Home » Education

How do I Rate on Squidoo?

Ranked #29,299 in Education, #529,150 overall | Donates to Squidoo Charity Fund

I've noticed lately that many lenses either seem to have five star ratings or no ratings at all. Curiously, some of the highly ranked ones are rather poorly built. This leads me to the conclusion that there are people using Squidoo regularly who are afraid to rate anything less than a four.

So how exactly should we rate a lens? It seems that Squidoo pretty much leaves the criteria up to us to decide for ourselves. They do offer the following loose guideline, which is at once interesting and amusing:

1. I Can Do Better
2. Jury's Out
3. Pretty Darn Good
4. Splendiferous
5. Awesometastic

However, those last two choices lend themselves to reinterpretation. I honestly have to wonder about just what some folks think "splenderiferous" and "awesometastic" mean, because I've seen lenses rated that highly that definitely don't fit my idea of what those words mean. Here's what Squidoo seems to think about them:

1. Poor
2. Average
3. Good
4. Great
5. Exceptional

These values can be glimpsed under "Lens Stats" in the sidebar. Just mouse over the stars next time you're editing a lens.

Rate it High, or Don't Rate it?

I get the impression that there's an unspoken "rate it high or don't rate it at all" criterion floating out there in the inky black ether. Perhaps it isn't important, but every once in a while I see a lens that looks like an aborted attempt at incoherency, rated at 4 or 5 stars. I wince.

I'm fairly new to Squidoo, but I'm pretty sure that's not what a five-star rating system is for.

I've encountered this mentality on creative writing sites before. It didn't make sense to me there, and it makes even less sense on Squidoo. Why? First, refusing to rank lenses anything less than a (insert your limit here) renders the rating system useless. If it's going to rate either five or nothing at all, why have a rating system? Second, Squidoo ratings aren't permanent. If a lensmaster comes back and improves his work, I can always come back and bump a rating up to match. For these reasons, I don't subscribe to this thinking.

I will, however, refuse to rate lenses I feel unqualified to judge. I also generally won't rate a lens if I think it's still being built. So, when I decide it's time to award a rating, just how do I go about it?

Two Main Questions

What's it all About?

There are two questions which every successful lens must answer:
  • What is the purpose of this lens?
  • What is the point?
It's how the lensmaster answers these questions that determines how I rate a lens. They don't have to be answered explicitly, but each module should contribute to the answers until I understand them.

It often happens that some modules will introduce additional questions. This is a fine thing, and can be a lot of fun. But this is where some lensmasters can really do themselves in. Why? Because these question marks will begin rattling around in my head until they are resolved. If there are too many dancing about in there when I'm done with your lens, I'll probably think you didn't treat the subject properly. An "awesometastic" lens should resolve this additional confusion.

Five Stars

As Perfect as it Gets

If I give you five stars, you've built a lens in such a way that I feel I couldn't add anything to it. I've noticed no major mistakes, and if I noticed any minor ones, they weren't worth nitpicking over. I probably learned something from you; if not about your subject matter, then at least about how to make a kickin' lens.

It doesn't have to be perfect, but it will be somewhere in the ballpark.

Four Stars

Better than Good, but not as good as Better

You've covered your topic well; probably better than I could. All your modules are coming together pretty much seamlessly, and if any of them introduced an odd twist or a thematic shift, they at least made sense while doing it.

I probably noticed a minor mistake or two, or maybe a major one. I may question your logic, or some of your facts. Some possibilities:
  • One or more fallacies are evident in your reasoning.
  • Minor typographical errors.
  • You've raised some question or confusion that you didn't resolve.

Three Stars

Good Lens!

Nice work. You've given me what I expect from a Squidoo lens. I know what it's about now, and you've made your point. However, I probably think I could do it better. Try these possibilities:
  • Presentation. I'm noticing errors. It's possible I think you aren't being objective, or I've noticed that you're overlooking something important.
  • Typography. You need to correct some glaring spelling errors.
  • Grammar and usage. I'm noticing mistakes with your command of the English language. This tends to grate on the 'inner ear', so to speak.

Two Stars

Clean it up, will ya?

I know I could do it better than this.

You've probably committed some of the mistakes listed above. In addition, try checking for:
  • Dead picture links. When a picture fails to load (often because of a broken link), an ugly graphical icon loads in its place. Check your graphics.
  • Messy modules with no content, or just a couple of sentences. If you have these, you can either delete the module or expand the content. You should probably have at least a paragraph or a few points listed. Adding the right picture can do wonders, too.
  • Lack of cohesion. Do your modules come together under an idea or theme that makes sense, or do they meander randomly? Are your points supported by fact, educated guesswork, or plain old assumption?
  • Completeness. Is your lens complete? Do all modules look like they're finished? What's missing from the experience here?
  • Tone. Mood. Are you coming across as overly abrasive? If your attitude isn't appropriate for the topic, I'll tend toward a low rating.

The Lone Star

How could I be so cruel??

Just which lenses deserve the dreaded flaming single Star of Doom? Basically, the abortive attempts at incoherency.

Consider the lens that starts off with several sentences about stuffed animals. The last line of that module consists of a link to a website that sells baseball tickets. The link has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. It was just randomly thrown in. This, friends, is incoherency. If that same lens is littered with modules which have no content, it's probably a candidate for this rating.

As I write this, I am looking at a lens that fits this description exactly. It has forty ratings, and is rated at four stars. It had four and a half when I found it, but... I gave it the Dreaded Flaming Single Star of Doom. Why?

Because the lensmaster obviously didn't even try to make something worth a higher rating. I can tell the lens was thrown together for the sole purpose of promoting that one link. And it wasn't done in a way that makes the least bit of sense.

Incoherency.

So what am I, some kind of ratings nazi?

Nope. This isn't a hard and fast system I use, just a general outline to show you what I notice about most lenses. Each lens has its own purpose and its own format. Most problems I notice happen when a lens breaks its own expectations.

Basically, I'll rate a lens high if your lens really stands out. I'll rate it average if you did an average job, and low if you were being a lazy, sloppy lensmaster.

Seems fair to me.

So... how do YOU rate on Squidoo?

Are you willing to rate a lens poorly when it's warranted, or do you just click elsewhere if you can't give it at least a 'four'?

  • PaulHassing Nov 14, 2008 @ 8:51 pm | delete
    I'm having trouble working out how to rate too. To date, I've clicked on the star of my choice, then pressed F5 to refresh. This works OK, but it seems a bit awkward. Is there a simpler, more intuitive way I can tell my visitors to use?
  • silversurferdiva Sep 23, 2008 @ 6:40 am | delete
    if I had a lens with a one star I would definately delete it!!!!!!!!!!!! cHowever not to give an honest rating is dishonest to all the people who work hard to create awesome lens.
  • lavender123 Sep 21, 2008 @ 2:56 pm | delete
    This may sound like a stupid question, please forgive me, I'm new to this......how do you rate a page? My lens is up and running but I have no ratings and didn't see where I can rate one so anyone pleae help.
    thanks
  • Pastiche Sep 8, 2008 @ 11:18 am | delete
    I agree with Barkely and others. I apply a similar approach to rating, and will even make private suggestions to a new lensmaster before rating a basically good-could be excellent lens. I'm stymied at some of my own lenses without any ratings -lenses I think are pretty good, and that have received many positive comments.

    I only have one lens with 1 single star; it definitely doesn't warrant the implied insult or low rating. However, I got a nasty comment on the same lens at the same time and I banned the author and comment (said rudie apparently is no longer on Squidoo ...). Life goes on, lenses get built/improved and Karma will take care of it all. 5*s - truly awarded. Thoughtful and thought-promoting.
  • Mac33 Aug 21, 2008 @ 12:53 pm | delete
    I started with an approach very similar to Grasshoppa's. Over time, I refined it to a checklist of lens attributes. Lenses start at 3 stars and go up/down from there according to the checklist.
  • Jolie2 Jul 17, 2008 @ 3:49 pm | delete
    I like this sight because you can express and share what you are concerned or passionate about.
  • pyle_mountain May 16, 2008 @ 7:59 pm | delete
    This is an interesting lens topic and something I've thought about quite a bit. I have to say I agree pretty much with Barkely. I have a ton of lenses and I don't consider any of them to be finished. Some of my lenses are ok and some are obviously junk (at this time). If I don't care for a lens - I usually don't rate it simply because I like to think that other folks might be like me - maybe they haven't finished it yet. But when I like a lens - I give it a 5.
  • XP May 12, 2008 @ 8:50 pm | delete
    I'm not afraid to rate a spammy, stinky lens appropriately -- I think dropping a 1 star bomb on someone is much like leaving a nickel tip for a HORRIBLE waitress (and I don't mean a decent person just having a bad day) -- BUT I'll give the benefit of the doubt if I think the author was well-intentioned but just needs to build and improve. In those cases, I pass on the star-clicking until next time through. I also don't want to leave 2-3 stars on a work in progress only to forget to check back in when it's complete and probably well worth 4-5.

    On the flip side, I think some people will give a lens five stars so they can leave a comment saying that they did so, so that the lensmaster will in turn visit one of their lenses and grant them five shiny stars of their own ... which isn't quite the point of the rating system. I'll give 5* to those who earn them. If they happen to like one of mine and rate it, I hope they do so honestly and not simply to reciprocate.

    :)
  • Grasshoppa May 11, 2008 @ 7:16 pm | delete
    Thanks! I know what you mean. I hate dinging other peoples' work too. But then, some of them aren't really doing much, and I don't feel like I'm being honest if I leave a high rating for a lens that doesn't warrant it.

    I believe in karma too, though we may be looking at it from different angles. I think the people who put in the effort to make a genuine five-star lens have the five-star karma coming. Lazy and spammy lensmasters have one and two-star karma.
    :)
  • Load More
Show All

by

Grasshoppa

Jack of all trades, master of a few. Professional student and genius extraordinaire. Okay, two out of three of those anyway...

Just dabbling a bit with... more »

Feeling creative? Create a Lens!

Related Tags