DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Jinx, v. 1, issue 1, December 1941

Transcribe
Translate

Jinx, v. 1, issue 1, December 1941

31858063105187_007

"A Standard Rating Scale?" *** JINX *** Page 7

A STANDARD RATING SCALE?
The other day, we were tired of reading and had nothing to do but pound a typewriter, and herewith we present the result. 

We'd been thinking for some time over a standard rating scale for fanzines and up until then, we didn't have time to carry out our little brain-storm. So -- the attempt at a standard rating scale began. On our first attempt, we made use of the following: (1) Material, (2) reproduction and (3) format, allotting 60, 30, and 10 points respectively. And then we laboriously worked out a little phantasmagoria of fanzine ratings. Try as we might, we couldn't make the STAR come out on top. They came out something like this: FANTASIA -- 100; SOUTHERN STAR - 95; FANFARE - 92; FANTASITE - 92; SPACEWAYS - 87; ECLIPSE - 84; LEZ - 80; STARLIGHT - 80; VoM - 75; SNIDE - 75; FFF - 75; SPECULA and FAN-ATIC - 70. And when we'd finished we saw a heck of a lotta things that we'd forgotten to include the list. Too darn many: we started all over.

We had forgotten the very important, oh well -- they're pretty important, facts of (1) regularity of appearance, (2) number of pages, (3) cost and (4) national appeal. With fire in our eye we tore up the completed ratings, tossed them into the center of the floor, and started rearranging our boo'ful plans. Lesshe, we sez to us, sez we, material is quite definitely the most important thing; it certainly deserves 60. The reproduction included the number of colors, the quality of reproduction, typographical and grammatical errors. That takes in quite a bit of territory, so we handed it 15 points. Having only 25 points left, we had to stop and think a little while about where we could best put the darn things. It seems that regularity of appearance, number of pages, and cost should all go together and some bright mathematical mind should be able to figure out some kind of a formula to fit that. And, he repeats himself, that is pretty darn important, and 15 points disappear. Ho-hum, we've only got 10 points left, so we'll give 5 to national appeal and 5 to format.

But -- we haven't figured out our ratings by this new system, for the very simple reason that we don't like it.

It is my fond hope, however, that someone will receive a little inspiration from this and construct a standard rating scale. We might mention the fact that it is necessary that someone find another rating scale for the material rating in fanzines.

Suppose, for instance, that Chauvenet and Jenkins were rating sumthin'. Well, it just so happens that I rate things pretty highly, and Chauvenet takes the reverse side of the coin. By that, I don't mean that Chauvenet and I would differ over the quality of the article, or what have you, but it's just that Chauvenent rates things lower than I do. F'r instance, what would be an 8 in my rating scale would be a 5 in Russell's. Aw peachfuzz! you get the idea; I hope.

And there's absolutely no truth to the Tuckerian legend that Jenkins changed tenses more times in that last paragraph than Gilbert changes addresses.

Won't sumbody spiel off a rating scale?

Famous Sayings of Famous Men:

Noah: "It floats."
Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me my lawyer!"

Pardon me if I gurgle over with enthusiasm all thru these fillers over ZENITH, but the artwork in the latest issue (#2) is something that must be raved about. Oogle biggle bop!

Saving...

"A Standard Rating Scale?" *** JINX *** Page 7 A STANDARD RATING SCALE? The other day, we were tired of reading and had nothing to do but pound a typewriter, and herewith we present the result. We'd been thinking for some time over a standard rating scale for fanzines and up until then, we didn't have time to carry out our little brain-storm. So -- the attempt at a standard rating scale began. On our first attempt, we made use of the following: (1) Material, (2) reproduction and (3) format, allotting 60, 30, and 10 points respectively. And then we laboriously worked out a little phantasmagoria of fanzine ratings. Try as we might, we couldn't make the STAR come out on top. They came out something like this: FANTASIA -- 100; SOUTHERN STAR - 95; FANFARE - 92; FANTASITE - 92; SPACEWAYS - 87; ECLIPSE - 84; LEZ - 80; STARLIGHT - 80; VoM - 75; SNIDE - 75; FFF - 75; SPECULA and FAN-ATIC - 70. And when we'd finished we saw a heck of a lotta things that we'd forgotten to include the list. Too darn many: we started all over. We had forgotten the very important, oh well -- they're pretty important, facts of (1) regularity of appearance, (2) number of pages, (3) cost and (4) national appeal. With fire in our eye we tore up the completed ratings, tossed them into the center of the floor, and started rearranging our boo'ful plans. Lesshe, we sez to us, sez we, material is quite definitely the most important thing; it certainly deserves 60. The reproduction included the number of colors, the quality of reproduction, typographical and grammatical errors. That takes in quite a bit of territory, so we handed it 15 points. Having only 25 points left, we had to stop and think a little while about where we could best put the darn things. It seems that regularity of appearance, number of pages, and cost should all go together and some bright mathematical mind should be able to figure out some kind of a formula to fit that. And, he repeats himself, that is pretty darn important, and 15 points disappear. Ho-hum, we've only got 10 points left, so we'll give 5 to national appeal and 5 to format. But -- we haven't figured out our ratings by this new system, for the very simple reason that we don't like it. It is my fond hope, however, that someone will receive a little inspiration from this and construct a standard rating scale. We might mention the fact that it is necessary that someone find another rating scale for the material rating in fanzines. Suppose, for instance, that Chauvenet and Jenkins were rating sumthin'. Well, it just so happens that I rate things pretty highly, and Chauvenet takes the reverse side of the coin. By that, I don't mean that Chauvenet and I would differ over the quality of the article, or what have you, but it's just that Chauvenent rates things lower than I do. F'r instance, what would be an 8 in my rating scale would be a 5 in Russell's. Aw peachfuzz! you get the idea; I hope. And there's absolutely no truth to the Tuckerian legend that Jenkins changed tenses more times in that last paragraph than Gilbert changes addresses. Won't sumbody spiel off a rating scale? Famous Sayings of Famous Men: Noah: "It floats." Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me my lawyer!" Pardon me if I gurgle over with enthusiasm all thru these fillers over ZENITH, but the artwork in the latest issue (#2) is something that must be raved about. Oogle biggle bop!