Let me go ahead and copy-paste E.D. Revolution's list here.

A+ = Perfect
A = Outstanding
A- = Awesome
B+ = Excellent
B = Great
B- = Very Good
C/C+ = Good
C- = Okay
D/D+ = Not good
F = Not presentable

For the most part, I would agree with him. If there are lots of errors for no apparent reason, there are lots of spoilers without warning, or if the writer has poor grammar, it would be considered an F, and should not be featured. The things that would impede a trial's featuring would include:
Poor grammar.
Spoilers that the player isn't warned about.
Short, choppy internet fads. (j00 rly shn't do tis w3 do't like tis rofl)
Frames that pass the three line limit.
When reviewing a trial, be sure to check for all of these things. If the writer doesn't fix these things, then it should not be featured. People do not like these things in trials. If I missed something else, forgive me, E.D. Revolution.

I hope you're not targeting this guide at QA reviewers. We've got our own.

Heh from the depths of the archive, I shall not be silenced! *shot*

Yeah, that's pretty much right. Though if a casual review wants to quantify the ratings to see if it's QA review worthy, the baseline should be straight B's. For newbie trials and casual trials, straight C's would do.

The reason I give adjectives so that the impact of a trial review would be lessened if you used adjectives versus using a quantified system. For example... Let's say a trial was good, more-or-less, and you stamp it as "Overall: Good". Now try doing that with the quantified system, e.g., "Overall: C." Drastic difference.

I would use the quantified system to get a sense on what exactly needs to be improved and the adjective system if you're being nice. I would hope more people would go with the quantified system

About those choppy internet fads... Would there be an exception if Sal Manella was in the case?

I mean, he's pretty much the exception that proves the rule in the official games, anyway. xD

@Meph: I'm not sure why you would assume that.

@E.D. Revolution: I think I see what you mean.

@Akamia: Yes, Sal Manella would be an exception.

I'm just teasing.

Might it work better if different aspects of a trial received grades?

Ex: A- in story, A in characterization, but B in execution, and a C- in editing for a trial with good story and characters but poor grammar.

That way, you could tell what was good and what needs improvement.

That's how you're supposed to use the grading system. Of course, if you're going to do that, you need to establish which grade is a baseline average. I use C as a baseline average for casual trials and B for QA-worthy trials.

Honestly, I only put adjectives to satisfy the purple eyeball. I'd rather use the quantitative system to give a better idea of what needs improvement.

Well just remember to make it clear in your reviews, everyone, that they are only your personal opinions and not an official QA.

Also, if you plan on using this system for reviews (not QA reviews, because they're a different type of review), make sure that bad grades are backed up with constructive criticism. After all, flaming through grades isn't much better than flaming through words.

So sending the standard, confusing, generic review people give all the time, whether critcising/praising the trial, is okay to see if a trial is feature worthy/QA worthy...But sending a VERY organized, specific, helpful review some people have been giving recently, whether criticising/praising the trial, is not okay to see if a trial is feature worthy/QA worthy?

Ya know, unless it's done by an official QA'er, it should be implied that the review is the opinion of the poster in the first place I thought.
But aren't QA reviews opinions just as well but hold a little more weight? (Eg. pass or fail).

Also, where has there been "flaming" with this grading system? The ones I've seen...Have looked good and MIGHTY fair I might add

It's always a nice thing bug reports are separated from the actual mini-review, good call on the adjectives CardiaX (or should I say ED, since he's come up with it first I'm getting from the OP xP)

Not in that sense. It's just a disclaimer that official QA reviews may be examining more details or are at a higher benchmark. I just mean that making changes based on an unofficial QA review isn't a guarantee that you're going to pass the quality controls.

And yeah. I'm not expecting people to clarify in big letters "I'm not a QA reviewer". But at the same time, you obviously shouldn't act as though you are one, as well.


I won't be naming names, but it's an issue that the staff have discussed, yes. It's more Unas's words than mine, by the way, but the point is that receiving a poor or subjectively inaccurate grade may cause the author to interpret it as flaming unless it's backed up. When grading is used, comments don't have as much impact as they would without one, because authors will be more focused on the grade itself than the comment itself. For example, they may think, "Great, I got an A", even though a suggestion was given to bump it up to an A*; they might not be bothered enough to improve on that suggestion. Plus, a grading system might be a bit... degrading (sorry, bad pun ).

Speaking of which, this is part of what differentiates a review from a QA review. While the former is about giving an opinion and criticism, the latter is exclusively focused on what is hindering a trial from being "top class" quality. This is why QA reviews never have scores; it's not entirely about the QA reviewer's opinion (except in certain areas like enjoyability).

You can't reasonably criticize a system based solely on conjecture when there's no evidence to prove what you're saying. There's evidence that proves that the quantified system is working as it should. That's what I'm here to prove .



I really take issue with that contention. So far, the reviewers who have used this system and given a low grade have all been able to back their grades up with rationale. While the comments sometimes may not be nice, they have been able to support every grade they have given. The comments are more indicative of the user's POV, really. Also, the people that have used the system have had the review cross referenced by at least 2 other people to check for fairness in assessment. It's very organized, so that the review can be easily cross-checked for mistakes and major errors. Also, the authors that have received low grades overall have taken the review relatively well.

Now, think about it. Tell me which is worse out of the two scenarios:





One of the alternatives shows a flaming, destructive post and one of the others shows a critic's view.

You have to account for the user of the system. The users of the system (as of this post) know the ins and outs of the editor and the writing. They know how things work. The only people who should NOT use the system are trolls, ogres, and people who use the system to gives "Fs" while saying "Your trial sucks balls. It's the worst shit ever. Go die in a hole." because they don't like the user.

Not only that, you have to account for the recipient as well. If the recipient doesn't take any negativity well, of course any bad comment, even mild, would sound like "This guys is a troll!" If that happens, that just means the recipient needs to man up and grow some balls. I assume the use of the system with the hope that the recipients are level headed.



Again, I'd have to disagree. Comments aren't always helpful if the recipient can't tell exactly what the reviewer is saying, or if the reviewer isn't being honest about what they say, or if the user doesn't have a good record for giving great reviews, or if the reviewer is being very wishy-washy, or if the review is being vague without reason. This is where grades come in. It forces them to be more honest about what they thought of the trial. If the reviewer uses this system to flame, the recipient should tell that reviewer to "[Censored. Please be polite...] off." Besides, it's every easy to spot a troll review anywhere.



I don't think an A -> A* is a good example. At the "A- to A+" levels, there isn't much to criticize at all. At that level, it's (almost) so perfect that no suggestion (normally) could be named. You might be able to make a case with the F and D grades, but given the reviews that had it, you might not have a case for it.

All reviews can be helpful to the author. But in all systems, they must use them responsibility. With the quantified system, you're forced to be more responsible with your opinion. And because the grading system is more strict with the responsibility of using the system, only the most insightful, dedicated person who wants to see an author succeed in this and future cases should use it. It helps both the author and the reviewer.

Until you can prove the system doesn't work for both the reviewer and the author, you can't reasonably criticize the system. The track record so far for the reviews that used that system from "it works as intended" to "it went haywire" is 4-0. The system only works when the people using the system use it responsibly. And this assumes that the reviewers are responsible, and the recipients are levelheaded. Can you say the same for QAs, when more than a fair share of it has been questionable, namely, giving a review but not finishing the case? Is that responsible? Can you claim that QAs are objective when over half of the stuff in it is VERY subjective anyway (much like the quantitative system and every other review?) Can you claim that QAs aim to make the author better when one of the major criticisms of the system as of late is stifiling creativity in order to make it perfectly bland, ie, it so perfect that there's nothing too special about it, a la Mark Twain's Contention on Originatlity? Can you claim that QA reviews (which consists of opinions that will impact the trial, focusing on what's hindering the case from becoming high quality)... is any different from quantitative system (which consists of opinions that may or may not impact the trial, focusing on making the trial as "top quality" as possible without stifling creativity)? Is it any different besides the official designation of QAs?

Besides, when it all comes down to it, reviews are supposed to help the author improve their trials and fix their flaws. They are the only people who can judge whether a review is helpful or not... not people who don't play the case and then judge the review. So far, the system has worked in favor of the author. Case(s) in point: enigma and whooperboy. Even with poor grades, the authors found it helpful because it forced the reviewer to be detailed and thorough in the explanation... Unlike a half-assed job a certain QAer does.

In the end, why should it matter how we review, when the review should always be about the author in the first place?

Holy. Crap.


Took the words out of my mouth...Especially the very last line.

Pretty much agree on that. Why DOES it matter how we review so long as we can help the author out?

I like ED's mindset. Although I'm surprised he's bringing up the originality thing since he always seems a stickler for using the exact testimony music and nothing else. Although I agree there should be some logic to it... but it just has to be consistent with itself.

Good point on that mAc, but I'm not sure I follow the originality part-I think he meant for when it came to reviews where it stated "You HAVE to change this if you really wanna pass this QA test or not"