Writer, Article: 0-99

  • Alpha511, Installing windows after ubuntu: 84. 30, 15, 10, 10, 10, 9. Would also have liked an image of the Windows partition action. Maybe provide footnotes to software archives. Good command line references.
  • Bomac, Introduction to cryptocurrencies vs fiat money plus a warning about being stupid: 70. 15, 30, 10, 10, 5, 0, I think my biggest problem with the article is where the author sends some coin to an account that isn't an account. Plain formatting. No images. +15 points for reading like an editorial or commentary instead of a rant.
  • Grc, Javascript: 75. 15, 30, 5, 10, 10, 5. Difficult to follow. If this is an introduction, then transition statements or more basic explanations should be used. Why is that considered “weak”? Good use of illustrations.
  • Paul3, Java: 60. 30, 0, 10, 10, 10, 0. Succint and well written. No references or images.
  • Prdkojistic, Radio receivers: 33. 10, 0, 3, 10, 10, 0. Missing many definite articles, making reading the article difficult. Statements like “Another approach with receiver with direct amplification is analogous” or “Thanks MF amplifier has excellent selectivity” do not make sense in the context. This reads like it was auto-translated from a Cyrllic language.
  • Tenthirtyone, And we ran - throwing the bowling ball down the street and in to traffic: 89. 60, 10, 9, 10, 0, Fiction. Short, but nice article. Fourth paragraph hooked me. -1 for using “had to of” instead of “had to have”. Putting character thoughts into italics may have helped, but I didn't deduct points for that. Just a method used by some to aid the reader.
  • Termhn, Starcraft 2: 40. 10, 15, 5, 5, 5, 0. This is a 1700 word game review. Roughly 50% is duplicated text. Still being edited, this is difficult to rate due to the age of the game being reviewed (interest level, relevance) and the duplicated content. The reference cited (wiki.teamliquid.net) contains some identical content as the Devtome article). I divided the score by 1/2, but I am rating this under protest since the article is clearly marked as a stub. This Devtome user can obviously write, as evidenced by the post at http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=technological_security.
  • Thedischarger, Html5 programming tutorials: 75. 30, 15, 10, 10, 10, 0. Some content appears borrowed between user contributions, but they are minor and introductory. After some internal debate, I think the mirrored content is appropriately used. Good article. No images. No references or links, but does have code snippets. To stay consistent in this round, I will count add 1/2 points for the links/refs rating.
  • Xeriandros, Receptor internalization: 99. 30, 30, 10, 10, 10, 9. One of the very few perfect scores I've given. As a note, is “clathrin-dependent” the same as “clathrin-mediated” (possible equivocation)? It seems like a big difference between the two. One is completely reliant (a dependency) and the other seems to imply a variable that “may” effect an outcome.

Raters can rate authors how they choose, this is the just one way to rate an author. Roughly half weight is given to content, and half to presentation. I try to offer a decent justification for my ratings, but if you'd like more information, I can be contacted on Coinzen - eeharris (hat tip to melodiemuse for this comment).

My rating scheme is based on this information:1)

  • The number of points for each aspect for non fiction follows:
  1. 30 for the content, how interesting or useful the article is.
  2. 30 for links and references
  3. 10 for grammar and readability
  4. 10 for spelling
  5. 10 for formatting
  6. 9 for images, 0 for no images, 5 for one adequate image, 9 for more than one image or for one perfectly suited image
  • For fiction:
  1. 60 for the content, how interesting or original the book is.
  2. 10 for grammar and readability
  3. 10 for spelling
  4. 10 for formatting
  5. 9 for images, 0 for no images, 5 for one adequate image, 9 for more than one image or for one perfectly suited image

Commerce | Devtome

QR Code
QR Code rating_eeharris_37 (generated for current page)