Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

5 Stars

  1. May 21, 2010 #1
    Does anyone know why it is the goal to achieve 5 stars in something? Why not 3 or 6 or 9 or 358? I personally would have started the trend at getting 6 stars, being that it's a perfect number and all...
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 21, 2010 #2
    This is just a complete guess, but I'd imagine it's because it allows for a simple breakdown of what the stars mean.

    1: hate
    2: dislike
    3: neutral
    4: like
    5: love

    Six stars wouldn't allow a "middle," nor would any even number. Three starts wouldn't give the level of detail required to distinguish between something that's pretty good and something that's great. Seven stars would be overly complicated.
     
  4. May 21, 2010 #3
    Fingers.
     
  5. May 21, 2010 #4
    Ah, that makes sense, Jack. I thought about fingers, but 10 is the base of our # system, so I wasn't sure why we would define perfection/love as half of what's possible.
     
  6. May 21, 2010 #5
    Because there's 5 stars in the sky.
     
  7. May 21, 2010 #6

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Maybe it's because you can immediately see the rank at a glance. That is, it's easy to distinguish 2 stars from 3, and 3 stars from 4.
     
  8. May 21, 2010 #7
    some people can't count to ten---


    and it would take up too much space on the page, and too long to count to get right when there's a bunch to go through
     
  9. May 21, 2010 #8

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I agree with lisab. Most people can't enumerate groups much above 7 at a glance unless they are cued with patterns like pips on playing cards. 5 or any fraction thereof is easy to enumerate at a glance.
     
  10. May 21, 2010 #9
    I find it extremely frustrating myself. When we go out we like to eat in 5-star restaurants and stay at 5-star hotels. However, when you get used to it, it pales. You end up wishing for a 6-star restaurant. Boy, I'll bet you'd get some tasty chow there.
     
  11. May 21, 2010 #10
    I think the most reasonable explanation is someone arbitrarily chose 5 as the maximum rank of something, then other people followed suit for other rankings. The next most reasonable is jack's explanation, combined with Lisa's.
     
  12. May 21, 2010 #11
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EbVKWCpNFhY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param [Broken] name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EbVKWCpNFhY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  13. May 21, 2010 #12

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    "Our's goes to eleven."
     
  14. May 21, 2010 #13

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    aaaahahaha...one of my favorite movies scenes of all time, and both rewebster and Chi were all over it...ahahha...:rofl:
     
  15. May 21, 2010 #14

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    My Fender Tweed Deluxe went to 12. Now that was a screaming little amp. Those little tweeds are featured on lots of recordings, and all the knobs on them went to 12.
     
  16. May 21, 2010 #15
    my thoughts went to George Bush and Sarah Palin after watching that scene
     
  17. May 21, 2010 #16
    :rofl: Thanks rewebster, I had never seen that before. The final "these go to eleven" made me lol out loud.
     
  18. May 21, 2010 #17
    Imagine that there is some hierarchy system in which it takes, on average, the same length in time to progress to the next level as it did for all of the previous levels. Let [itex]t_{n}[/itex] denote the (average) time to complete the [itex]n[/itex]-th level. The unit of time we use is such that [itex]t_{1}[/itex] = 1. Also, let us denote with:
    [tex]
    T_{n} = \sum_{k = 1}^{n}{t_{k}}
    [/tex]
    the total time necessary to complete the first [itex]n[/itex] steps. What my condition states mathematically is:
    [tex]
    t_{n + 1} = T_{n}, \; n \ge 1
    [/tex]
    Using the (obvious) recursive relation:
    [tex]
    t_{n + 1} = T_{n+1} - T_{n}, \; n \ge 1
    [/tex]
    we get the following recursion for the total times:
    [tex]
    T_{n + 1} = 2 T_{n}, \; n \ge 1
    [/tex]
    This defines a geometric sequence with a quotient 2 and the first element is [itex]T_{1} = t_{1} = 1[/itex]. Therefore, we may write:
    [tex]
    T_{n} = 2^{n - 1}, \; n \ge 1
    [/tex]

    Thus, for completing 5 levels it would take 16 units and for completing 6 levels 32 units. If the available timespan is in this interval, it would make sense to define 5 levels.
     
  19. May 21, 2010 #18

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Then you would *love* the movie it's from: This Is Spinal Tap!
     
  20. May 21, 2010 #19

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Gotta love the Stonehenge bit!
     
  21. May 21, 2010 #20

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    But if we truly live in a perfect world, spending time on something can only make it worse. So the rating system should start at 5 and go on to infinity
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook