Thank you for taking the time to look at this. I'm working on making the subjective evaluations of "link worthiness" more quantitative. I am looking to grade websites (/ companies) using the following scale. The scale is deliberately non-linear. The difference between the bottom levels is relatively small compared to the massive gap between "industry leader" and "internet leader". This reflects the non-linear rewards that come from being exceptional in any given area.
The intention is that the whole thing should be relatively uncontroversial at an individual level - it should be fairly clear how to evaluate yourself on any individual question - but the aggregate output should be interesting when compared between competitors and across industries.
Note that the scales I have chosen deliberately confuse competence with fame - the harder levels require not only competence but also others' awareness of your competence. I make no apologies for this - it reflects the unfairness of the real world.
## The Scale ##
- Very low / none: Not a priority / not something you invest in / not something you are successful at
- Basic competitiveness: You invest time and money in this area
- Core competitiveness: You keep pace with and occasionally outstrip competitors in this area. In most areas, for most companies, this will be as good as it gets.
- Industry leader: Known for being at or very near the top of all sites in your industry in this area. This is a deliberately high bar.
- Internet leader: An impartial observer has selected you as a case study / example of excellence in this area across all niches online. Many companies achieve nothing rated this highly and it will be exceptionally unusual to score this highly in multiple areas