Rating of scores

[Contratrombone64]

Hi there! I really like the ratings feature as it can give me an idea of a general sense of the quality of the score (look obviously not musical content!). The arbitrary number from 1 to 10 seems a little over the top. Is it possible to suggest a more defined rating:

1 = poor (not fit for use)
2 = moderately poor (could be used with difficulty)
3 = moderate (ok for use)
4 = moderately good (great for use)
5 = good (no issues at all, perfectly clear and easy to read once printed)

I sincerely hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes with this, merely a suggestion. I really find the 1 to 10 number a little hard to get my head around.

Failing that - is it possible to put a selection of scores that the gods of this sight agree on so we can see what 1 looks like, 2 looks like and so on?

David

[daphnis]

Why is a 1-10 scale "over the top"? 10 is the best quality and 1 is the worst. There are many variations in between, which was probably why the designers of the system felt it went beyond a 1-5 scale.

[Contratrombone64]

Daphnis, great, I have no problem with the 1 to 10 rating system. Please can examples be posted so there is some reference point? thanks

[daphnis]

I think that would be a good idea to post somewhere on the site, then perhaps a link from the rating page with examples for reference.

[Contratrombone64]

Hi Daphnis,

Thank you for your understanding, I hope you understand my initial thread wasn't intended to be hostile (trouble with the written word, as you know, is that nuance and subtelty are very difficult to convey). If it cam across that way, please accept my sincere apologies, not my intention.

David

[daphnis]

Not at all.