watu wako

the method, in full

the roses & the score

an editorial rating of nairobi's events and venues, in the tradition of the michelin star. one to five roses, judged against a rubric that is public and the same for everyone.

the tiers

one to five roses

the roses and the score are two different things. the score is the measurement and every event we attend gets one. the roses are the award. it opens at 3.0, where an event earns one rose, and reaches five at 5.0. the row is drawn from the score by one function and never entered by hand. the 1 to 5 you see against each individual category is a different scale entirely, and it is described further down.

Each awarded level, the score band that earns it, and what it claims.
the rosesthe scorewhat that level claims
4.9–5.0 the reason someone flies in
4.7–4.8 one of the best in the city this season (leans down)
4.4–4.6 one of the best in the city this season
4.2–4.3 bring the crew, it holds up (leans down)
3.9–4.1 bring the crew, it holds up
3.7–3.8 worth rearranging an evening for (leans down)
3.4–3.6 worth rearranging an evening for
3.2–3.3 worth the trip if it's your thing (leans down)
3.0–3.1 worth the trip if it's your thing
no roses 1.0–2.9 reviewed, not awarded. the number and the write-up publish in full; the rose row does not appear at all.

the score is the measurement and the roses are the award. every event we attend gets a number. the award opens at 3.0, where an event earns its first rose, and reaches five at 5.0. most of what we review is not awarded at all, and that is what makes the award worth having.

nine levels, no zero

this scale rates one category at a time, not the event. 1.0 is the floor and it means absent or unusable. most events do most things at a three, and that is not a criticism. only food quality and drinks & pricing can be set aside as not applicable, and a set aside category leaves the average rather than scoring zero.

polite 5.0 · exceptional 4.5 4.0 · better than most 3.5 3.0 · did the job 2.5 2.0 · fell short 1.5 1.0 · got in the way sherehe michezo kazi every column fills from grey at the floor, through the event’s own iko, to kili at full

the rubric

18 categories, five families

every event is measured against the same published rubric, and it only measures what the curator controlled. each family is averaged, then those five figures are averaged, and that is the score. only food quality and drinks & pricing can ever be set aside as not applicable, and a set aside category is left out of the average rather than counted against the event.

step one · each family is averaged

the five families do not hold the same number of categories, so averaging all eighteen at once would let the biggest family quietly decide the score. each family is averaged on its own first, which keeps all five weighted equally.

experience & vibe 4.8 what you came for 3.5 the amenities 4.0 the flow 4.3 getting around 3.9 one event, so one iko: each family fills in kazi

step two · the five figures are averaged

the mean of the family means, never the flat mean of all eighteen. the published figure is a decimal to one place, and the roses are drawn from it by one function, never entered by hand. the five family figures shown on a card always average to the headline, which they would not under a flat mean.

4.1 3 roses the score

the families

experience & vibe

  • a day party crowd dancing, arms up, under a low sun
  • a seated audience listening, a steward standing at the side
  • a stand on its feet, arms up, one scarf held overhead
  • a room mid-session, lanyards on, one person talking across the table
  • vibe & energydid the room feel alive, and right for what this was?
  • safety & securitydid you feel looked after, arriving to leaving? rates the stewarding, not the building.
  • timelinessdid it start, run and finish close to what was promised?

what you came for

  • a dj over the decks beside a speaker stack, beams cutting across
  • one speaker at a lectern under a single cone of light
  • two pairs of legs contesting a ball on the diagonal
  • two people in low chairs mid-conversation, clip mics on, a blank screen behind
  • acts & speakerswere the people on the bill worth showing up for?
  • mc & hostsdid the hosting hold the room together?
  • production qualitysound, light and staging, done properly?

the amenities

  • a queue along a bar, taps pouring, water and cups at the near end
  • a long table being served, bowls handed down the line
  • a food stall serving a queue, a water station beside it
  • a break table with cups, an urn and something to eat
  • water & basicsdrinking water, free and easy to find, and something to eat if it ran long?
  • food qualitywas the food any good?
  • drinks & pricinga fair pour at a fair price?
  • bathroomson the day, clean, stocked and enough of them open? rates how they were run, not the plumbing.
  • cleanlinesswas the place kept in order all the way through?

the flow

  • a queue pressing through a club doorway late at night
  • people walking up broad steps to open foyer doors in the afternoon
  • a line filing through turnstiles at a day match
  • an orderly line at a sign in desk in the evening
  • arrival & parkingdid getting there work? rates the curator's handling, not what the site offers.
  • admission flowhow smooth was getting in?
  • event exithow was getting out at the end?

getting around

  • a crowded floor with a clear lane kept open for a wheelchair
  • a ramp beside the steps, and a help desk at the top
  • a concourse moving on the diagonal, a wheelchair holding its line
  • a help point: someone pointing the way, a white cane in the group
  • crowd controlwas the crowd managed, or were you fighting through it?
  • layoutdid the space make sense once you were inside?
  • accessibilitycould someone with limited mobility take part, not just get in?
  • finding helpwas someone there when you needed them?

three things are checks, not scores

  • a hand filling a cup from a tap, with more cups waiting waterdrinking water available, and free.
  • two doors standing open under a light bathroomsopen, working, and enough of them.
  • a wide doorway standing open onto clear floor, with an arrow pointing through it a way outclear, unobstructed exits, enough of them for the size of the crowd.

failing one never lowers the number. it blocks the score from publishing until an editor rules on it.

the second instrument

the venue rating

a venue is rated separately from the events held inside it, on six dimensions of its own. a venue rating never enters the watu wako score. a bathroom at an event is the curator's doing that night; a bathroom at a venue is the building's standing condition, and rating them on one scale blames the wrong party. a venue's rating is published as its average across the events scored there, and never below three events.

two instruments, one wall

the event score what the curator controlled, on the night 5 families · 18 dimensions ↓ produces the watu wako score NEVER CROSSES the venue rating what the building is, standing condition 6 dimensions · no families ↓ produces the venue’s own average

a bathroom at an event is the curator’s doing that night. a bathroom at a venue is the building’s standing condition. rating them on one scale blames the wrong party, so they are two instruments and the venue figure never touches the event score. a venue average is only published once three events have been scored there.

what the building is

  • the spaceis this venue looked after? condition and upkeep, not one day's tidiness.
  • bathroomsthe venue's own facilities, enough of them, and do they work?
  • accessibilityis the building itself usable by someone with limited mobility? the permanent fabric.
  • parking & approachhow is getting to it, and leaving after dark?
  • acoustics & sightlinesis this room built for what it hosts?
  • safety infrastructureexits, lighting, fire routes. a curator cannot install a fire exit.

how it grows

two phases

phase one

authority first

only watu wako rates. we establish the standard, the rubric and the voice before anyone else weighs in.

phase two

the city joins in

verified watu who actually attended rate alongside the editorial score. their voice sits beside ours, and never replaces it.

the promise

the integrity rules

this is how the score stays worth trusting

  • the score is never for sale
  • we pay our own entry
  • paid placement is always labelled
  • the rubric is public
  • corrections are published

the mark

three lockups, and nothing left to infer

the roses, the score, or the two of them together. every rose row carries its count and every number carries the score, and neither ever appears without its name, because the roses band the number rather than mirroring it. four roses is 4.4 to 4.6, so a row read as a picture of the decimal is a row read wrong.

  • 01 · the roses

    the level, read without parsing a decimal. two events stay comparable at a glance. it cannot separate 4.4 from 4.6.

  • 02 · the score

    exact, and it survives any size and a single ink. it is also the only form a not-awarded score can take.

  • 03 · the roses & the score

    the roses come up to 0.87 of the number, so the two names sit on one row. the widest of the three, and horizontal only.

below 3.0 an event is reviewed and not awarded: the rose row does not appear at all, the space closes, and the score carries it alone. there is no zero, because 1.0 is the floor of the score and one rose is the floor of the award. on a door, a sticker is supplied and never sent as a file, since a score a venue prints is a score a venue can edit. we will put a photograph of a real one here when there is one on a real door.

the score is never for sale.

the first scores drop on whatsapp first.

join the whatsapp community