Rate it - what does it mean?
Submitted by uhl on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 10:32.
AHA!
Ok I*ll admit, this one confuses me too. I rate according to ad spoken about very often. When it is not "just an ad", but an interview or a lengthy piece of some other sort I rate the article. Yaknow?
Technorati Tags: 
Hi guys
Browsing through all kinds of mind blowing, mediocre and horrible advertising here on adland I*ve begun rating the work. As are most of you probably. But... I sometimes find it hard to grade the works. I know that 1=sucks and 5=kind-of-like-the-best-piece-I*ve-ever-seen. But what about all that in between.
The K-Swiss Body Tricks for instance. Well for originality and idea it*s not very good. But for production it*s really good. So how do you rate it?? By what factor should idea be considered? And likewise for execution?
What it all boils down to is probably the old discussion - can a bad idea be saved by a really outstanding execution? And a great idea be destroyed by the opposite?
Should we consider putting some words on it? Or maybe even create multiple rating scales. One for idea and one for execution??
Any thoughts on this??
Multiple rating scales - one for idea one for execution say - would be ideal but I fear more buttons will just confuse people. (I do get emails where people bitch that there are too many options around here so I try to keep it simple even though the site is massive).
Personally I let great executions save half baked ideas and great ideas win over bad executions too. If Both aren*t perfect they*ll get 4 - if both are great they get that coveted five.
I*ve often thought that the 5 scale is "Too large" and we should do "bad (1) Ok, I guess (3) and Yeah man! (5) instead so that the yearly roundup ( http//commercial-archive.com/roundup.php ) gives a truer reflection of what people dug and didn*t dig. As it is now I fear that an ad that gets a lot of "5" ratings but then one or two 4*s drops off the roundup list too fast.
So perhaps three-point instead of five-point rating system is in order.
I*m not a big user of the rating system, but I*m very comfortable with it as is. I like the shades of gray that a five-point system allows (vs. a three-point system). If your opinion is more nuanced, you can always comment about it, right?
Again, as a sometime user, I may not have considered all the ramifications. So take this for what it*s worth.
Really good point - 3 grades sounds like an efficient system. I guess most people actually do use 1 and 5 for saying "Hey that sucks" and "Hey that*s amazing" today. It*s more the 2,3 and 4 I*m in doubt about. My concern is that people use 4 too much for mediocre work which will take some focus away from the outstanding work. So boiling these 3 down to 1 might be nice.
The really good point was of course pointed at Dabitches post. Backwrite - you*re too fast at the buttons!! wink
When rating things I typically tend to see 1=total crap, 2=somewhere between total crap and "meh", 3="meh" - average, not gawd awful but definitely not super, 4=between "meh" and amazing/awe inspiring/etc, and 5=drool worthy, innovative etc.
I will give a higher rating if it*s innovative, even if the idea isn*t 100%. Although that means it not being rated a 5, as 5 is reserved for pure genius and the "I wish I had thought of that/done that" sort of work.
Narrowing down the votes to 3 options would indeed simplify things. Then you*re stuck with good, average and crap. I just wonder if you*ll end up with a ton of stuff rated as a 2 in that regard, considering the majority of ad stuff produced falls in that category.
yeah, uh.. maybe that*s why I wanted a five rating system to begin with.
ok, the real problem wth the ratings is that not enough adgrunts do it. wink
What I find more confusing is rating of the articles and postings. If, say, Dabitch writes something very well on a campaign that is really bad, should I be rating her story or the item on which she is writing about? confused