- Thread starter
- #101
I think that it varies greatly. We like to think linearly because it is easier to picture, but things does not end up that way. Besides what is a linear shave rating scale even? Mine nor anyone else's can probably be classified as an objective linear scale. Even a simple five step scale like 1,2,3,4,5 - (no shave, SAS, CCS, DFS, BBS) is not linear and we will have rating compression naturally when we improve our shaving skill and the great majority of our shaves are at the upper end. Then we may break up DFS and BBS in many more levels. Well now it is even less linear.This is getting intense. I love it.
I had a thought about rating compression after discussing some of my scores with a few individuals.
I'm currently grading my great shaves in the 9.0 range for closeness. Some have commented that my shaves fall in the 7.5 to 8.0 closeness range on @T Bone's scale.
This got me thinking about rating compression and headroom at the upper end of the scale. I'm wondering if some of us perceive rating steps (7, 8, 9) as being linear ones while others perceive them as being logarithmic.
For subjective assessments like comfort, whether people rate logarithmically may be a consideration. I seem to think logarithmically for comfort.
My statistical knowledge is primitive, and it's been decades since I've thought about this beyond basic concepts.
I'm just throwing it out there.
... Thom
Your comment regarding logarithmic scale made me chuckle. Maybe we should have ratings in dB. We can set the reference on SAS. dBSAS = 20 * log(<rating>/<SAS rating>) that ought to do it!
SAS = 1
CCS = 10
DFS = 100
BBS = 1000
Now we can have a lot of levels! Today I had a 572 shave rating -> 55.1 dBSAS