>
Everything should be rated on a scale of 0 to 1, and you can use as many decimal places as you want. >

this guy computers >

I rate this post a: 1.357 out of 42.645 >

Too generous >

I rate this post e out of pi stars. >

Don't be so irrational >

I'm just trying to be normal. >

Ok, I get your point, but there are a lot of big critics that have a set "out of X" rating system. Changing that daily/weekly would definitly confuse their readers.
(In case you soley speak of private conversations, I agree with you) >

Totally, for fixed rating systems where you're comparing lots of different things on the same scale, you should absolutely be using the same base denominator. However, if your system requires that level of specificity, the whole thing should use the larger denominator.
In your hypothetical, I agree that the critic should use the same base scale for all reviews, but if you want the nuance to differentiate a 7.0/10 and a 7.1/10, you should just use an X/100 scale for everything. >

But 6.8/10 is the same difference as 68/100, what's ur problem man? I like the integers and decimals. All numbers can get along in harmony. I rate stuff like 8/10 and potato/10. Yes, words work in harmony too! >

Are you afraid of decimals, or something? >

This guy decimally gets it >

I'm gonna give this thread a .468 out of .5.  Very high quality. >

I find the "... out 5" stupid just say 10
10 is 100% ÷ 10 =10 so if u said sommat was 6 outta 10 then to me 60 % of it was gd to 40%not so gd   where as out of 5 its just wxtra time consuming nd more of pain in ass >

Bro. Whachoo tryna say >

Sadly, a lot of people aren’t smart enough to know that 4/5 is more than 7/10 so they keep the denominator consistent. That way they only have to compare the numerator. >

This is also the problem ^^ >

I completely agree with the idea that a denominator in a rating system should indicate its level of specificity. I think using integers instead of decimals makes more sense and is easier to understand. It's important to have a clear and simple rating system so everyone can understand it. >

Bad bot >

There is the programmer that hates working with doubles lol >

3.5 out of 5 is reasonably intuitive: it's like 35 out of 50. Same goes for 6.8/10.
Actually it sounds better when you say 3.5/5 because you are dealing with small numbers. Three-and-a-half-out-of-five hurts less my brain and ears than thirty-five-out-of-one-hundred. >

7 out of 10 works just fine though >

I don't always need nuance; I think the accuracy of a rating depends strongly on the situation, and the accreditation/alignment of the observer. Sometimes all I need to know is if someone is very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied- as it depends on what is being rated and by what criteria. I see no problem with giving one aspect of a restaurant a 1/2 star when I'm judging it based on 5 categories such as location, value, service, appearance, quality. 
If adjudication is contingent on detailed hard definitions, I'd find a /10 or /100 appropriate. If it's a subjective opinion, /5 is fine. >

This is truly a 5/7 post. Also I never thought of it before but I agree