Rating Inflation!

A standard has been created here on Writing.com. Four stars or greater is “safe.” Anything lower than that, however, and all bets are off. Reviewers have trouble giving ratings below four, and authors have trouble accepting them. But there are five stars, nine total possible ratings. Why should we, as reviewers and authors, restrict ourselves to the top three out of these nine? If there are nine possibilities, a story should be rated from one to nine, not seven to nine.

Makes sense, right? But is that how you review? Is it how I review? Likely not. I myself have trouble doing this, and I’m the one complaining about it! It’s difficult, yes, to rate something low, even when you feel the piece deserves it. How many of you have actually given ratings of two stars, or one? Not many, I’ll bet. It makes you feel guilty to rate something low, even when you know that the piece fits the rating.

It is my personal opinion that reviewers and authors treat ratings as grades. A 5 is an “A,” a 4 is a “B,” 3 is a “C,” and so on. So, you want your work to be within the A/B range, and Cs or below are for other people, not you. But ratings are not grades. They are simply a method of telling the author where their piece stands on an overall scale from one to nine. Ratings are not worth anything substantial, while grades can affect a lot in one's life. Ratings are an expression of an opinion, nothing more.

Another fallacy of many reviewers is the idea that if they give a piece a high rating, no matter what it really deserves, then the author will turn around and give them high ratings in return. Sadly, this does no good whatsoever, and a great deal of harm. For one thing, two pieces have been rated with 5 stars when neither might deserve it, and neither author has gotten any useful feedback. In fact, they are led to falsely believe that their piece is perfect, reducing the amount of rewriting and editing they do, thereby reducing their skill as writers and editors. At the same time, the rating inflation gets worse, making this a double whammy against the writing community.

Now, to address authors: this is not directed at reviewers alone, I am sad to say. If someone reviews you with fewer than 4 stars, please, take a moment to step back and breathe. Think. Is a 3.5 really so terrible? Let’s take a look at the possible ratings.

A rating of 5 stars means perfect. Nothing to change, nothing to edit. The piece is absolutely, 100%, perfect.

A rating of 4.5 means darn near perfect. There may be a few errors, but probably mostly technical stuff such as grammar and spelling. A little bit of work, and this will easily turn into a 5.

A rating of 4 means pretty darn good. Perhaps a few more errors than a 4.5, or more serious errors, such as minor continuity issues in a story.

All right with those so far? This covers 7 through 9 of the rating system. So let’s look at the rest, and figure out just why they’re so horrible.

A rating of 3.5 should mean decent, but needs some help. Items rated 3.5 probably have several grammar and spelling errors, as well as continuity or structure issues that need addressing. They are still pretty well written, but they need more work than a 4.

A 3, as Writing.com continuously strives to remind us, is average. Basically, a 3 means “needs improvement.” Nothing more. A 3 is on the borderline of “good” and “bad,” and so it is neutral.

At 2.5, we start to get into no-man’s land, where few reviewers dare to venture. This should mean something along the lines of “Your idea may be interesting, but your implementation of that idea needs some work to be effective and clear.” There would almost certainly be technical issues, as well as things that just don’t make sense, or don’t work as they are currently.

A rating of 2 means that the piece needs more work than a 2.5, with more errors, or more major ones that need to be cleaned up before the heart of the piece can be seen. Most likely, the main point of the piece is not coming through very clearly or at all.

With 1.5 and 1, we are truly in a realm that few reviewers have dared explore. These pieces are likely in need of a serious editing session. With these, there will be errors of all sorts, and the meaning is probably covered up completely, if there even is one. A reviewer should reserve these for the most error-filled pieces, just as a 5 and 4.5 should be reserved for the top of the line.

So, now that we’ve defined the ratings, how is a 3.5 or 3 really that horrible? All it means is that you need to do some editing. It means that the piece is not perfect, that there are still errors and places where things could and should be fixed. Truly, we should all be getting more 3s and 3.5s, since how many of our pieces are really perfect? Shouldn’t a rating of 5 be reserved for the stuff that makes you go, “Oh, wow, that is incredible!”? And a 4 should be reserved for those that make you go “Very well-written, but just not quite perfect.”

Lately, I’ve taken to asking myself this question before every rating: “Is this piece average, above average, or below average?” It has turned out to be a remarkably useful practice. Remember, an “average” rating is a 3, so if the answer to my question is “above average,” then I simply need to figure out by how much. And if the answer is “below average,” then I can rate the piece lower than a 3 without feeling consumed with guilt. After all, I’m simply following the established rating system. I would feel far more guilty to rate it as “above average,” since that would be a lie and would do no good whatsoever.

By rating everything within the range of 4 to 5, with the occasional 3.5, we are wasting our nine-point rating system. There are nine possible ratings for a reason. They should be used to their fullest. And authors should realize that there is no shame in getting a rating below 4, or even below 3. It does not reflect on their person, or on their writing ability as a whole. A low rating simply means that the specific piece being reviewed needs work in the eyes of the reviewer. Instead of getting angry, an author should accept it, and take steps to fix the piece. And, of course, if the author disagrees with the reviewer, then the author is perfectly free to leave the piece as it is. After all, they wrote it, so they have the final say. But that still doesn’t mean the author should get angry. Simply thank the reviewer, and move on.



Now for a few related issues.

If you rate something, review it! If the rating is 5, then perhaps a review is unnecessary, although all authors like to be told what they have done well. But for the eight possible ratings below a 5, a comment should be sent as well. If something is rated below a 5, then there is a reason or reasons for this. The author has the right to know just what caused the rating to drop so that they can alter the piece if they feel so inclined. So please, if you rate, send a review as well to explain your decision.

Also, please remember, ratings are an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If I think my story is worth a 4.5, and you think it’s worth a 3, fine, that is your opinion. As long as you provide a review to explain just what you think needs fixing, then a rating of 3 should not anger me, but simply tell me that, according to you, my piece is not as good as I thought, and I need to do some work to make it better.

Oh, and finally, if you give something a low rating, please be nice about it. No author likes to see that not only has his or her latest piece been rated low, but also that the accompanying review is rude and callous. This does not mean that you should skimp on pointing out the things that the author could work on, but it is best to do so politely. And remember: say something nice about the piece too. Balance good with bad, so that the author does not have to read a review that is entirely negative and discouraging.



Most of all, authors: respect reviewers. Respect that they have their reasons, and try to see their point of view. And reviewers: respect authors. Respect that they want honest criticism, and that most authors aren’t going to become angry if you give them below a 4. Use all nine ratings, and let’s try to undo the inflation that has eroded so deeply at the rating system here at Writing.com.