Our Grading Scale

In our effort to evaluate and grade the quality of content across various dimensions, we have developed a comprehensive grading tool that assesses content based on several key categories. These categories include Originality, Helpfulness, Reliability, Safety, Up-to-datedness, Accuracy, Effort, Transparency and more… Each category is crucial in determining the overall value and quality of the content.

To provide a clear and standardized assessment, we use a scoring system that ranges from 0 to 10. This scale helps in quantifying the qualitative aspects of content, offering a structured way to rate and compare different pieces of content. Below is a brief explanation of what each score or range of scores signifies:

board icon


0-2 Largely copied, duplicated or unoriginal content with minimal unique elements.
3-4 Some original ideas, but largely derivative or common.
5-6 A mix of original and traceable derivative content.
7-8 Mostly original content with unique perspectives or insights.
9-10 Highly original and innovative content, offering new ideas or approaches.


0-2 Provides little to no useful information to the reader.
3-4 Somewhat helpful but lacks depth or clarity.
5-6 Moderately helpful with useful information.
7-8 Very helpful, providing comprehensive and practical information.
9-10 Exceptionally helpful, offering in-depth, actionable insights.


0-2 Unreliable, with a lot of factual errors or unsubstantiated claims.
3-4 Occasional reliability issues or minor inaccuracies.
5-6 Moderately reliable with partly-supported information.
7-8 Very reliable, with information consistently backed by credible sources.
9-10 Exceptionally reliable, with thorough verification and authoritative sources.


0-2 Contains harmful or dangerous content.
3-4 Some questionable content, but not overtly harmful.
5-6 Mostly safe, with minor issues.
7-8 Very safe, with content appropriate for most audiences.
9-10 Exceptionally safe, with content suitable for all audiences and contexts.


0-2 Totally outdated or obsolete information.
3-4 Somewhat outdated, with a few updates.
5-6 Moderately current, with occassional updates.
7-8 Very current, with information reflecting recent developments.
9-10 Exceptionally current, with the latest information and frequent updates.


0-2 Highly inaccurate, with numerous errors.
3-4 Somewhat inaccurate, with several noticeable errors.
5-6 Moderately accurate, generally reliable information.
7-8 Very accurate, with minor errors being rare.
9-10 Exceptionally accurate, with information meticulously verified.


0-2 Minimal effort, with poor presentation and lack of detail.
3-4 Some effort, but lacking in several areas.
5-6 Moderate effort, with a decent level of detail and presentation.
7-8 High effort, with thorough research and polished presentation.
9-10 Remarkable effort, with outstanding attention to detail and quality.


0-2 No transparency, with unclear or hidden authorship and intent.
3-4 Limited transparency, with some aspects not clearly disclosed.
5-6 Moderately transparent, with partial information disclosed.
7-8 Highly transparent, with clear disclosure of sources, authorship, and intent.
9-10 Exceptionally transparent, with comprehensive disclosure and openness.

First-person perspective

0-2 Little to no first-person narrative or personal insight.
3-4 Occasional use of first-person, but lacks depth or relevance.
5-6 Moderate use of first-person perspective, somewhat engaging.
7-8 Strong first-person narrative that adds personal insight and relevance.
9-10 Outstanding first-person narrative, deeply engaging and highly relevant.

Personal experience or user testimonials

0-2 Absence or very poor quality of personal experiences or testimonials.
3-4 Some testimonials or experiences, but they lack authenticity or relevance.
5-6 A few relevant and believable testimonials or personal experiences.
7-8 Rich in authentic, relevant, and diverse personal experiences or testimonials.
9-10 Considerably compelling and diverse testimonials or personal experiences.

Balanced and critical product or service evaluation

0-2 Highly biased or one-sided evaluation.
3-4 Some attempt at balance, but still shows noticeable bias.
5-6 Partly balanced, shows both positives and negatives.
7-8 Well-balanced and critical, thoughtful analysis of pros and cons.
9-10 Exceptionally balanced, deeply insightful and critical evaluation.

Author’s expertise and subject matter knowledge

0-2 Author shows little to no expertise or knowledge.
3-4 Some expertise evident, but lacks depth.
5-6 Moderate level of expertise and knowledge.
7-8 High level of expertise and in-depth knowledge.
9-10 Remarkable expertise, authoritative and comprehensive knowledge.

Evidence to support claims and enhance credibility

0-2 No believable evidence or very weak support for claims.
3-4 Some acceptable evidence, but it’s weak or not very credible.
5-6 Good use of evidence, generally supports claims.
7-8 Strong, credible evidence, well-integrated to support claims.
9-10 Superior use of high-quality, diverse evidence to robustly support claims.

Performance measurements and competitor comparisons

0-2 No or irrelevant performance metrics, no comparison with competitors.
3-4 Limited or somewhat irrelevant metrics, minimal competitor comparison.
5-6 Adequate performance metrics, some useful competitor comparisons.
7-8 Detailed, relevant performance metrics, thorough competitor comparison.
9-10 Highly detailed and insightful performance metrics, comprehensive competitor analysis.

Discussion of benefits and drawbacks

0-2 No discussion or very one-sided.
3-4 Limited discussion of either benefits or drawbacks.
5-6 Balanced discussion of both benefits and drawbacks, but lacks depth.
7-8 In-depth discussion of both benefits and drawbacks.
9-10 Seriously thorough and insightful discussion of both benefits and drawbacks.

Description of product evolution and user experience impact

0-2 No description or irrelevant information.
3-4 Basic description, lacks detail or relevance.
5-6 Adequate description of product evolution and its impact on user experience.
7-8 Detailed and relevant description of product evolution and user experience impact.
9-10 Remarkably detailed, insightful description of product evolution and its impact on user experience.

Focus on decision-making factors

0-2 No focus or irrelevant factors.
3-4 Limited focus on decision-making factors.
5-6 Moderate focus on relevant decision-making factors.
7-8 Strong focus on comprehensive decision-making factors.
9-10 Exceptional focus on detailed, highly relevant decision-making factors.

Links to resources and multiple sellers

0-2 Missing or irrelevant links.
3-4 Some links, but limited in scope or relevance.
5-6 Good number of relevant links to resources and sellers.
7-8 Comprehensive and relevant links to a variety of resources and sellers.
9-10 Excellent range of highly relevant and useful links to diverse resources and multiple sellers.

Depth of Content

0-2 Content is extremely superficial, lacks detail, and does not adequately cover the topic.
3-4 Content covers the topic but lacks depth and detail, providing only basic information.
5-6 Content is reasonably detailed, offering a fair amount of information and some insights on the topic.
7-8 Content is thorough and in-depth, providing comprehensive information and valuable insights.
9-10 Content is exceptionally detailed and comprehensive, offering deep insights and a complete understanding of the topic.

Headlines Relevancy

0-2 Headlines are irrelevant or misleading, not reflecting the content accurately.
3-4 Headlines are somewhat relevant but lack clarity or fail to capture the essence of the content.
5-6 Headlines are relevant and give a general idea of the content, but could be more engaging or descriptive.
7-8 Headlines are highly relevant, clear, and engaging, accurately reflecting the content.
9-10 Headlines are perfectly relevant, highly engaging, and effectively encapsulate the main idea of the content.

FAQ Section

0-2 The FAQ section is either missing or the questions are irrelevant and unhelpful.
3-4 The FAQ section exists but contains only basic questions with short or incomplete answers.
5-6 The FAQ section addresses relevant questions with satisfactory answers, but lacks depth or detail.
7-8 The FAQ section is well-constructed with relevant, detailed questions and comprehensive answers.
9-10 The FAQ section is outstanding, with a wide range of relevant questions thoroughly answered,
providing deep insights and valuable information.