OFF-META READSFollow

How I Score

A number means nothing without the rubric behind it. This is the whole system, published so you can disagree with it precisely.

RUBRIC VERSION: v1 · LAST CHANGED: when it changed, not when this page was built

The five axes

Every series is scored on five axes, each out of 20. The total is the sum, so every review lands somewhere between 0 and 100. Five stats of 20 keeps the arithmetic honest and forces a finer judgement than a 1–10 scale, which matters when the whole point is noticing small shifts.

AxisWhat it measuresMax
StoryPlot, premise, escalation, worldbuilding.20
ArtLinework, composition, panel flow, colour.20
CharactersDepth, voice, growth, likeability.20
PacingMomentum, filler, arc structure, readability.20
PayoffDo the setups land? Arc and ending quality.20
TotalThe number you see everywhere on the site.100

Verdict bands

The total maps to a band. Bands are fixed — they don't move because a series is popular.

ScoreBand
90–99Crit Success
75–89Solid Roll
60–74Serviceable
45–59Filler Arc
30–44Nerfed
0–29Crit Fail

Build labels

The total tells you how good something is. The build tells you what kind of thing it is, from the shape of the stats rather than the sum of them.

Trajectory labels

This is the part that only works because I re-score as I read. Computed from the checkpoint history:

The rules I hold myself to

  1. Old scores are never edited. If my opinion moves, a new checkpoint is added and the reason is written down. The movement is the content — a silently revised number would make every graph on this site a lie.
  2. Chapter counts come from one platform only. Platforms split episodes differently. If I switched mid-series the x-axis would stop meaning anything.
  3. I score what I actually read. A first impression at chapter 2 is labelled as a first impression, never dressed up as a verdict.
  4. Spoilers stay out of the note. Enough to explain the score, never enough to ruin a turn.

What the score is not

It isn't objective and it isn't a ranking of quality in the abstract. It's a record of one reader's experience, timestamped, so that when I say "this one gets better" you can see whether I actually believed that at the time.

A static review tells you the conclusion. A checkpoint log tells you whether the conclusion was earned.