://developers.digitaloc
*** 繁星若尘
回到IndieWeb的问题上：越来越黑的域名系统和链接失效使基于HTTP的URI的稳定性难以保证。但是，如果我们使用IPFS或IPNS地址作为URI呢？简直完美！我们通过由数学而非FBI警告所控制的地址获得了（理论上可以永久持续下去的）对静态网页的稳定分布式访问。消除拥有服务器的需要还降低了拥有个人网站的门槛。HTTP协议已经存在了29年，而IPFS仅存在了5年。我不知道IPFS在接下来的24年中是否还会继续存在，但是如果是的话，我希望我们会看到一个或许更加混乱，但更加健壮、充满活力、多彩的在线世界。
-* TODO TIReD: A Personal Rating System
+* DONE TIReD: A Personal Rating System
:PROPERTIES:
:EXPORT_HUGO_SLUG: tired-a-personal-rating-system
:END:
@@ -460,12 +460,12 @@ CLOSED: [2020-07-17 Fri 21:30]
:EXPORT_TITLE: TIReD: A Personal Rating System
:END:
-As the pandemic gives me a change to look through my backlog of movies, shows, and books (read: anime and manga), I started to consider establishing a personal rating system to ease up writing (hypothetical) reviews.
+As the pandemic gives me a chance to look through my backlog of movies, shows, and books (read: anime and manga), I started to consider establishing a personal rating system to ease up writing (hypothetical) reviews.
*** Guiding Principles
Typical rating scales feature 10 or more levels, which is in my opinion way too wide a range to choose from, not to mention those featuring a 100-point-scales. Even the most common 5-star system gets cumbersome fast as soon as we take half-stars into consideration. What exactly differentiates a 6 from a 7 or a 4.6 from a 5.1? Higher granularity could be useful in aggregated ratings, but not so much from an individual reviewer's perspective. I much prefer the approach [[http://s1vote.com/][s1vote]] took: give the users fewer but more distinctive levels to pick from.
-My anecdotal evidences show that most online ratings converge around the 70% mark, a rating just as safe and useless as [[https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/29/this-one-quick-trick-will-allow-you-to-become-a-star-forecaster/][predicting a 40% success rate for anything]]. In other words, the lower half of most rating scales are underutilized: how often would you rate something one-and-a-half-star instead of just one? Besides, more often than not, I read ratings and reviews to find out about good shows, not the bad ones. It should be sufficient to only focus on "the better half": why would I sit through the entirety of a bad show and take the effort to give it a rating anyways? Think there is no half-star in Michelin.
+My anecdotal evidences show that most online ratings converge around the 70% mark, a rating just as safe and useless as [[https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/29/this-one-quick-trick-will-allow-you-to-become-a-star-forecaster/][predicting a 40% success rate for anything]]. In other words, the lower half of most rating scales are underutilized: how often would you rate something one-and-a-half-star instead of just one? Besides, more often than not, I read ratings and reviews to find out about good shows, not the bad ones. It should be sufficient to only focus on "the better half": why would I sit through the entirety of a bad show and take the effort to give it a rating anyways? There is no -1 star in Michelin Guide, is there?
Summarizing the quality of anything with a single metric seems unfair. I want the rating system to be more expressive, capable of conveying the different aspects of a show that I find enjoyable. At the very minimum, an opinionated pick should be distinct from something with a more general appeal.
@@ -480,37 +480,121 @@ Enter the TIReD scale! The following uses anime/tv shows as the example here, bu
| <strong>D</strong>iscretionary | 0-1 |
Tangible aspects of a show include visual style, animation, soundtrack, CG quality, special effect, etc. To put it simply, how physically well-made a show is. Starting from a score of 0, a show would be scored a
-- +1 if the show is overall attractive to watch and either has very few shortcoming (perfection) or utilizes unique ideas/techniques to great effects (genius);
+- +1 if the show is overall attractive to watch and either has consistent high quality with very few shortcoming (perfection) or utilizes unique ideas/techniques to great effects (ingenious);
- +2 if its physical quality/way of expression alone would be sufficient reason to watch the show, even if it gets a 0 in all other categories.
-Intangible aspects include story, character building, plot pacing, popular culture reference, etc. This quality should be relatively medium independent, i.e. I would enjoy a faithful recreation of the story in other art forms at least just as much. Criteria for scoring is similar except for remakes/adaptations with an clear intent to follow the original and when I have seen/read the source material: scoring would be based on the source material's intangible score adjusted downwards by 1 point, with at most extra 1 point adjustment based on quality/difficulty/effect of the remake/adaptation with in the range of 0-2. For instance, a mediocre retelling of a +2 story should only be awarded at most a +1. Remakes and adaptations probably have an easier starting point than original contents, so I wanted to adjust for "how good the show could have been", provide an answer to "should I still see this if I've seen the original", and pick out the "watch this instead of the original" shows.
+Intangible aspects include story, character building, plot pacing, cultural reference, etc. This quality should be relatively medium independent, i.e. I would enjoy a faithful recreation of the story in other art forms at least just as much. Criteria for scoring is similar except for remakes/adaptations with an clear intent to follow the original and when I have seen/read the source material: scoring would be based on the source material's intangible score adjusted downwards by 1 point, with at most extra 1 point adjustment based on quality/difficulty/effect of the remake/adaptation with in the range of 0-2. For instance, a mediocre retelling of a +2 story should only be awarded at most a +1. Remakes and adaptations probably have an easier starting point than original contents, so I wanted to adjust for "how good the show could have been", provide an answer to "should I still see this if I've seen the original", and pick out the "watch this instead of the original" or "transcended and elevated the original story" shows.
-Revisit-ability, as the name indicates, represents whether I would want to revisit/rewatch the show later. This correlates more with my own taste or nostalgia. Think cult classics but with a one-person following. However, in event of remakes and adaptations, this point should generally only be rewarded to the best version of the work in my point of view.
+Revisit-ability, as the name indicates, represents whether I would want to revisit/rewatch the show later. This correlates more with my own taste or nostalgia: is this something that I would gladly jump into in an leisure afternoon. Longer shows tend to suffer a bit by this metric, so I would take into account of especially memorable segments/episodes. However, in event of remakes and adaptations, this point should generally only be rewarded to the best version of the work in my point of view.
Discretionary point should be awarded sparingly and only when a show doesn't already achieve full scores in all other categories, making the possible maximum score 5 instead of 6. This is used as an adjustment for shows that I feel the current rating system doesn't do it justice. Common situations where this applies include but are not limited to:
- categorical superiority: best of its kind;
-- quality in spite of subjective limitations, especially for older shows or those with a tight budget.
+- a tight coupling between tangible and intangible aspects of the work: it simply won't be the same without one another;
+- quality in spite of objective limitations, especially for older shows or those with a tight budget.
*** Format
A TIReD rating is recorded as =X=T/I/Re[+D]=. For instance:
- a show scoring 1 in tangible, 2 in intangible, 0 in revisit-ability, and 0 in discretionary would be recorded as =3=1/2/0=;
- a show scoring 1 in tangible, 0 in intangible, 0 in revisit-ability, and 1 in discretionary would be recorded as =2=1/0/0+1=.
+Shows that I abandoned halfway, meaning I won't be able to give a rating, will be marked as =DNF= (did not finish).
+
*** Self Q&A
Some fragments of thoughts that I came across when designing TIReD.
-*Q:* How should tangible points for books be awarded?
+Q: How should tangible points for books be awarded?
+
+A: I'd say it's how good the writing is at face value, i.e. is it "literature" worthy. While I not really confident in my ability of identifying great works, but a +2 should at least be something better than /Harry Potter/.
+
+Q: How should world settings built up in previous/related works affect the rating?
+
+A: World building actually fits into both revisit-ability (if the system/world is interesting and makes me want to read more about it) and intangible quality (whether the character actions are justified).
+
+Q: How was the rule for discretionary point determined?
+
+A: The best shows should always get full score regardless of the exact scale, so awarding them discretionary points is meaningless. However, there are seemingly not-so-impressive works that really show the passion/devotion/love/good faith of the production team/author and shows whose existence alone is a boon for its fans. I want to express my enjoyment in a way that still allows me to assess the tangible and intangible aspects of a show on an absolute scale, as any further complication can be taken account of as discretionary point.
+
+Q: What happens to ratings for a remake before and after you watch the original?
+
+A: I'll adjust score for the remake now that I have experienced the original.
+
+Q: A lot of details could be lost in translation. How to deal with translated works?
+
+A: For now I will treat these the same way as remakes: adjust the rating if someday I came across the original.
+
+Q: How did you come up with the name "TIReD" (and name for the categories)?
+
+A: The first category to have a concrete name is revisit-ability. From there on it's mostly just playing around with words and initials. I almost settled on "TIRD" thanks to [[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tird][Urban Dictionary]]. Well, not everything is sh*t. 😜
+
+** DONE zh
+CLOSED: [2020-07-17 Fri 21:30]
+:PROPERTIES:
+:EXPORT_FILE_NAME: 2020-07-17-tired-a-personal-rating-system.zh.md
+:EXPORT_TITLE: TIReD：我的评分系统
+:END:
+
+疫情给了我更多时间来回顾想看的电影、节目和书籍，所以我考虑建立一套自己的评分系统，以简化写（如果有的话）评论的过程。
+
+*** 指导原则
+一般的评分标准具有10个或更多级别。这个选择范围在我看来太大了，更不用说那些采用百分制的评分系统了。即使是最常见的五颗星系统也会在引入半颗星后变得繁琐。6分与7分或4.6分与5.1分间究竟有什么区别？较高的精细度在汇总大量评分中可能会有用，但从单个评论者的角度却不是这样。我更喜欢[[http://s1vote.com/][S1漫区投票]]所采用的方法：让评论者在更少但区别更明显的几个级别中作出选择。
+
+我的身边统计学表明，大多数在线评分都聚集在70％周围，这是个与[[https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/29/this-one-quick-trick][预测任何事物的成功率都为40％]]一样没用的分数。换句话说，大多数评分系统的下半部分都没有得到充分利用：我想不到任何我会给出一星半而非一星评价的情况。此外，我查看评分和评论的目的在于了解高质量的作品，而不是差的那些。一个评分系统仅关注“更好的那一半”就足够了：为什么我在忍受完一个糟糕的节目后，还要给它一个评分？《米其林指南》可没有负一颗星，不是吗？
+
+单纯地用一个分数来概括任何东西的质量都不怎么公平。我想有一个更具表现力的评分系统，以传达我对所喜欢作品不同方面的看法。至少一个恰好对上我的波长的作品应该和一个更具大众吸引力的作品得到不一样的评价。
+
+*** 评分方法
+隆重推出TIReD评分系统！以下主要以动画/电视节目为例，但这种方法中的许多内容也适用于其他艺术形式。每个作品会在以下项目中进行评分，分数之和构成最终评分：
+
+| 项目 | 范围 |
+|--------------------------------------------+------|
+| 有形（<strong>T</strong>angible） | 0-2 |
+| 无形（<strong>I</strong>ntangible） | 0-2 |
+| 回味（<strong>Re</strong>visit-ability） | 0-1 |
+| 酌情加分（<strong>D</strong>iscretionary） | 0-1 |
+
+作品的有形方面包括视觉风格、动画、配乐、CG质量、特殊效果等等。简单来说，作品的制作是否精良。以0分为起点，评分标准为：
+- 1分：如果作品总体上吸引人，且维持了稳定的高质量、缺点极少（完美）或利用独特的想法、技术产生了非常棒的效果（高妙）；
+- 2分：作品采取的表现手法本身就足以作为观看的理由，即使作品在其他项目中得分全部为0分。
+
+作品的无形方面包括故事本身、角色塑造、剧情节奏、文化背景参考等等。这些特质应该一定程度上独立于作品的具体表现介质而存在：我至少可以同样地享受基于其他艺术形式对作品的忠实再现。评分标准与之前类似，不过对于明显遵循原作内容的翻拍或改编作品，且我看过原作时，评分标准会有所调整：评分将以原作在无形方面的得分-1为起点，视翻拍、改编的质量、难度、效果作出最多1分的调整后舍去超出0-2分的部分。例如，对+2故事的平庸重述最多只能授予+1。翻拍和改编的起点往往比原创容易一些，所以我想以“作品本来可以有多好”为基础作出调整，对“如果我看过原作，还应该看吗”这类问题作出回应，并方便挑选出那些“不必看原作”或“已经超越了原作”的作品。
+
+回味，顾名思义，衡量我是否想重温这一作品。这更多地与我自己的口味或怀旧之情相关：这应该是我会在一个无所事事的午后重新观看的作品。较长的作品在这一指标上会处于比较不利的地位，所以我会将特别令人难忘的片段也计算在内。在翻拍和改编的情况下，这一项目的得分大多数时候都应该仅授与我认为最好的版本。
+
+酌情加分不应该轻易使用，且对已经在其他三个项目中获得满分的作品无效，这使得最高总得分为5分而不是6分。设置这一项目的主要目的是对于我认为作品优点没能很好地被现有评分标准体现出来时作出调整。适用的常见情况包括但不限于：
+- 类型天花板：同类最佳；
+- 作品的有形和无形方面有着紧密的联系，缺一不可；
+- 超越客观条件限制的质量，尤其是对于年代久远或预算紧张的作品。
+
+*** 记录格式
+TIReD评分记录的格式为=X=T/I/Re[+D]=。例如：
+- 一个有形得分为1分、无形得分为2分、回味得分为0分、酌情加分为0分的作品会被记录为=3=1/2/0=；
+- 一个有形得分为1分、无形得分为0分、回味得分为0分、酌情加分为1分的作品会被记录为=2=1/0/0+1=。
+
+对于我半途放弃看下去的作品（意味着我无法给出评分），会被标记为=DNF=（did not finish）。
+
+*** 自我问答
+我在制定TIReD时的一些想法碎片。
+
+问：应该评定书籍的有形得分？
+
+答：我觉得应该就是看行文本身的质量，例如其能否称为“文学作品”。虽然我对自己鉴定优秀作品的能力并不那么有信心，但是至少获得2分的作品应当比《哈利波特》要好。
+
+问：在其他相关作品中建立的世界设定如何影响评分？
+
+答：世界设定会影响回味得分（系统或世界是否有趣、让我想进一步了解）和无形得分（人物背景是否合乎其行为）。
+
+问：酌情加分的规则是如何确定的？
-*A:* I'd say it's how good the writing is at face value, i.e. is it "literature" worthy. While I not really confident in my ability of identifying great works, but at least something like /Harry Potter/ is not +2 material for sure.
+答：不论分数范围多大，最好的作品始终会获得满分，所以给它们再加分没有什么意义。另一方面，有一些看似不起眼的作品却充满了制作团队、作者的热爱和诚意，还有一些作品存在本身就足以称为爱好者的福音。我想在保证较为客观地评判作品的有形和无形方面得分的前提下表达自己的欣赏，而酌情加分提供了一个途径。
-*Q:* How should world settings built up in previous/related works affect the rating?
+问：在看原作前后，改编或翻拍作品的评分会如何变化？
-*A:* World building actually fits into both revisit-ability (if the system/world is interesting and makes me want to read more about it) and intangible quality (whether the characters are memorable).
+答：在看过原作后，我将调整改编或翻拍作品的分数。
-*Q:* Should discretionary point be awarded only to works that achieve full mark in at least one of the first three categories?
+问：翻译常常会漏掉一些细节，如何处理翻译作品？
-*A:* Probably not, some seemingly not-so-impressive works really show the passion/devotion/love/good faith of the production team. There are shows whose existence alone is a boon for its fans. Just elaborate the reason, no need to pick a specific category for this extra point.
+答：处理方式与翻拍相同，在看过原作后评分会被调整。
-*Q*: How did you come up with the name "TIReD" (and name for the categories)?
+问：“TIReD”（以及分项得分名称）是怎么确定的？
-*A*: The first category to have a concrete name is revisit-ability. From there on it's mostly just playing around with words and initials. I almost settled on "TIRD", but ended up deciding against it thanks to [[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tird][Urban Dictionary]]. Besides, not everything is sh*t. 😜
+答：第一个有具体名称的项目是回味（revisit-ability），后面的大部分时间都花在玩单词排列和缩写上。由于[[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tird][Urban Dictionary]]，我差点将这套评分标准命名为“TIRD”。不过，至少不是所有的作品都是*。😜