Jeppe
05-10-2004, 11:25 AM
One of our visitors asked what the background for our scoring system was and what the 'real' average score would be. So I am posting this so that others can read it and possibly give their input in the matter.
I understand the reason for the question, and actually we have had the same discussion when working out the score system.
I agree that the ideal situation would be if 5.0 was the average. But it has turned out that most sites that get submitted to us and the sites we contact ourselves, are in fact good quality sites. Not many webmasters who think their site is poor, will submit it for review. You could say that 5.0 should then be the average of the "good sites", but what exactly is the standard for a good site? It is hard to define and it would change from time to time resulting in us having to adjust the scores every once in a while. So based on all these thoughts we decided that the score should be relatively loosely defined and then put a lot of effort into describing the background for the scores in each review.
I understand the reason for the question, and actually we have had the same discussion when working out the score system.
I agree that the ideal situation would be if 5.0 was the average. But it has turned out that most sites that get submitted to us and the sites we contact ourselves, are in fact good quality sites. Not many webmasters who think their site is poor, will submit it for review. You could say that 5.0 should then be the average of the "good sites", but what exactly is the standard for a good site? It is hard to define and it would change from time to time resulting in us having to adjust the scores every once in a while. So based on all these thoughts we decided that the score should be relatively loosely defined and then put a lot of effort into describing the background for the scores in each review.