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

[nephron.livejournal.com]

I am really bad at rating things on a numerical scale. When it comes to rating moods etc. (which people sometimes want me to rate), I use an unmarked 10cm line, instead, and mark the point I feel that I am on that line.

[spaetlese.livejournal.com]

I'm totally with you on the numbers I assign things. And 11 is just stupid. If something is an 11 your scale is totally out of whack and you need to reallocate the numbers ;p


I usually think someone giving something 11/10 is a twat. Much like people who like to say they've given 110%. Clearly, you can't. So shut it.

[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."

[mireille21.livejournal.com]

Similar to you, with 5 being just on the down side of this film gets a pass mark. i do use .5s, usually when I just can't quite decide if it really is just a 7 or whether is deserve an 8. It's rare for me to give a 10 as, being that is the highest that can be awarded i feel it should mean the film is either perfect, or so damn close that its failings are insignificant, thus you are more likey to see a 9.5 out of me - i guess I am a hard marker. Don't think I've ever rated something a 0, or possibly even a 1. i think that would have to represnt a film so bad that i couldn't watch it all the way to the end. (NeverEnding Story 3 anyone?)

[tillianion.livejournal.com]

Yep, pretty much sums up my way of looking at it - five is meh, six is not bad, I quite enjoyed it and it goes up from there.

[the-informative.livejournal.com]

I have a real problem with the "out of Ten" scale due to this simply factor that we only ever use 6 thru 10 and for some reason when ever it's a five or a four, for some reason it turns into a over the top comment on how bad it was and not an actual score!
But to comment on the original question, I believe 5 is a natural score. not good and not bad.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

I don't enjoy rating things, which is a bit of a problem when I'm marking assignments. I suppose luckily for my students I don't like giving scores less than half unless they really stuff things up.