Every report includes a 1-to-10 rating. It’s a small number with real weight, it feeds directly into a public leader’s score. Here’s how to give one fairly.
Rate the work, not the politician. Your rating should reflect what you actually observed about the project itself, is it built, is it functional, does it match what was promised, not your general opinion of the sponsor’s party, personality, or unrelated decisions. A well-built clinic sponsored by someone you personally dislike still deserves an honest high rating for the clinic.
Rate what’s there, not what’s missing elsewhere. If the specific project is genuinely well executed, don’t lower the score because of an unrelated grievance, a different abandoned project nearby, a personal complaint, or a general frustration with government. Report those things too, but as their own separate reports on their own projects, not folded into a rating that’s supposed to be about this one thing.
A rough scale to anchor your thinking:
- 1–3: Not started, clearly abandoned, or built so poorly it’s unsafe or unusable.
- 4–6: Started or partially complete, but with real, visible problems or delays.
- 7–8: Substantially complete and functional, with only minor issues.
- 9–10: Fully complete, high quality, and matching what was promised.
When in doubt, be specific in your written description instead of guessing at a number. A rating of 6 with a clear explanation (“structure is complete but has no water connection yet”) is far more useful to everyone, including the sponsor, if they’re paying attention, than an unexplained 6 or an inflated 9.
Your rating is one voice among potentially many on the same project over time. Honesty matters more than being generous or harsh, the whole system depends on individual ratings being trustworthy on their own terms.
Next up: The Ethics of Tracking: the broader do’s and don’ts of being a responsible citizen reporter.