Hi all,

I've been seeing some confusion around the board concerning the star rating system and thought folks might find my own interpretation, based on what Colleen has said in various discussions, of use.

The way I see it, we're not rating the books on some objective scale of excellence, or even our own personal tastes, but rather on a scale of how ready for publishing we judge the work to be.  In that light, the ratings would translate to something like this:

One star:  Unworkable, the concept is flawed at its core.

Two stars:  Major revision is needed to make this work.

Three stars:  You got some strong material here that deserves to be out there, but it's mixed with some stuff that isn't helping you.

Four stars:  You're well on your way--keep it up!

Five stars:  Why isn't this published?

So.  What do y'all think?

-Kevin