Explain tier grades: separate preferences, specifications and experience

Write the question before the verdict

I find ‘what I would choose under these conditions’ more useful than ‘the best product for everyone’. A tier list organizes opinions; without criteria it can become a picture with little explanation. Decide whether you are comparing purchase cost, portability or satisfaction with entries you have used. If several purposes are mixed, identical S grades may answer different questions.

Use the title for the subject and purpose, and the introduction for conditions and exclusions. A weekend-activity cost comparison might consider extra spending and transport. Leave unassessed entries unassigned or explain their exclusion rather than pretending they were tested. An entry does not need to be included simply because it is popular in search.

Separate facts from opinions

‘It fit comfortably in my bag’ is experience, ‘it weighs 300g’ is a verifiable specification, and ‘I like its design’ is a preference. Treating all three as the same kind of evidence makes the assessment hard to judge. A specification needs the exact model and source; experience needs the conditions in which it occurred; a preference needs to be presented as personal judgment.

For changing information such as prices, regional availability or free benefits, record the check date and conditions. Calling something free may hide a membership requirement or a temporary offer. If you have not used it, explain that you compared published information rather than claiming hands-on testing. Someone else's community review should not be rewritten as your own experience.

Include the condition that changes the choice

‘S because it is good’ restates the verdict. A useful reason explains the advantage under the chosen criterion, the trade-off and the condition that would change the grade. The example below is fictional, not a review of an actual product. Use its structure without filling it with experiences or measurements you have not checked.

Two entries in the same grade can be useful under different conditions, such as indoor and outdoor activities on a rainy day. Keep the main criterion consistent, though. If a cost-saving comparison promotes one entry solely for popularity or appearance, revise the criterion or separate the lists.

Short reason: Park walks are good.

Conditional reason: A for avoiding extra spending, assuming a park within walking distance and no admission charge. Heavy rain or paid transport would change this grade. Actual local facilities still need to be checked.

Connect each claim to its source

One company-homepage link does not verify every claim. A model's weight needs its specification page, and a price needs the applicable pricing information. Record what you checked and where in the item's reason so it is easier to update later. Do not attribute your conclusion to the source when it is your own interpretation; explain which published fact led to your grade.

The current reason field is plain text. You can retain a source URL there, but the field does not guarantee clickable links or automatic fact checking. A public list with an editorial review displays its criteria, method, limitations and sources separately. Publishing a list and completing editorial review are different events.

Five questions before sharing

Do all entries answer the same question? Have you separated checked facts from preferences? Have you explained the conditions that change a grade? Have you avoided treating unknown entries as poor ones? Do the sources support the actual sentences? I would answer those questions before trying to increase the length of a reason.

Write the title and comparison criterion on the home page, then expand each item's reason field. Markdown keeps the introduction, reasons and unassigned entries. Continue to the editor for images and a PNG. Public posting has additional checks, but it is not required to practise and save a file.