Point System of Rating

From Fancyclopedia 2, ca. 1959

(Youd:Warner) Because the impressionistic comments on a story, article or department (swell, OK, lousy, it stinks) are likely to vary greatly in meaning in different critics and not tell the editor much, Youd asked Fantast's readers to rate each piece with a number from one to ten, ten being best. The number indicates quality, not rank as compared to others in the same issue; every piece in an issue might receive the same rating if they all seemed equally good -- or punk. Such ratings appear easy to average up to get the consensus of opinion on an item or an entire issue (in the latter case pieces may be weighted according to length, so a three-page article will have more effect on the result than a one-pager). But the system has a flaw in the fact that different readers may attach different significance to the same number; one may use 7 for the general run of acceptably good material while another uses 5. Harry Warner, Jr. tried to get the same system applied to Spaceways and published a letter explaining what each number meant to one reader, which he asked all to observe. The point system has been tampered with, some readers and editors preferring to use any number from one to one hundred, in the delusion that ratings could be that fine; and some applying money values.

From Fancyclopedia 1, ca. 1944

(Youd: Warner) - Because the impressionistic comments on a story, article, or department (swell, OK, lousy, it stinks, worth three plums and a prune, etc) are likely to vary greatly in meaning in different critics and not tell the editor much, You'd asked Fay's readers to rate each piece with a number from 1 to 10, 10 being best. The number is to indicate the quality, not the rank as compared to others in the same issue; every piece in an issue mite get the same rating if they seem equally good or punk. Such ratings are easy to average up and get the consensus of opinion on an item and the general rating on an issue (in the latter case, pieces are sometimes weighted according to length, so that a three-page article will have more effect on the general rating than a one-pager). The system is not perfect, however, since different readers may attach different significance to the same number: one may use 7 for the general run of acceptably good material, while another will use 5. Buried somewhere in Spaceways' letter section, beyond the reach of this author's research, is a statement of what each number signifies to one reader, which Warner asked all to observe. The point system has been tampered with, some readers and editors preferring to use any number from 1 to 100, in the delusion that ratings could be that fine; and some applying money values.

---

Publishing