Most have been solid B+/A- material; although, I've yet to recently find an ATF.
Originally Posted by Cpalmson
A brief note on a tangential issue:
I believe it was Charles who bemoaned there being only two option for recomendation.
Actually, if you edit after you post the review, you can go in and change the language of the recommendation. I have changef it to things like "a hesitant yes" to "an enthusiastic yes" to "OH HELL YEAH" That gives a little bit more info for the members without RoS access.
Just a suggestion.
Originally Posted by Crossroads
Hmmm. . .don't know if it would help or hurt the board, but maybe a few more gradients would help when it comes to the recommendation portion of the review at the bottom, rather than just a "yes" or "no." Crossroads brings up a great idea, and I might try that next time if I am having a difficult time deciding.
How upset will folks get if they see: "MAYBE--Read the ROS"
I usually do any qualifying of my recommendation in the ROS portion of the review. Mostly because as others have stated, if she provided a standard session, she still gets the "yes" even if it was not stellar. Conversely she will get many kudos beyond the simple yes if she went the extra mile in the ROS.
I figure that works best because of the whole YMMV issue. Things I love in a session may not be that important to other guys, and things that annoy me, may not be that big of a deal to others, so you need to read the whole review and decide for yourself.
I know there are some folks that don't write reviews or purchase the premium upgrade, so they need to remember that what they see in a review from the public portions may have quite a bit of material they are missing, so they might not want to put too much power in that simple one word description at the bottom when making choices.