<br>

This is an updated view of the grading criteria we use for the WOTW Contest. 

We are planning to upgrade the criteria, and make necessary reductions or additions to the system, after receiving non-biased critiques from persons external to HIVE/POB/VYB.

<center>
![hand.jpg](https://images.hive.blog/DQmT8DR3ET8PWkZYvCRxSiSNdVqXHPMWbZgNVdXNiYEGUwP/hand.jpg)
</center>

<center><sub>*image courtesy ~ [Augusto Oazi](https://unsplash.com/photos/KWOcA8_Vu10)*</sub></center>

---

<br>

We've attempted to build a merit-based grading system that highlights both subjective and objective elements within content creation and presentation. The first steps towards this were documented [here](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@calumam/building-the-wotw-merit-system).

Read on for the current setup. Keep an open mind and please share any, and all feedback.

<br>
<br>
<br>

# <center>WOTW GRADING CRITERIA</center>

<br>

---

<center>**A**:`Title/Clickworthiness`</center>

**0=**
<sub>Fails to engage the reader to even click on the article</sub>

**1=**
<sub>Thumbnail relates to the title of the article.
They will read an article reflective of its name by clicking the title.</sub>

**2=** 
<sub>The thumbnail relates to the article's title.
The title's wording draws readers' interest and entices them to step into the author's world.</sub>

**3=**
<sub>The title and thumbnail stand out among others.
Its catchy wording and visual imagery distract the user from other relevant articles.</sub>

**4=**
<sub>Draws the reader to click on the article regardless of content.
The title and thumbnail stand out among them all.
The reader gets drawn to clicking on the link despite their own intents.</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**B**:`Grammar/Writing`</center>

**0=**
<sub>Continuous errors.
These errors disconnect the user from the content presented by the creator.</sub>

**1=**
<sub>Grammar, spelling, and syntax errors are still present to a sufficient degree that disconnects the user from the content created.</sub>

**2=**
<sub>Errors exist randomly throughout the content.
It's distracting but doesn't permanently disconnect the reader with the content.</sub>

**3=**
<sub>A few errors may exist in grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation.
Errors do not present much of a distraction, if at all, to the user.</sub>

**4=**
<sub>Excellent grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation.
RARE distractions may occur in the article.</sub>

**5=**
<sub>Perfect grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation.
There are no distractions to the user related to grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation.</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**C**:`Formatting`</center>

**0=**
<sub>Chaotic formatting throughout the article.
No clear flow of writing or organization.</sub>

**1=**
<sub>Article formatting is inconsistent, disorganized, and prevents the reader from connecting with the writer's message.</sub>

**2=**
<sub>There may be formatting issues in the article that distracts the reader, but it is minimal. 
Examples: Pasting website links within a passage without using markdown language, large passages of text which overwhelm the reader (this includes articles with sufficient spacing between text bodies).</sub>

**3=**
<sub>Formatting is consistent and easy to read.
Formatting follows the writer's narrative.</sub>

**4=**
<sub>The layout of the article and its presentation keep the reader engaged and asking for more.</sub>

**5=**
<sub>Out of this world.
Creative style, bespoke graphics, exceptional.</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**D**:`Imagery`</center>

**0=**
<sub>No images included in the article.
Image used conveys nothing about the article.</sub>

**1=**
<sub>The images provided appear related to the content.</sub>

**2=**
<sub>The images reflect the writer's topic.
It allows the user to anticipate the topic's discussion or prepare them for the creator's delivery.</sub>

**3=**
<sub>The images draw the reader into the content.
Images are appealing enough to keep the reader engaged and intent on learning about the content.
It presents a visual story to the reader.</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**E**:`Informative`</center>

**0=**
<sub>Little or no discussion on any topic.
The article is meandering and not specific to any topic.
Article consists of rambling passages.</sub>

**1=**
<sub>The article's topic is discussed to a degree by the writer.
They either list information do not give complete information.</sub>

**2=**
<sub>The article's topic is discussed to a degree by the writer.
Some inconsistencies may exist that the article doesn't address.</sub>

**3=**

<sub>The article's information is developed and engages the reader.</sub>

**4=**
<sub>Article is developed.
The writer introduces the topic and takes the reader on an informative journey.
The writer asks questions that intrigue the reader enough to challenge or add to the conversation.</sub>

**5=**
<sub>Very well-developed introduction and article body.
The writer engages the reader and creates interest.
The author's point is clear about the focus of the article and presents it effectively.</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**F**:`Creative`</center>

**0=**
<sub>A straight-forward discussion on the topic.
"Just the facts" with no opinion or engagement with the reader.</sub>

**1=**
<sub>The article's topic is discussed to a degree by the writer and may lack creativity.
The article presents opinions or facts with little or no discussion.</sub>

**2=**
<sub>The article's topic is discussed to a degree by the writer.
Discusses views in passing versus directly. "I think this is the way it goes," and moves on. Doesn't expand upon their thoughts.
Presents some innovative thinking and attempts to connect with the reader at a personal level.</sub>

**3=**
<sub>Writing is creative to a degree. The writer presents new and imaginative ideas. Good writing.</sub>

**4=**
<sub>Writing is creative. Ideas and style guide the reader along with the story.</sub>

**5=**
<sub>Writing is extremely creative.
Ideas and style are refreshing and imaginative. Talented writing.
The read is pulled into the storyline and experiences the writer's point of view.</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**G**:`Perspective`</center>

**0=**
<sub>No perspective or point of view exists in the article.
The reader is reviewing opinions and facts alone.</sub>

**1=**
<sub>The writer's perspective is unclear at times.
Shifts in dialogue.
Difficult for the reader to interpret the writer's meanings.</sub>

**2=**
<sub>The writer's perspective is much clearer, but there are a few inconsistencies.</sub>

**3=**
<sub>Perspective on the topic is clear and easily detected by the reader.
The writer's POV is consistent throughout the article.</sub>

**4=**
<sub>Perspective on the topic is not only clear and easily detectable, but also obscure in comparison to other posts. The content is an outlier and brings a fresh take to the discussion.
The writer's POV is consistent throughout the article.</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**H**:`Personality`</center>

**0=**
<sub>No personal touches to the article exists.
The background details provided are a random collection of information that is unclear to the reader.</sub>

**1=**
<sub>Little personality exists. What does exist is still random.</sub>

**2=**
<sub>Some personal touches to the article exists.
The background details provided appear random, but it adequately demonstrates the author's personal views about the subject matter.
Article shares relevant information, facts, and experiences.</sub>

**3=**
<sub>The author guides the reader on a personal journey of opinion and feelings.
Writing is honest, enthusiastic, and unafraid.
Supporting details are relevant.</sub>

**4=**
<sub>The language is thought-provoking and tells a personal story.
The author is unafraid of sharing their emotions or providing feedback to the community about them.</sub>

<br>

---

<br>


<center>**I**:`Affinity`</center>

**0=**
<sub>The author's article would not appear to synch with the reader for any number of reasons.
The reader is not engaged in the story and does not feel connected to the author.</sub>

**1=**
<sub>The author's article may appear to synch with the reader briefly at least once during the reading.
The reader may be engaged in the story.
An affinity between the author and reader may exist briefly but quickly passes.</sub>

**2=**
<sub>The article allows the user to understand the author's point of view throughout the reading.
Moments of detachment may occur for one reason or another.</sub>

**3=**
<sub>The article allows the user to know the author's point of view and understanding throughout the reading.</sub>

**4=**
<sub>The author's writing compels the user to step into their shoes and observe the world as they see it, feel it, and interact with it.</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**J**:`Artistry`</center>

**0=** 
<sub>No additions</sub>

**1=**
<sub>Clear artistic efforts</sub>

**2=**
<sub>Polished artistic effort</sub>

**3=**
<sub>Talented artistry</sub>

**4=** 
<sub>Remarkable</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**K**:`Entertainment`</center>

**0=**
<sub>Dull (a post that does not invoke any emotional response i.e happiness, nostalgia, sadness, etc)</sub>

**1=**
<sub>AVERAGE (a mildly entertaining post. There is some conscious effort to make the post interesting either through pictorial representation or storytelling)</sub>

**2=**
<sub>BRILLIANT. (A very sensual post that engages the audience senses; invokes strong emotional responses)</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**L**:`Overkill`</center>

**-1=**
<sub>Overwhelming Text (The article has large segments of text which overwhelm the reader)</sub>

**-1=**
<sub>Convoluted (The article confuses the reader with multiple perspectives)</sub>

**-1=**
<sub>Unnecessary Mixture (The article mixes multiple elements of artistry and information with little substance or sense)</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**M**:`Repeat Image`</center>

**0=**
<sub>N/A </sub>

**-1=**
<sub>Same image as an earlier post</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**N**:`Post Length`</center>
 
**-1=**
<sub>Image/embed and/or 1 paragraph.</sub>

**-2=**
<sub>Image/embed and/or 1 sentence.</sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**O**:`Engagement`</center>  

**-1=**
<sub>No author engagement.  Users engage in the conversation, but the author does not participate in the discussions (at least one sentence of engagement from the author should exist).</sub>

**0=**
<sub>No quality engagement exists in the contest articles (one to two word comments don't count).  Spamming and automated responses do not count. </sub>

**1=**
<sub>Engagement exists.  Author response to commentators in a normal conversation in their own post or others.</sub>

**2=**
<sub>Engagement flows.  Authors and commentators fully engage in meaningful conversation that addresses contest articles and raises the overall quality of the author's work. </sub>

<br>

---

<br>

<center>**P**:`Plagiarism`</center>

---

<br>
<br>

I'll take this opportunity to express my deepest thanks to @scholaris and @nonsowrites for being involved with the Word of the Week contest. Without them, this place wouldn't be standing strong. 

I'm pleased to call them my friends and colleagues in past, present, and future endeavours.

<br>

<center>https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7bukJD4xvmxg6xZ6/giphy.gif</center>

<br>

Thank you to all WOTW participants for your continued or previous efforts within the contest and for opening a door into your mind for us all to experience. 

You're the real WOTW team. 

<br>

<center>**Are you ready for the future of WOTW?** <sub>*I hope so.*</sub></center>



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@calumam/current-wotw-grading-criteria)</sub></center>