Rating star guidance
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:24 am
I would like to have some guidance as to how to use the rating system. I think others would also.
I think there are at least two ways the ratings could be used.
Way one:
* Terrible.
** Poor (or fair).
*** Good.
**** Very Good.
***** Excellent.
Way two:
* Terrible.
** Below average.
*** Average.
**** Above average.
***** Excellent.
Calling an archive story average is not the same as calling a story in a magazine average. Many of the archive stories (maybe most) are very poor. They do not have good ideas and/or do not have good characters. This is especially true of the earlier stories. A story that is average for the EA is probably worse than the poorest story that would be published in a magazine.
Many archive stories have good ideas and characters but have other problems. Many have very poor spelling, grammar and punctuation. (I do not know if these problems are being corrected for the new archive.) Some have too many indirect quotes. One starts much too soon. Some have continuity errors. Some have paragraphs that are much too long. Many of the mult-ipart stories do not have conclusions.
I think that the "Way one" I mentioned above is better than the "Way two". Regardless of which is used, I think the EA should have a standard so that users can be more consistent.
I think there are at least two ways the ratings could be used.
Way one:
* Terrible.
** Poor (or fair).
*** Good.
**** Very Good.
***** Excellent.
Way two:
* Terrible.
** Below average.
*** Average.
**** Above average.
***** Excellent.
Calling an archive story average is not the same as calling a story in a magazine average. Many of the archive stories (maybe most) are very poor. They do not have good ideas and/or do not have good characters. This is especially true of the earlier stories. A story that is average for the EA is probably worse than the poorest story that would be published in a magazine.
Many archive stories have good ideas and characters but have other problems. Many have very poor spelling, grammar and punctuation. (I do not know if these problems are being corrected for the new archive.) Some have too many indirect quotes. One starts much too soon. Some have continuity errors. Some have paragraphs that are much too long. Many of the mult-ipart stories do not have conclusions.
I think that the "Way one" I mentioned above is better than the "Way two". Regardless of which is used, I think the EA should have a standard so that users can be more consistent.