|
|
New User
Posts: 3
Location: New York, NY | Do members have any sort of working rules of thumb about how to assign numbers and what the numbers mean to them? In other words, when would you give a book a 7 as opposed to an 8, for example? Or (even tougher, probably) a 3 as opposed to a 4?
A thumbs-up-or-thumbs-down scale is obvious. An A-B-C-D-F system is a bit less obvious but reasonably well understood, and it has the virtue of allowing gradations of success but not of failure. But I just get a bit lost with a 10-point scale. So I'm just wondering how other people apply the scale.
Sorry if this seems obsessive, but I have a hunch that I'm not the only nerd member here.
DH65 | |
| | |
Uber User
Posts: 770
Location: SC, USA | dh65,
This is an interesting question. You've made me think about how I've been rating. I've realized that I really do use a 5 point scale. As a teacher, I think in an A through F scale. A book I feel is average is a 7. An okay book with a glaring defect is 6. I think I rarely rank below 5 or F. I seem to have lots of 8s.
I have ranked one book a 3. I thought it was sophomoric and repetitive, and needed to be cut by about 250 pages. I only kept reading it because it was nominated for a big award, which it won. I was determined to finish it, but I should have stopped at page 100. I think my 3 represents my anger that I didn't listen to my gut and stop reading : ) | |
| | |
Uber User
Posts: 263
Location: Gunnison, Colorado | Rhonda's take sounds pretty similar to mine. I'm also a teacher, and I'm probably subject to the influence of grade inflation! I'd probably have an easier time with a 5-point scale. I also tend to think of an average book as around 7, but that's consistent with vetting books ahead of time and sticking with generally well-regarded books, or authors I especially like. I don't read much that is really "average," in other words, so I don't have a problem with an average rating being higher than average :-) As someone especially interested in the history of the genre, I tend to add a point for historical importance/influence sometimes. When read in historical context, some books can seem a lot more impressive than they otherwise would.
Another thing you quickly learn from teaching is that your relative standards can change. I always go back and look at the first few papers I graded after finishing the last one, as I might start out grading more harshly but "ease up" as I see more and more students having similar difficulties (or it can also work the other way around). The point there is that, after you've rated quite a few, you might want to look back over your list and consider whether the rankings are consistent. Do you really like every "8" better than every "7", or are there discrepancies to correct? (Yeah, it's a little obsessive, but if it's worth doing, it's worth thinking about a little...)
Edited by Scott Laz 2012-02-17 1:30 PM
| |
| | |
New User
Posts: 3
Location: New York, NY | I dropped out of a Ph.D. program but not before grading hundreds of student papers and exams, so I too find a scale of A to F relatively easy to apply. That is probably because in grading students' work I developed a set of qualitative descriptions for each grade level, since qualitative assessments come much more naturally to me than do quantitative ones.
So I've come up with a rubric which I've found useful in rating books here:
10=perfect or close enough
9=nearly perfect, with very limited but identifiable room for improvement
8=great, with easily forgiven but clear flaws that are decisively eclipsed by the virtues and successes
7=good, worth reading but not thrilling
6=alright, better than nothing
5=neutral, forgettable
4=boring
3=annoying
2=insulting
1=unreadable | |
| |
|
The basis for ratings