Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Monolith
..so perhaps J2O should use a descriptive naming system rather than numbers for ratings.
|
That is an interesting idea in theory, but there is one problem. It would require much, much, much more explanation than just numbers. Perhaps there could be something on the side? For instance, 1.0 (Awful), 2.0 (Very Poor), 3 (Poor), 4 (Below Average), 5 (Average), 6 (Above Average), 7 (Good), 8 (Very Good), 9 (Excellent), and 10 (Amazing).
~ Traft
|