Anchored questions and ratings, against your own criteria

Numbers alone hide the story, and a bare "rate Communication 1 to 5" means different things to different raters. Lynxify.me structures 360 feedback as anchored questions instead. Each competency you define breaks into specific questions, every question carries a short description of what a high rating actually means, and raters score them on a labelled scale you choose, with written answers alongside in the same form. Because everyone answers the same anchored questions, the results stay comparable, and each competency score is built up from the questions underneath it rather than left as one vague number.

Anchored questions per competency

Each competency breaks into specific questions, and every question carries a short description of what a high rating means, so raters read it the same way.

A rating scale you choose

Pick a labelled scale for the round, frequency, agreement, proficiency or a plain 1 to 10, so the report reads "4.2 = Often", not just a number.

Written answers alongside

Open-text questions capture the examples a score never will. Comments are optional and collapsed by default, so the form stays fast.

Build the questionnaire your way

A drag-and-drop builder to add, edit and reorder competencies, questions and intro text, set up fresh for each round.

Your own criteria, reused

Define competencies once at company level, reuse them across rounds, and pull a competency's questions back in so you are not rewriting them each time.

No opportunity to observe

A rater can mark a question as unobservable instead of guessing, so a partial answer stays honest and the score is not dragged down by a faked middle.

Feedback preview for John Doe showing written responses alongside criteria ratings in Lynxify
In practice

When you set up a round, you build its questionnaire in a drag-and-drop editor: pull competencies from your company set, break each into anchored questions, add any intro text, and choose the rating scale. The questionnaire is yours to shape while the round is still being set up.

Each rater then gets one form: ratings first, on the scale you chose, with an "add a comment" link under each competency for the ones they want to expand on. Progress auto-saves as they go, and anyone who has not worked with the person on a given question can mark it "no opportunity to observe" rather than inventing a score.

Run your first feedback round this week

Set up in minutes, completed without chasing, summarised automatically.

Create your first review See pricing

Common questions

Yes. Each competency you define breaks into your own questions, a mix of rated and open-text, arranged in a drag-and-drop builder. Every question carries a short description of what a high rating means, so raters interpret it the same way, and the competencies and their questions are reused across rounds.

Pick a labelled scale for the round: frequency, agreement or proficiency on a 1 to 5, or a plain 1 to 10. The report shows the label the score lands on, so "4.2" reads as "Often" rather than a bare number.

No. Ratings are the fast path and written comments are optional and collapsed by default, so a form takes a rater around ten to fifteen minutes. They can also mark any question "no opportunity to observe" instead of guessing.