With the new year and the eventual move over to the new site, I figure now is a good time to migrate toward the ten-point rating system we will be using. The percentage scores will accordingly be scaled a little lower than what I have given in the past. Just as a sort of general guide:
6.0 - 6.5: not bad / pretty good
7.0 - 7.5: good / very good (I anticipate most of my reviews falling in this range)
8.0 - 8.5: great / excellent (probably most of my top 30 for the year and a few of my honorable mentions-- an average of about one release per week or so)
9.0 - 9.5: rarefied air (a handful of albums a year, say the top 5 or thereabouts)
10: reserved for all-time classics (or making a pretentious statement)
Anything I perceive as being less than a 6.0, I would probably just toss in the discard pile and not bother wasting my time reviewing it.
I feel like this sort of puts me more in line with the scores of other publications on Metacritic and such. Naturally, even with the new system, everyone will have their own scoring methodology, but this is how I see mine playing out.
I agree with that scale. especially with your statement about being less than a 6.0.
My only feeling about it is that I'm used to the 7.0 range being a "C" album, which although average, is something I wouldn't ever want.
Your scale fits about what Pitchfork is. Which I can get behind entirely.