Reminds me of people who want to get away from sizing tickets in story points and instead use t-shirt sizes or some other more-abstract measure to avoid confusing the size with the hours/days to implement.
But we all do the translation implicitly anyway.
You use a scale of 1-4 (okay sure you use ordinal words, but it might as well be numeric for all the difference it makes), and get upset that others use a scale from 0-10 when you boycott their scoring system. And when you rightly complain that they scored incorrectly and they fix it you’re still upset because they put a number to it instead of a word?
Simply map your score from your domain over to theirs and move on with your life:
Low => 2.5
Medium => 5
High => 7.5
Critical => 10
> You use a scale of 1-4 (okay sure you use ordinal words, but it might as well be numeric for all the difference it makes), and get upset that others use a scale from 0-10 when you boycott their scoring system.
> Simply map your score from your domain over to theirs and move on with your life: Low => 2.5 Medium => 5 High => 7.5 Critical => 10
Mapping a simple 1-4 severity scale onto a 0-10 scale creates a misleading sense of precision. Curl's scale is just a broad categorization—"Low," "Medium," "High," and "Critical" represent general levels of severity, not detailed gradations. And it's a simple to understand scale:
"Low" => Probably doesn't even affect me, I'll give it a look whenever I have some time, or even ignore it.
"Medium" => Could affect me, I'll check it out whenever I have a chance.
"High" => I should check it out, and will probably have to update.
"Critical" => Stop whatever I'm doing, and patch it.
When you assign values like 2.5 or 7.5, it implies distinctions that don’t exist in the original system, such as suggesting there's a meaningful difference between 2.4 and 2.6.
This kind of conversion introduces a false level of granularity, distorting the purpose of the original scale and potentially leading to misinterpretation. For instance, a "Low" severity issue might range from a minor inconvenience to something just short of "Medium," but assigning it a fixed score like 2.5 oversimplifies this range and misrepresents the data.
It also leads to lower trust in the score, since you might see a 2.5 value for something that has a "one in a billion" chance of affecting you, or it's a feature you don't even have enabled in your build, or abuses something specific. So what could be a 1, is represented as a 2.5.
Reminds me of people who want to get away from sizing tickets in story points and instead use t-shirt sizes or some other more-abstract measure to avoid confusing the size with the hours/days to implement.
But we all do the translation implicitly anyway.
You use a scale of 1-4 (okay sure you use ordinal words, but it might as well be numeric for all the difference it makes), and get upset that others use a scale from 0-10 when you boycott their scoring system. And when you rightly complain that they scored incorrectly and they fix it you’re still upset because they put a number to it instead of a word?
Simply map your score from your domain over to theirs and move on with your life: Low => 2.5 Medium => 5 High => 7.5 Critical => 10