How ratings are wrong: an itunes story

As it should occur to anyone who has more than 50 songs in their library, there has to be a certain methodology for giving your auditory amusements ratings.

In iTunes they have the 5 star rating system. We're all familiar with stars, aren't we? 5 star hotels are better than 4, and God help you if you get stuck in a 1 star. If a movie has 2 of 5 stars, skip that steamy piece of fecal matter. Nor should we consider low stared video games. Our libraries are a different matter entirely, even if we don't think about it enough.

My 3000 (more accurately, 2954 - Ed.) songs have already passed a critical point in the ratings paradigm. I already like these songs. In order for the star system to have any purpose in my collection, it'll need a major retooling. Rather, I need to think differently about how I rate songs.

In spite of better judgement, I've allowed the tendencies of iTunes to determine how to do this. The shuffle feature, for instance, allows higher rated songs to be played more often. It makes sense that songs I want to hear more often would be rated accordingly. But there are some songs, you know which ones, that while you really do love to hear all the time, you don't like to hear randomly. Seasonal or highly situational songs; drumrun from Halo 1, or the Trans-Siberian Orchestra. I don't want to hear these too often. Should I rate them high because I like them very much, or relegate them to low star status to prevent burn-out?

We end up having a rating system here that can't be used to rate music!