Prefekta is a scale.
The name is not important. I came up with the name in 2017, on a bus, on my way to work. The name has no relation to the nature of the scale or how it is meant to be used. It is only a name, only the first word that popped into my head. It was a hot summer day; I was chatting with my sister; the bus was number 669, one of the slowest in the city; and there it was, the name. But this does not matter, these details have zero meaning to the utility of the scale. The name could have been any other, but alas, it is what it is. At least Prefekta carries an innate sense of authority.
What is important is that Prefekta can be easily used in everyday situations. It is convenient and instinctive. But to understand its implication, its simplicity, and how it is a lovely solution, first we must visit the problem.
We are often asked to provide numerical representation for value. It is a ubiquitous request, permeating the many façades of modernity. It could be a survey asking to rate a certain property. Usually the scale would come in 1 to 5 or 1 to 10, 1 being something terrible. It could be a form of serious evaluation, leaning on the numeric projection for authority. Note that I said authority, not accuracy. The subjects could be restaurants, hotels, apps, movies, music tracks. Even people. Employee performance reviews.
But could you really tell the difference between, say, a 3 and a 4?
No? Why not?
And suppose you have to provide the numbers for a thousand evaluations. Would a 3 at first evaluation be the same as a 3 at 896th?
Now, it is fair to say that a 3 is mediocre. Does it make sense to stress over the differentiation and precise level of mediocrity?
The underlying idea is clearly petty, wasteful, and wrong.
Prefekta is a numeric scale, 1 being whatever is least desirable, 10 being most. But the familiarity stops here. Prefekta is an exponential scale. So your effort would by design focus on the subjects that really matter.
1—no good
2—passable
3—good
4—so good that it could be a cult
5—so good that it is a cult somewhere
6—universally agreed to be awesome
7 to 9—various levels of epicness, feel free to define your own, or avoid entirely
10—reserved, for figurative expression
And that's it really.
When I introduced Prefekta to my close group of friends, Calvin suggested that for similar reasons that 4 (so good that it could be a cult) and above must exist, there is pragmatic need for a way to denote the exceptionally bad. I am convinced! Per his recommendation, number 0 or -1 can be used for the exceptionally bad. I will leave it for the user to decide which, as it could have creative use in calculations.
Prefekta cannot be used to compare items that are innately incomparable. For example, saying that an orange is a 3 and an apple is a 2 is meaningless, unless there is context or scope. Prefekta is a great scale, but it does not work in vacuum.
Please use the contact page to reach out.