Curious

[dalekboy]

I was thinking about this today, and I'm wondering how other folks approach the whole giving things a score out of ten thing.

For me, 5 and 6 tend to be the tipping points. 5 is on the bad side of average, 6 is on the good side, basically just ok. 7 is good, 8 is very good, 9 is pretty awesome, and 10 is near to perfect.

I don't believe in giving 0 or 11, and I only do whole numbers, no .5, as a rule.

So what about you?

Comments

[rabbit1080.livejournal.com]

This might be cos I've drunk too much nice red wine tonight, but your suggestion of rating things from 1-10 reminds me of rating risks of doing a particular programing task (hmm, risk management). I prefer a scale of 1-5 cos it's coarser and less arbitrary, and I prefer to have descriptions for each rating. For a task with a requirement and available skills, the following descriptions might apply - what score descriptions would you use for a tv series or a movie? 3/5= average? What aspects of the film do you tend to consider?

For risks for a technical task (which is where I finally started relating risk management to software projects):

1: "Activity has been done before; Experienced people are available to complete the activity."
2: "Activity has been done before; People are available to complete the activity."
3: "Major parts of the activity have been done before; Experienced people are available to complete most of the activity"
4: "One or more major parts of activity have not been done before; Experienced people not available to complete most of activity."
5: "Activity not been done before; Tech not readily available for activity; Little experiecne in this type of work."