My Rating System

Since everyone seems to have their own articles about why they choose a particular rating, I thought I'd add my two cents.

5 = perfect, publishable as is; I truly enjoyed reading it and I'd buy it off the shelf.

Ah, something we should all strive toward! As a casual reader of this article, you may think that is a tough (and possibly unfair) criterion to meet. If 3 is average, according to the site, then 5 has to be absolutely perfect.

4.5 = almost perfect; there are a few errors, but nothing that was confusing.

Most items that are well-written with few errors will get this rating.

4 = almost, but not quite; there are several errors, with maybe one confusing part.

This rating goes to pieces that need a bit of work.

3.5 = average, needs some work, but is well-written.

This rating goes to items that need work in the grammar, spelling, or language department. The piece has good ideas, but needs work on execution. It may contain a lot of typos.

3 = average, needs a rewrite.

Items that need a lot of typographical work or when the ideas just don't "follow" will get this rating.

2.5 = below average, needs major work.

The piece has too many confusing or convoluted ideas; I have to ask myself "what?" or reread to understand the point.

2 = below average, needs quite a bit of work.

This rating is about the same as 2.5 really, but the piece will contain an abundant amount of grammar/spelling errors.

1.5 = needs so much work, I hate giving this low of a rating.

No punctuation, capitalization, lots of spelling errors, grammar errors, overuse of chatspeak, tAlKiNg LiKe ThIs, using one paragraph for the entire work, etc. This is my nitpicky rating.

1 = do a rewrite and I might come back to actually read it.

I reserve this rating for those pieces that I can't even muddle through. There are too many errors to try to attempt to review it.

As a reviewer, I try to give encouragement to the author, even if I give a one-star. I want honest feedback, so I give honest feedback. Even if I do not agree with the author's points or story idea, I keep that out of the review. In my opinion, I'm not reviewing the ideas; I'm reviewing the structure and how the work flows. I generally do not do long drawn-out reviews, nor do I expect that for my own work. If I get an average or low rating, I would like to know what worked and what didn't.

Authors MUST have a good grasp of English grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax (unless they are writing in a language other than English, in which case I wouldn't be reading it in the first place). This site is professional, and I treat all the pieces as a finished product, unless the author has specifically stated that the piece is a work-in-progress.

I rate poetry more on the merit of the ideas--not if the idea was good or bad, but whether the poem "worked" to evoke a scene or a feeling. I am not a poet, nor have I studied much poetry, so I don't feel qualified to rate on basis of form and/or technique.

I rate journals on the quality of the writing, and whether or not I would go back to read about the person's life. A journal can be a scratchpad of ideas, but there should be some coherent thought put into the entries.

I rate works-in-progress similar to journals: would I come back to read more?

I read/rate/review in all genres. I am a voracious reader. My favorite genres are horror and fantasy. I may not review all the works I read, but I try to rate them all.