68

What is worse than mediocre? Is it bad, or is there a level between mediocre and being pure bad?

Is mediocre slightly better than bad, and bad better than pathetic?

I want to use this in my prose in a context as:

The condition of roads was worse than mediocre

What can be used here?

  • 1
    Since "condition" is singular, it should start out "The condition of roads was..." Regarding your question: in general, I don't think you'll be able to place all adjectives of this sort along a definite spectrum that applies for all speakers. Different people will have different opinions. And the most important and clear-cut differences in the meaning of adjectives will be recorded in dictionaries. However, you did include a definite context, and that helps a lot. I'm still thinking about it; I guess we can see what other people say. – herisson Jan 11 '16 at 08:29
  • 1
    As with all questions that ask us to place adjectives on a "scale/spectrum", this is *Primarily Opinion-based.* – FumbleFingers Jan 11 '16 at 14:55
  • @FumbleFingers I disagree. The point of explanations is to articulate our vague usages. That is not 'primarily opinion based'. – Mitch Jan 11 '16 at 14:58
  • ring bearer, what did your dictionary say and how did that not explain how it relates to 'bad'? – Mitch Jan 11 '16 at 14:58
  • @Mitch: The runaway top-rated answer here glibly asserts that *Great, Excellent, Amazing, Phenomenal* unambiguously represent ascending points on a scale (peaking at *Transcendent, Godlike?). The reality is that in all such situations, different people have different ideas about which adjectives are "stronger" or "weaker" than others, and* about which adjectives are suitable for applying to any given referent. I stand by my closevote, although I fully accept that you're not likely to change your opinion on this issue, no matter how I justify my position. – FumbleFingers Jan 11 '16 at 15:12
  • 4
    @FumbleFingers I agree that the orderability on those adjectives you mention is difficult. I have two points: 1) it is possible to give readers an idea of how vague something is on a scale. 2) you are too quick to give a close vote for something that can have interesting and informative answers here. There are so many other much lower quality closable questions here that it seems a waste to vote to close a meaningful question like this one. Don't press the button just because it is so easily pressable for you. – Mitch Jan 11 '16 at 15:32
  • There are lots of quality adjectives that could fit in this spectrum at various places (though not all perfectly). Terrible, Sufficient, Wonderful, etc, the list is long. 'Mediocre' is ostensibly 'average', meaning not great but not poor, but often has a connotation of contempt or looking towards the worse direction. – Mitch Jan 11 '16 at 15:38
  • 3
    @FumbleFingers I don't think it suggests that at all; it cites a paper suggesting those as a gradient. If you need a gradient like that I think it's as good as any. – Casey Jan 11 '16 at 21:29
  • @FumbleFingers While maybe you could quibble with some of the items right next to each other on the list ("amazing" and "phenomenal" are pretty close), I don't think most people would argue against the proposition that "mediocre" is worse than "good" and better than "bad." – Casey Jan 11 '16 at 21:30
  • @Casey: As regards which side of mediocre do we place good and bad, I suggest that's an utterly trivial question. But at least it can be authoritatively answered, even if it doesn't belong on ELU. When it comes to Which is worse, bad* or pathetic?* though, I think anyone who thinks there's a definitive answer is simply mistaken. And anyone who posts an answer here is probably guilty of encouraging others to share the same fundamental misconception about how English works in these areas. – FumbleFingers Jan 11 '16 at 21:49
  • @FumbleFingers I can't think of any situation where "bad" would be stronger than "pathetic," but I suppose my English could be fundamentally misconceived too. – Casey Jan 12 '16 at 15:18
  • @Casey: Your English is fundamentally misconceived. There's nothing inherently wrong with saying He may be pathetic, but he's not bad (since pathetic can mean apt to arouse pity, and bad can mean wicked, evil-minded). – FumbleFingers Jan 12 '16 at 15:25
  • @FumbleFingers True enough, but it seems beside the point. "Awful" can mean "awe-inspiring," but I don't have any reservations about saying "awful" is a stronger pejorative than "so-so" (or "great," which is probably more likely to be used in conjunction with the alternate meaning). – Casey Jan 12 '16 at 19:41
  • I think the problem with these type of questions is that each word is assumed to be a point on a scale, when in reality each word occupies a range (even for a single speaker) and might overlap or even completely enclose another word. – CJ Dennis Jan 13 '16 at 06:21
  • does mediocre mean bad? I'd presume it just meant nothing particularly special – user13267 Jan 13 '16 at 15:27
  • @user13267 mediocre is generally better than failure, as it gets the job done, but it could be better (and probably should be better, if expectations are high). Mediocre is better than bad (I would rather have a mediocre day than a bad day), but it isn't satisfying. Poor is worse; it is borderline failure; it might be just barely tolerable, but it also might be "too poor", and barely be in the "unusable failure" category. – TOOGAM Jan 14 '16 at 18:42
  • In Portuguese, I immediately thought the word "Péssimo" because in students' tests there is the "Medíocre" classifciation and below it there is the lowest classicfication "Péssimo". In English it translates to Pessimal or Very Bad, which is an antonym of Optimal or Excellent. – sergiol Jan 15 '16 at 12:24
  • In my experience, the search for an adjective might indicate the lack of action verbs, and, maybe, of vitality. While it might seem that adjectives amplify the effect, I tend to see them as a way to fill the space with extra noise in order to mask the lack of substance. Life flows on its own, without amplifiers, when it is alive. But there might be dead life too; everything is possible in the multiverse. – ccpizza Jan 15 '16 at 13:41
  • If this is prose, you might just use "in poor condition", but then go on to be descriptive in a more specific way. Roads can be in poor condition in many different ways - whether this is technical writing or storytelling, adding precision only serves to enrich the image you convey to your audience. – J... Jan 17 '16 at 15:18

16 Answers16

168

Hicks, Valentine, Morrow, and McDonald wrote a paper in the field of game design, entitled "Choosing Natural Adjective Ladders", suggesting the following ladder of adjectives in order:

Abysmal, Awful, Bad, Poor, Mediocre, Fair, Good, Great, Excellent, Amazing, Phenomenal.
- quoted under the Open Gaming License at the end of the linked paper.

These adjectives look like they would apply to roads as well.


@BESW reported an updated ladder in the comments to this answer. (Thanks!)

Listing the adjectives in the same order as above from worst to best, we see:

Terrible, Poor, Mediocre, Average, Fair, Good, Great, Superb, Fantastic, Epic, Legendary.

The original list was copyrighted 2006; the new list, 2013-2015. The new list is used in a game and the researchers and research aren't referenced on the page. It would appear that mediocre has become more so, but poor is still considered to be worse than mediocre.

Lawrence
  • 38,640
  • 11
    Wow, that's a nice find! I doubted that an objective answer could be found, but this seems as close as it's likely to get. "Poor" certainly works to describe road condition. – herisson Jan 11 '16 at 09:20
  • @sumelic But mediocre is used in different ways. It always sounds miserable. One never uses it to indicate that things were better than expected. Or does one? – WS2 Jan 11 '16 at 10:52
  • 3
    @WS2: I don't think so. But I agree with Lawrence's source that something that is just "mediocre" seems better than something "poor," "bad," "awful," or "abysmal." – herisson Jan 11 '16 at 10:57
  • What about "ok" and "alright"? – ASA Jan 11 '16 at 11:08
  • @Traubenfuchs It seems the authors didn't test those words. But if you can find an equivalent word (or a better/worse pair) from their extended list, you can use their full ladder to classify yours. – Lawrence Jan 11 '16 at 11:21
  • @sumelic Thanks - as it turns out, I also thought "poor" was a good candidate answer and came across this paper in due diligence. – Lawrence Jan 11 '16 at 11:27
  • 5
    To me, mediocre is often a less-technical sounding way to say "nominal". As in, "just barely good enough to be acceptable". – Todd Wilcox Jan 11 '16 at 13:17
  • @sumelic To my (British) mind, saying something is mediocre, whether it be the hotel service you recently received, or your computer response time, tells me it is bad news. This is the OED's main definition: Of middling quality; neither bad nor good, average; (hence contextually) indifferent, of poor quality, second-rate. Used chiefly of literary or artistic works, ability, or knowledge, and hence of people considered with regard to their mental power or skill. My interpretation of that is that used strictly it means middling, but its popular usage means it is of poor quality. – WS2 Jan 12 '16 at 00:06
  • @WS2 The British penchant for understatement tends to magnify the effect of adjectives such as these. This is even more pronounced in Australia - e.g. in a cricket article, a "pretty average" player is held in significantly lower esteem than a "struggling" one, with at least one other player in between. That is to say, it's hard to pin an absolute meaning to words like mediocre. However, regardless of regional differences, it should be safe to say that a mediocre road is better than one that is outright poor. – Lawrence Jan 12 '16 at 02:08
  • 4
    The date on that paper seems to be 2006, which means Hicks was testing the adjective ladder for at least three years, building on work dating back to 1992. Their current version of it (released in 2013) can be found here. – BESW Jan 12 '16 at 03:43
  • @BESW Thanks for the updated ladder. I'll add a note in my answer. – Lawrence Jan 12 '16 at 03:49
  • 1
    The list of current designers of Fate Core can be found here. The original adjective ladder was created by O’Sullivan for the Fudge RPG system. It may be interesting to compare the ladder's evolution over time (for example, 1995's Fudge ladder includes Superb, which was replaced with Excellent by 2006 and then reinstated in 2013). If I find any more recent discussions about the ladder I'll link them. – BESW Jan 12 '16 at 04:22
  • 1
    @Lawrence I think your point about the British tendency to understatement is relevant here. Rather than making an outright condemnation of something, we are more inclined to damn it with faint praise! – WS2 Jan 12 '16 at 16:15
  • +1 for suggesting "poor". Even as a non-native speaker, mainly gathering the meaning of words from their context, I have understood "poor" as "not downright bad, but certainly not good"; whereas "mediocre" sounds to me like "not good, but will do under certain circumstances". – Jos Jan 13 '16 at 12:14
  • The second ladder is skewed... "average" should be in the middle. – Zenadix Jan 13 '16 at 21:07
  • 1
    @Zenadix I know what you mean :) . Chalk it up to inflation, semantic drift or desensitisation, particularly with video games. (Marketing may also play a more significant role in the second ladder.) Also, see my comment above to WS2 regarding the cricket article. – Lawrence Jan 13 '16 at 21:16
  • +1, I was thinking of "poor" as I clicked on the question title, but a whole range is even better. – DCShannon Jan 15 '16 at 00:05
  • What about Legendary and Epic (Gotta love MMO vernacular entering our vocabulary) or GodLike (Gotta love Quake and Mortal Combat for making this definition popular). – BLoB Jan 15 '16 at 11:09
  • @PaulZahra These are definitely not worse than mediocre :) . The value of the initial set of acronyms was the methodology behind producing that set. The small sample size was presumably dealt with in the process of getting to later sets. – Lawrence Jan 16 '16 at 12:29
  • Awesome link, but that study was rather under-powered (35 subjects?!). I plotted those data with error bars to better demonstrate the overlap in answering another question. @BESW's link to the Fudge RPG ladder appears vastly simplified from the original paper (this appears true even when BESW made that comment). – Adam Katz May 04 '17 at 02:56
  • @AdamKatz Nice plot. And yes, the sample size in that report was tiny. – Lawrence May 04 '17 at 07:19
72

subpar:

adjective

below an average level.

If you want to say something is objectively below average, this would be an adequate word. I would say it's less subjective than "bad."

"The roads were in subpar condition." (the roads were of below average condition but not necessarily bad in absolute terms)

substandard

adjective

below the usual or required standard.

"The roads were in substandard condition."

CDM
  • 3,854
  • Did you see that Rathony's answer already mentioned "substandard"? You seem to be contrasting "subpar" and "substandard" in your answer, but I don't understand the difference you're pointing out. What's the distinction between "below average condition" and "below the usual standard"? – herisson Jan 11 '16 at 09:08
  • @sumelic good call on the contrast. I was just including the second definition without considering the contents of my original post. – CDM Jan 11 '16 at 09:13
  • I do think it's valuable to compare options in this kind of answer, I just wan't sure I understood. Actually, now I think I have realized the slight difference between "below average" and "below standard": there might be a situation where most of the roads are below standard quality (if the standard is "set" by someone and their expectations are not met), but it's impossible for most of them to be below average (assuming by "average" we mean "mean," but the analogous idea applies to other types of averages too). – herisson Jan 11 '16 at 09:15
  • @sumelic "This road is better than average by the standards of this region, but it's still substandard. It seems like all roads here lack adequate drainage and surfacing", or, "This road may be subpar compared to others in the region, but it is certainly adequate and more than meets the required standard. All roads here seem to have built well, correctly following the appropriate regulations", or, "This road is both subpar and substandard. It's one of the worst roads in the region, and one of the few that doesn't meet the required standards" – user56reinstatemonica8 Jan 11 '16 at 11:25
  • @user568458 Your first sentence is odd, standards don't determine the average; the average determines the standard. Your second sentence limits the scope of average to "others in the region," so there's probably going to be differences between the average and the standard. Not sure I get your point in the rest of your comment. – CDM Jan 11 '16 at 11:34
  • 1
    @ed86 no, not necessarily. Standards are not necessarily averages. There might be a corporate or government checklist, target or mandated standard that might be very different to the actual average. Imagine you're a surveyor, you've got a list of all features good roads should have, and you find that actually, almost no roads meet that standard, even the ones people think of as being above average. Another example, you'd hope that 95%+ of restaurants meet food safety standards (including subpar ones), while 99%+ of restaurants won't meet Michelin's strict quality standards – user56reinstatemonica8 Jan 11 '16 at 11:39
  • substandard would be my choice. – PCARR Jan 11 '16 at 20:36
  • 3
    @sumelic: You said "it's impossible for most of them to be below average (assuming by average we mean mean)" but actually that IS possible. Example: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 100} The type of average, which a supermajority cannot be below, is the median. – Ben Voigt Jan 12 '16 at 17:49
  • @BenVoigt: that's quite right. – herisson Jan 13 '16 at 00:18
  • +1 for subpar. That seems to be most commonly used for what I get from the OP's post. It is more of a casual way of saying the same thing. Substandard seems to be more a formal usage (implying that there is a set standard that should be met) – Cullub Jan 13 '16 at 22:13
  • sorry for massive spam but we could use you at http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/74083/korean-language if you're at all interested! – Нет войне May 23 '16 at 17:39
15

You could consider using substandard which is broadly used to mean:

Below the usual or required standard: 'In the country's capital city, Santo Domingo, much of the housing is substandard and the quality of the water is poor.'

[Oxford Online Dictionary]

Actual usage:

In a damning report released late last week, it emerged that more than one third of roads in the Highlands are of substandard condition. Not only that but roads in the north are deteriorating faster than virtually every other part of Scotland.

[Roadtraffic.com]

herisson
  • 81,803
10

In a professional setting, you'd expect to see

Unsatisfactory adj - not good enough
(OED)

GeoffAtkins
  • 2,478
9

Shoddy, unsatisfactory, substandard, abysmal, crummy, third-rate

"The condition of the road was shoddy."

6

I want to use this in my prose in a context as follows - "The condition of roads was "worse than mediocre" - what can be used here?

The word you are looking for is poor.

You can't do the job with only one word. You need to add at least a clause, for example:

"the condition of the roads was poor because they had not been paved, but only patched, for the past 15 years."

I write as a connoisseur of roads on the poorish end of the spectrum, from the fair road I live on (winding, narrow, in need of repaving, no shoulders and charming) to some dreadful 4WD roads in Colorado (barely passable by a large SUV with high clearance.)

Mediocre is not a word used to describe roads. (A performance can be mediocre.) For roads, in the sequence quoted by user Lawrence, skip mediocre and go from fair to poor. (If you are in New Hampshire, "middlin'" can be used for anything.)

Abysmal, Awful, Bad, Poor, Mediocre, Fair, Good, Great, Excellent, Amazing, Phenomenal

A word about the upper end of the sequence. A road can be good or excellent, but great sounds odd, applied to a road. As for amazing or phenomenal applied to a road -- you'd sound like a hick seeing a highway for the first time. (Great, amazing or phenomenal can be used to describe a performance.)

I'm not going to get far into the opinion-based argument, except to say that my fair road might be a good road by the standards of someone who lives several miles up a dirt road. But most people will know pretty much what you mean by a poor road -- sort of a 15 mph road.

As for passable or impassable, applied to a road: it depends on what you are driving and how well you drive.

ab2
  • 26,253
  • I like this answer, as it reflects the fact you would never use an adjective such as 'phenomenal' to describe the physical condition of the road. The driving experience, maybe, but not the condition. For a road, I think all of the bad adjectives could be used, but on the positive side, far fewer, good, excellent, perfect maybe – Greg Woods Jan 15 '16 at 08:37
4

The next step below mediocre, that I can think of, is passable.

passable 1. just good enough to be acceptable; satisfactory: he spoke passable English.

This directly contrasts with the other suggestions such as subpar, substandard, poor, and unsatisfactory, which suggest uselessness. Passable describes something which probably will get the job done.

For roads in particular, this word has a second meaning which fits your question perfectly.

passable 2. (of a route or road) clear of obstacles and able to be traveled along or on: the road was passable with care.

3

How about "mediocre at best"? .

AndreKR
  • 299
1

Mediocre does not necessarily mean bad, its meaning is pretty close to ordinary, not special.

E.G.:

Dude, your work in the last project was mediocre

Whereas in Anglish:

Dude, your work in the last project was meh...

Kyle
  • 596
1

I think saying "worse than mediocre" as is, is pretty good.

The condition of the roads in that area were worse than mediocre. Some have said they were pitiful while others have argued they were pathetic. Either way, it is safe to say the roads were not very good.

Sounds kind of Douglas Adamish though.

1

I agree with the descriptive scales above. However, when the roads I am negotiating are not acceptable (worse than mediocre, just passable, average) I've been partial to "disreputable condition of roads", also dilapidated and shoddy. These are not on a logical +/- spectrum, but somehow transcends those, and conveys worse than mediocre, yet not unpassable.

1

Disappointing.

Given the months of construction delays, the condition of the road was disappointing.

A thing cannot be good or bad or high or low without some standard against which it should be judged. Disappointing tells us that the road was not at the quality level that the speaker expected.

While driving on a gravel road would not be my preference, I would not be disappointed if I had to drive on one in the country. I would be disappointed if an interstate was as busted up as a gravel road.

Context.

Tony Ennis
  • 1,264
0

It is not exactly what you asked, and I do not know the full context, but it sounds like a good example of where one could use showing language instead of telling. Again, I know you did not ask that, but I offer it as you said what could be said.

I want to use this in my prose in a context as follows - "The condition of roads was "worse than mediocre" - what can be used here?

"Unlike the nice, straight Roman roads in the city, these "roads" felt like they were adopted by the local carnival, every mile engineered by carnies from the DOT to test vehicle shock absorbers. Each mile had its own unique gravel pockets full of steamy, puddled water. The car bounced and squeaked, the hood floating or the floorpan scraping, and the seat belt buckle tightened against the gut, like sitting in shrunken jeans on a rusty old Tilt-O-Whirl."

Or, just "roads" (in quotes) as in so-called roads.

Or, maybe this is a better answer for the writing Stack Exchange.

johnny
  • 107
0

I have always considered "mediocre" to be between "good" and "bad," and if you wish to expand the number of descriptors then medi should be based firmly in the center according to the Latin roots; using game definition gradients in my opinion is a poor basis. I understand writers have the desire to vary the words used (a very English problem), but game developers have a different agenda which leads to lack of balance around a central term.

Just to add a different perspective to the "subpar, substandard" discussion;

a) "par" is less of an average more of an expected result, golf par for example is the expected score based on a specific level of golfer, which oddly enough make the best golfers in the world subpar. This has always amused me anyway :)

b) "substandard" again, standards are usually much higher than average leading us to minimum standards as a common 20th century term. I personally think that substandard should only be used where standards are actually involved (road quality would potentially work here).

Something that was briefly touched on was standards in a given region. Not mentioned was the actual subject; that is, discussing roads. If you are thinking an Englishman using a road in some third world where they would be happy to have an actual road surface in most areas, then the subjective view becomes important.

herisson
  • 81,803
mchap
  • 1
0

The word you are looking for is "abominable"

Consider the following statement,"Performance of our team in yesterday's match is abominable".

Rajesh
  • 287
  • 2
    Actually, it seems the OP is looking for a word in-between mediocre and bad. Abominable is worse than bad. It's (in fact) worse than pathetic (also used in his question). – Cullub Jan 13 '16 at 22:21
0

Downright mediocre! Where 'downright' accentuates the mediocre. Downright is defined as: to an extreme degree; thoroughly, i.e."he was downright rude". However, I think this word has greater usage in America rather than in the UK.

Source: Google Dictionary

  • I'd definitely say "downright" is common in BrE - usually with a strong negative connotation. And to effectively say that somebody was "of middling degree to an extreme degree" is delightful British understatement! – Steve Feb 21 '21 at 20:26