Reviewing and Rating at Writing.com

So you are new to writing.com! Glad to have you here! I have not been here all that long myself, but have been rather successful in my writing and reviewing This is not to say I am anything special - only that I think I understand how things work -- which is not always quite how some people think it should work!.

I suggest before you do reviews you read especially these two items. The first explains reviewing in general, and the second how to rate items. There are links in the first to other useful sites worth reading before writing.

ID: 614925   (Rated: E) Title: Reviewing @ Writing.Com  Description: Information regarding the public reviewing page at Writing.Com. By: The StoryMistress

ID: 544247   (Rated: E) Title: Comment-In-A-Box  Description: My view on and methods of rating items on Writing.Com. By: The StoryMistress

In practice, I have seen that the ratings Story Mistress suggests are a little lower than what is actually given, because people don't want to be nasty usually - there are exceptions. Here is my impression of what most reviewers actually mean, and I think you should take these or Story Mistress' (especially) into account, or you will really not be helpful. There is no point or value to be an unusally "tough" reviewer or an unusually "lenient" one. You only leave the wrong impressions.

Above all, leave feedback! I have occasionally received reviews which say, "I really liked (or didn't like) your piece" and nothing else. There is only ONE circumstance in which such a review is conceivably appropriate, and that is when you love it, think it is publishable without changes, and give it a 5.0. Even then it is more helpful to say explicitly just what you liked about the piece, and, if anything, what you wish were clearer or better put. A rating with no comment is almost worthless from a learning standpoint.

And never ever give a low review without saying why. That is so unfair that in my opinion it is contemptible. It teaches nothing, it just hurts. Explain at least in some detail where you see the major problems. "I don't get it" is not adequate, and may not even mean the piece is less than first class! Lots of people don't "get" James Joyce's Ulysses, but many scholars think it among the finest works of fiction ever written. Just because you don't "get it" at first is not a reason for downgrading. First you need to learn if you should have gotten it. Correspond with the author if you must, and change your rating if you discover either that you have mis-rated or that the author has revised and improved the piece. Anything that is less than perfect yuou must think can be improved, so help! Say why and how or at least why you feel something isn't quite right. Play fair, that you may be played fair by!

Here is how I interpret most experienced reviewers' ratings.

5.0 - This is publishable as is. I like it very much. If I think I could improve it even a little I will be upfront with suggestions; but take them or leave them, this is a great piece.

4.5 - This needs only minor touch-ups to be publishable. There may be a few typos or perhaps something really isn't as clear as it should be or there are minor word repetitions which need fixing which I have mentioned; but there is nothing major wrong with the item. By all means, spend the time required to fix whatever might need it. I like it very much.

4.0 - I genuinely like this piece, which has real possibilities; but it does need a little more work to be publishable. Necessary repairs may not be large problems and may be fairly easy to fix (or not), but do try. It is worth the effort, and I think the piece may become publishable. I would recommend this work for others to read also.

3.5 - This work is okay, nothing to write home about maybe, or else I like it but it really needs a whole lot of work. There are probably many spelling/grammar/typo errors, serious technical errors (such as repetition or unresolved issues), but with some work this could be made a readable piece. I am not as convinced it can be made publishable as a 4.0; but it could still be made into a worthwhile read.

3.0 - Story Mistress says this means average. In practice it is distinctly below the "average" for the site, though it may be above average for the "average" person who is not particularly interested in writing. Basically, it means that I have no strong feelings about it - I don't really hate it, but I'm not looking forward to re-visiting it even after revisions. It probably has too many problems for me to be hopeful about repairing it or else its content is too trivial to my mind (not necessarily to another person's) to be worth my further effort unless you have really worked on it and have asked me to take another look. Not hopeless at all; but put it aside and come back to it in a few months with a fresh point of view.

2.5 - Below average. Really pretty blah in content, lots of technical errors. Might have some ideas worth pursuing, but probably is not going to "fix" very easily in its current form.

2.0 - I'd rather not have to read this again. Poorly written, many errors, little interest. Come back in a few months and see if you had a point you still want to make.

1.5 - I have never given this. To me it would mean, yes, I have seen worse, somewhere, but it is not even worth your effort to try to fix. If you succeeded, which I doubt, it still wouldn't be very interesting.

1.0 - I hope I will never ever feel I must give this rating. To me it would mean I really hate a piece. It is worthless from start to finish in both content and execution. It would take an amazing genius to be able to make this even readable, and if you had it, you wouldn't be getting a 1.0 now. Throw it away and start over with a new idea, and in the meantime, brush up on your grammar and spelling.

Before you take anyone's rating too seriously, check to see if they show evidence of knowing what they are talking about. Some clues are the little numbers after the name - the community recognition points. Sometimes those just mean they've been around here awhile, but that is worth something. People with many merit badges tend to be both good writers and good readers, especially if they have quite a few for reviewing. The system works pretty well for rating good reviewers. And check out their writings as well. Not every good reviewer can write well him or herself; but they are usually not so bad, either. Likewise, some good writers can't seem to offer any help to another. But in general, good writers know what it takes. It is a clue. I haven't yet, but I am told you may run into a nasty reviewer, and I have run into some who simply couldn't get sophisticated writing and so give a low review. One of my pieces has something like 20 4.5s and 5.0s, no 4.0s, and several from 2.5-3.5. That's a clue that it is not you but the reviewer who is inadequate! It happens. And of course there are others who give 4s and 5s for everything. Those are also worthless. When you review, always be ready to back up your rating, high or low, with concrete instances of what you like and don't like and why.

But, and this is significant, even if you get a low rating from a dependable reviewer, don't despair! Lots of great writers have written trash they blush to think about, and some are actually selling some pretty bad stuff on the market - maybe not 1.0's, but 3.0's - because they are resting on past laurels. You have just had a learning experience. If it helps you to grow, great! It was worth doing! If not, well, be prepared for lots of bad reviews. Laziness usually gets what it is worth.

Good luck, and happy writing. I wish you much success.