ZOMG! Rating system – revisited

May 1st, 2009 by Rosa

So in light of recent um… issues… I think it’s high time I give my rating system a little tweak. I’d modeled it after the NY Times’ 4-star system for dining reviews, only instead of stars, I had the letters ZOMG. But as Emily pointed out, it would be better if I didn’t group bad and mediocre together. That’s a pretty wide range to encompass.

And so here’s my new system, better modeled after the NY Times’ system, as they do give zero star reviews.

– (no letters): short for nothing. For candy that merits no praise, ranging from simply bleh to awful; run away!

O: short for Oh. Not bad and worth trying once, but not something that I’d seek out again.

OM: short for Oh My. Good enough to elicit a minor exclaimation. A treat that is worth revisiting.

OMG: short for Oh My God/Goodness. Good enough to invoke a deity/virtuousness. Candy that is worth revisiting, many times over.

ZOMG!: short for Z-Oh My God! As explained on urbandictionary.com, ZOMG is the more enthusiastic form of OMG that arises when one is so excited that one accidentally hits the Z key along with the Shift key. Reserved for the best of the best, candy that is good enough to eat every day but too good to ruin the specialness of by actually eating every day.

So that’s the new system, which I think is a little more fair to the middle-of-the-pack guys. It goes into effect immediately for all future reviews, and I’m hoping to go through my archives – all 477 previous posts – and change Os to s by the end of June.

This entry was posted onFriday, May 1st, 2009 at 11:21 am and is filed under news. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 responses about “ZOMG! Rating system – revisited”

  1. Pam Walter said:

    I like your system. The definitions sound just like the opinions I have about candy when I eat it.

  2. Reg said:

    I actually dig the new system. I frequent quite a few candy blogs, including yours, and I’ve always wondered why it seemed some of your reviews seemed so much lower than everyone else’s. That didn’t stop me from reading, because I really dig the descriptions, but the pattern always came off as a little unfair–especially when I take a chance and try some of the Os and I think “Wow, these aren’t *terrible*. The are actually…kind of okay! Maybe sometimes nice!”

  3. Justin said:

    Nah, let it roll off of you. Susie sounds like she can’t really take criticism. She resorted to the egotiscial, blame the consumer when your product is overpriced and underdelivers. Hasn’t worked out so well for Sony **CoughPS3***.

    I like your system, it’s a lot more definitive than most. If you really want to change I’ll still read. Don’t change to cater to others’ egos. Hmm…chocolate covered gushers… may warrant an experiment….

  4. Nana said:

    I support this tweak, but not because of the Susie e-mail. I like the idea of differentiating a candy that was fine, but not exciting, from a candy that was barfalicious.