I think there is a trend with online reviews that if it isnt over 4.5 out of 5 the the product is seen to have something wrong with it. Also it's rare that you get to rate something with .5 decimal, but the results are aggregated that way so even if you considered something to be a 3.5 your choice is usually just 3 or 4.
The 10 point scale gives you that extra point in the middle so I think people are happy to use 9/10 when they are extremely satisfied and only use 10 when it is a cut above in quality so it's probably a better scale for differentiating quality.
I remember video games were almost always rated out of 100 in magazines in the 90s. Metacritic have kept that scale in terms of the way they show their aggregations of ratings.
3.5/5 means (7/2)/5 which is 7/10. So yeah. But it takes a lot of effort to think about it that way. It's better and easier to just say 7/10.
14/20 seems even worse somehow
Only 700,000,000,000 / 1,000,000,000,000? No thanks. Those 300 billion people must know something the other 700 billion don't.
Score!
I think there is a trend with online reviews that if it isnt over 4.5 out of 5 the the product is seen to have something wrong with it. Also it's rare that you get to rate something with .5 decimal, but the results are aggregated that way so even if you considered something to be a 3.5 your choice is usually just 3 or 4.
The 10 point scale gives you that extra point in the middle so I think people are happy to use 9/10 when they are extremely satisfied and only use 10 when it is a cut above in quality so it's probably a better scale for differentiating quality.
I remember video games were almost always rated out of 100 in magazines in the 90s. Metacritic have kept that scale in terms of the way they show their aggregations of ratings.
this is Hebrew to an average American mind