Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was stuck between putting this here, in the modeling section, or in DAKKA Discussions , but I settled on here, since it is miniature related.
*this is meant as an opinion thread. These opinions are how I personally view the subject. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being bare plastic or a REALLY bad paintjob, and 10 being a Golden Demon winning paintjob. Same with model scale, 1 is a pile of sprues, and a 10 is a Golden Demon potential

Anywho, Im a follower on DAKKAfacebook, and so see the pretty awesome images they post up frequently. Now Ive had this little problem for years, but lately it seems to just hit me in the face a lot lately since I see it everyday on my Facebook. Now what Im talking about is how incredibly mixed up people get with the ratings system. Personally, I think its pretty easy to understand, 2 columns, one for the actual paintjob and the other for the overall miniature. To me, this is a no brainer, paintjob, miniature, and thats it. Ive seen minis that had badass painting jobs but were horribly stock (meaning its the same mini you get in its respective box set or sprue. No changes to the mini, it is painted as is) so for this Id give the mini itself a 5, because nothing has changed, sometimes if the base is rather nice, Ill give the model itself a 6. A perfect example is this

Painted by IDICBeer

The paintjob is really, nice, so personally Id give it a solid 8, its crisp, the blends are seemless, it just looks nice overall. The model however is stock, but the base is done, its not crazy (sometimes that takes away from the score if its too OTT) but in this case, I think it actually adds to the mini, so the model would get a 6. BUT, the paintjob has a 9, which is fine, this is all relative to each person that is scoring it. My problem is, is the model itself has a score of 8.89, so lets say a 9. This is where I get annoyed by this, people very obviously are far to influenced by how nice the paintjob is. If the rating system was a 1 column system, then that would be fine, as you roll the paint AND the model into the score itself. But here on DAKKA, the paintjob was already scored, so you have to look at the model.
No matter how nicely painted the model is, the second column is for the MODEL, meaning conversions and base. This is NOT in the 9's area for model. A good example for a model that is, all by itself a 9 would be....

Painted/converted by Wazzoo2000

Now I think he is a pretty good painter, but his work, personally are 7's to 8's but his conversion works are on their worst days high 8's to 9's, without much thinking. See the difference of the models score? Wazzoo's deserves to be near 9, or 9, where as the Trygon, again a very nicely painted model, looks rather bland next to a REAL potential of a 9.

And example of weird scores would be this.

Painted by Sergent-Major

His scores are Paintjob Rating: 8.71 and Coolness Rating: 9.24. Now looking at this squad, obviously it is pretty mighty, overall this squad looks pretty badass, but again, are the scores REALLY what this unit deserves? a Painting rating of nearly a 9? A 9 is something that could win a GD contest, heres a few winners



Now compare. Again, Im not knocking Sergent-Major, because I personally think he did a fantastic job on this squad, and I would personally give it a high 7. 7 is VERY respectable. 4-5 is table top quality, 6 is above table top, your showing skill and doing a few tricks. 7 is Your really getting good and it is showing. 8-9 is top badass in the paint world. I dont ever give a 10, because nothing can be perfect.





So what are your opinions on this matter? Am I the ONLY person that thinks this way? Am I nuts, for being as anal about this, as people calling magazines clips? It just drives me crazy, because it seems like people just throw out 9s and 10s like its candy, and I personally dont think its remotely fair for either painters that HAVE that skill, or the person getting the 9 or 10, because it can give them the false thought that they are that good. Now I know that sounds a bit harsh, but I use that as a motivator, I know Im not a fantastic painter, I think Im decent to good, but I can definitely improve, and I think that knowing Im not THAT awesome is not only a bit humbling, but also a push to keep trying to improve.

Ideas? Thoughts? Questions? Death threats??

I stopped caring after two different angles of the same miniature I had put up got ratings ranging from 4 to near (some above) 7. On BOTH coolness and painting. Same figure, just different angles. I've posted on CMON as well and after lukewarm ratings to say the least (much more work on my model, 'bout same paintjob as "competing" model, mine got less rating) I'm just tired of public opinion.

Crudely put, and I've wanted to add this as my sig, but haven't.... Opinions are like human rectums, everyone has one, and everyone thinks that everyone else's stinks.

Modeling skill is often overlooked, slap some paint onto a bought forgeworld model and it's cooler than something someone spent a hundred hours building from scratch, making every little decision about every detail.

Here's my model in question... yeah modeling isn't super awesome, and the paintjob is tabletop.... but 4 as far as ratings go?

KingCracker,

I agree with all you've said. I went looking for some information about the 1-10 scales and couldn't find anything. Based on the fact I couldn't find any information about the scales, I've had to make some assumptions, so bear that in mind...

The 1-10 scale that is used appears to be an ordinal scale, meaning 10 is better than 9 is better than 8, etc. With an ordinal scale, you can use it to say that one thing is better than another, but not by how much. For example, you can't say something that scores 8 is twice as good as something that scores 4.

With scalar data you can. For example, length is scalar, so we can say with certainty that 4" is twice as long as 2".

The point is, with ordinal measures, you can't perform a lot of familiar mathematical operations and have a sensible interpretation at the end. For example, if I rate a model's painting as 8, and you give it 4, it is complete gibberish to say that it averages to 6 - you cannot average ordinal data and have it make sense. What you can say, is stuff like 48% of polled people scored, the model at 5+, 15% gave it a 1, and so on.

So while I agree with you that there appears to be no standards as to the meaning of different point scores, the information is then combined in meaningless ways to provide even less useful information - we even go to 2 decimal places of useless information

[Edit: BTW, I love people posting on the gallery - very inspirational - but the scoring part doesn't add any value]

I agree with you on a lot of the points you made. I must admit I am one who gives out higher scores when I see something painted really nicely.

When I am scoring I am not looking at "Coolness" so much as modeling but just the style and color choices. I think If I looked at if the way you are I would probably give out a lot lower scores for Coolness.

Johnno - lol Yea, I have a couple minis in my gallery that suffer the EXACT same fate. One of my highest rated minis is in the uppers 7's and like you, Ive the exact same model, but from a different angle, and its 4's. How the fudge does that work?

Snapshot - I dont think you really understood what my point was. My point is, people see an awesome paintjob, and so they give the model a really high rating, ON TOP of the paintjob. I stated (briefly) that its still someones opinion as far as how nice things looks and are done, but they are blinded by either an awesome paintjob, or an incredible conversion. IE Awesome paint means awesome model, when that is simply not true. And vice versa, Ive seen people that have done just jaw dropping conversions from a pile of junk, but they arnt the best painters, and STILL get a really high paintjob rating just because the conversion was way awesome.


Uncool Villian - I can see that, and like I said, people interpret things differently, I personally think the coolness is for the model/conversions, since the paintjob is already covered

Yeah it's odd sometimes. But, the way it seems to be set up it's not all that surprising. There's not really a guideline there and you just vote whatever. This also means rarely some guy will vote his own work 10/10 and for a while it will float up high as any new votes show up and begin to bring it back around to where it probably should be.

I used to vote a lot here, but I stopped because of this kinda thing.

I'd argue that the OP's idea of what the rating scales should entail simply differs from the norm here on dakka. Paintjob Rating is pretty self explanatory. HOWEVER, assigning a coolness factor is relative to the viewer.

Some people might love scratch builds or custom conversions. Yet, most voters on dakka just like rare or new models... Heck, half of the time even if a commonly found model is presented in a new way that is good enough. Bottom line is rating the "coolness" of a model is going to be different for everyone. For me its a combination of a number of factors:

1.) Painting
2.) Customization/Modeling
3.) Display
4.) Fluff

You also have to account for the idiots who just vote 1 or 10 arbitrarily. CMON has tons of that going on.

Another problem is that some people have unrealistic ideas of how good their own works are.

I am 100% proud of the work I currently do, and I would rate it at 7-8 at best. But to me, the difference between a 6 and a 7 is huge.

I tend not to comment on models that I'd vote lower than a 5 as it hasn't gone well for me in the past(people either think I'm being an elitist ass, or they are over praising mediocre work).

For my baseline, I'd consider this a 5 if it was properly based:



This would be a 4:



I'd consider this a 7:

 KingCracker wrote:

Snapshot - I dont think you really understood what my point was. My point is, people see an awesome paintjob, and so they give the model a really high rating, ON TOP of the paintjob. I stated (briefly) that its still someones opinion as far as how nice things looks and are done, but they are blinded by either an awesome paintjob, or an incredible conversion. IE Awesome paint means awesome model, when that is simply not true. And vice versa, Ive seen people that have done just jaw dropping conversions from a pile of junk, but they arnt the best painters, and STILL get a really high paintjob rating just because the conversion was way awesome.

KingCracker, I understand exactly you're point, and I agree with it. I was just going a little further to point out the way the scoring is aggregated is completely senseless, which just adds insult to injury. This sort of stuff happens all the time when people start to measure subjective (ordinal) things. Take the diving or gymnastics in the Olympics - their scoring is complete and utter crap because they apply scalar operators to ordinal data - drop the highest and lowest because the judges are either blind or corrupt, add them up, multiply by the number you first thought of...but because they go to 2 decimal places (or is it 3?) it must be right - laughable!

Ok so I have to completly disagree with you. You say the coolness rating is related to how much has been done on the miniature in terms of the conversion so a stock is 5. Coolness is very subjective so the pose, the paintjob, the base and so can change the coolness factor of the stock miniature in my opinion. It is nowhere stated that it is related to conversions. As for the fact of the same miniature being rated differently I don't know why the surprise since we are judging something we don't have on our hand and so need to rely on the photos. Do you rate models/actress the same on a good photo session or in reality?

Again, I could see painting being rolled into the painting, if the painting wasnt its own category . Therefore the coolness is the rest of the mini, so conversion, or not, pose, base and so on. Also, if you click on an image of one of my Orks for example, under the picture your voting on, is links to several other minis, infact, if I load the same mini with multiple angles those will be the links under the mini in question. Just saying

You understand "coolness" as "conversion".
I don't.

A model could be cool by itself (a mini from a less known company, or an OOP model for exemple). The pose of a multiparts model could be cool without having converted it (that marine looks so damn badass). A color scheme could be cool (wow, pink orks !). An army without any conversion could be cool because of its theme or composition.
Coolness means for me lots more than "conversion".

No, I dont think its just a conversion. The coolness is, as I stated above

Therefore the coolness is the rest of the mini, so conversion, or not, pose, base and so on.

To me "coolness" is a mix of things:
customization
presentation
character


One of my all time favorite pieces is the diorama of the IG walker pilot standing in the mud with his gun, contemplating entering a dangerous looking tunnel. That piece has everything. It was cery customized, it was presented wonderfully, and it had a ton of character. It told a story. That piece I would give a 10 on coolness, but perhaps an 8-8.5 on the paint iirc(can't find the pics). The painting of it is adequate to convey the scene in a realistic fashion, but it's not GD.

A standard marine like the ones I posted I would set as "coolness" 1. They are monopose starter box models with zero modifications or unique presentation.

I generally grade high for painting. Here is my rough guide.
1-4 is a fail - more work required, paint just slopped on very little care taken
5-6 pass - table top quality. basic but good quality painting techniques demonstrated. Dry brushing, washes etc.
7-8 above average - blending and highlights bring the model to life.
9-10 awesome - lighting effects and other advanced techniques used by the artist to make me stop and take a much harder, envious look.
For me though, it doesn't have to be a golden daemon winner to get a 10...if it looks fantastic I give it a 10. If you have decided that you are never going to give a 10 because nothing is perfect you now have a scoring system out of 9.

When it comes to Coolness most of the pictures I see in the gallery here at Dakka are cool and IMHO deserve a 10. It takes guts to put yourself out there for judgement by a bunch of opinionated Nerds like us and I love just randomly rolling through the gallery's, so that is my way of encouraging people post their pics. Coolness isn't just found in beautifully presented GD dioramas....I see coolness in a novice painted ork boy from AOBR, even if the mould lines are still showing.

I can definitely agree with it taking guts to put our work out there. I was really nervous about how people were going to critique my very first set of pics. And its funny, because from the help Ive been given over the years on tips and ways to improve, I see those first few pics now, compared to how I paint now, and its just incredible how big the improvement is.

Also this thread does show just how different everyone does this, and really I can see everyones points, sure they are different from how I do it, but your ways definitely work. I judge a stock model at a 5, right in the middle, because nothing has been done yet. And it will go down if the base is WAY OTT or its put converted weird, or PKs being on the wrong hand (that one gets me so much I have to bite my tongue everytime ) scale being off, those will make that 5 score go down. And obviously itll go up, as the conversions/poses/bases improve. And again, Aerethan, your method does make sense though, a 1 is a stock model with nothing happening to it. 2 sides on the same 50 sided coin

Yeah, I mostly give a 1 in Coolness for unconverted or otherwise unimpressive minis, and for minis with superb painting level that doesn't really fit (like those horrid faces some people put on Wraithlords)

I tend to rate coolness on how well the model as a whole comes together to look "cool". Some models even without conversion look pretty damned cool, so if the model has been tied together well with little to no conversion work, I'd want to rate it higher. Likewise, someone might have done a whole lot of conversion work to get the pose they wanted or do something cool, but they might actually lose "coolness" if their conversions don't blend seamlessly with the original model. To be honest, there's very few conversions that I'd rate terribly high because more often than not the conversion work doesn't live up to the standard of the original model (and when it does, it's like "WOW!", but it is pretty rare).

So if 5 on the coolness scale were a "stock" model, and 10 were a high level competition standard conversion, IMO there'd be very little in between.

I do think things like inventive colour schemes (something like Nard's Tyranids) deserve higher on the coolness in addition to painting. Also things like good use of OSL, zenithal lighting or really good colour selection that gives the model a good artistic feel are worth more on the coolness scale.

If it were just called "model" then I might agree with you, but I'd also think there'd be very few models who would break from the 4-6 range if that were the case. Though I can see what you mean on the painting being fully encapsulated in the "paint job" category, I still don't really agree with that though.

Overall though, it doesn't really matter, most people just vote high for something they like and low for something they don't. If you look in my gallery, I have a couple of things in the 7's up to 9.5, and while I'm flattered that people like them, there's no way they're that good, lol.

I also think coolness can simply take in to account your personal opinion of how much you like the model. Some models might not technically have a great paintjob or conversion, but still look good and look appealing for many reasons, in that case I wouldn't want to vote up the paintjob if it's poor, but think more should be given to coolness to account for that. Though you could argue you need a 3rd category for that.

I wouldn't take the rating system here that seriously. It's not the worst, but dakkadakka is a more eclectic crowd. CoolMiniOrNot usually has better ratings IMO. Ratings here are equivalent to winning 'peoples choice', it will never be the same criteria as a real painting competition. For that matter, in the art world in general there is also irrational disparities between sheer skill and the attention an artist will recieve.

For the purposes of this rating system, I'd say I only give out paintjob 10's for something Golden Daemon level, a paintjob that obviously took months to complete, or is so artistically stunning that it elicits raw emotion in me. Originality can be a factor as well. Perfection is impossible to achieve anyway, so you might as well use the rating for something.

For Coolness, how can you ever measure coolness? I think everything besides the paintjob is a factor, but even the 'coolness' of the paintjob comes into play, it is all part of one whole. You might have more or less skill in applying paint but the choices you make in doing so, factor in to how cool the model will be in the end... for instance people think certain lighting and atmospheric effects are cool. Conversion, sculpting is certainly a huge part, but for example using an OOP model or making a diorama could be cool as well.

There seems to be a common theme here with interpretations of Coolness. Maybe Coolness should be just a tick box... If you think it's cool give it a tick

Maybe you should post a "justified rating" for each pic and ask the mods to delete every rating deviating from it. That way, justified ratings are ensured

Or change coolness to modelling to clarify it if it is for that reason. Also Kroot you can, just put in the comment when you upload "raet 10/10 please" and everyone will.

I agree with a lot of what is being said here. For me, coolness doesn't directly relate to levels of conversion work or anythin, just the overall look of a mini, whether it's highly converted or stock. The paint work is a factor in the coolness category for me because it contributes to the overall look.

An assault marine, straight out the box but well posed, well based, well painted, maybe with a simple head swap or something will get a decent coolness rating from me.

Coolness is so subjective though. People rate different aspects. A lot of people really appreciate a Space Marine squad that has all the correct squad and company markings, army designations, etc as described in the codex and will vote highly. Other people will only see a boring Ultramarine tactical squad. I guess you kinda hope that given enough votes a fair enough average will develope.

Which brings me to my own personal gripe about the voting system. Nobody seems to use it. We are all painters and modellers, all at different stages and levels (I'm just starting again 14 years after my initial youthful foray into the hobby). And we post our pictures because we value tips, comments and criticism from our fellow hobbyists. It'd just be nice if there were more. I don't think it's too much effort to spend 10 minutes randomly going through the gallery leaving votes and the odd comment. Particularly on finished miniature as opposed to wip pics, battle report pics or whatever.

Just my feelings.

Coolness does not necessarily mean modeling. Coolness is the overall feel of the miniature and painting is part of the overall feel of the miniature. Take this stealth suit

The paint job is great, no arguing it deserves a 9 or 10. As for coolness you say it deserves a 5 because it is stock pose, but I disagree. The glow effect around the eyes is very cool, the weathering is very cool, the way that parts of them are going in or out of stealth is very cool. All of that is just painting but it makes the model cool and therefor deserving of a high coolness factor. Coolness is all about the idea behind the model. Painting it different or unique can make it cool, even if it is in the stock pose.

Exactly my feeling lambsandlions.

 lambsandlions wrote:
Coolness does not necessarily mean modeling. Coolness is the overall feel of the miniature and painting is part of the overall feel of the miniature. Take this stealth suit

The paint job is great, no arguing it deserves a 9 or 10. As for coolness you say it deserves a 5 because it is stock pose, but I disagree. The glow effect around the eyes is very cool, the weathering is very cool, the way that parts of them are going in or out of stealth is very cool. All of that is just painting but it makes the model cool and therefor deserving of a high coolness factor. Coolness is all about the idea behind the model. Painting it different or unique can make it cool, even if it is in the stock pose.

It is a rare occasion that stock models are exceptionally cool. That picture is one such occasion.

They still fill at least one of my criteria for coolness: character. The models convey a scene and a story, they are battle hardened soldiers whose armor bears the scars of their wars.

I quite like those. Now show me a Black Reach stock model that is that cool.

It still looks like any other AoBR dread. Paintjob I'd say is a 7-7.5, coolness is 5(my starting point).

The base is bland and the weathering makes it looks like it fell down a hill.

It's not terrible, but it isn't very original.

When every single SM player has the same model, you have to do SOMETHING to make yours stand out, and often times a paint job isn't enough.

This is all opinion of course, as there is no objective way to measure "coolness". I know what impresses me and what doesn't. That isn't to say that the things that don't impress me are bad, they just don't stand out to me.

Coolness is subjective. As is all art, it is just the way it is. That's why the coolness category is more of a "popular choice" kind of thing. It is most certainly not just the modelling. Modelling is just one of many things that give life to a miniature.

I would rate that dread maybe a 5. I don't really think it's uncool, but not much going on. The suits are more like a 7. I've seen way cooler effects that look like it's blending in with some terrain and bits of the cloak field are showing.

Personal preference and what is in style are very much a factor. For example, I've some Golden Daemon level paintjobs, where some guy has gone over the model to do perfect blending and NMM for a month, but to me, it just looks hideous, there's no soul to it, so I could give that a low coolness vote.