Dividing by quality "Good, Great, and Excellent" is weird to me. What metric distinguishes the different options? If I only check "Good," will you edit my text while watching television instead of devoting your full attention to it?
I would get rid of the quality gradient altogether, instead ensuring your users that all of your work is "excellent." If you still want an extra tier to your pricing, I guess you could do what translation services do and charge per revision or by number of people the text passes through, but the idea that you simply aren't trying as hard if I check "good" doesn't sit well.
The quality gradients are actually tied to number of revisions/number of people who proofread the text. We'll put up more information about the way we proofread and how they relate to the different options for quality.
I am replying so that textlaundry know that not everyone is like parent: i.e., I am fine with "Pick a quality: good, better, best" (or "Pick a quality: good, great, excellent"). In fact, I do not like it when vendors pretend that everything they offer, even the cheap stuff, is the best that it can possibly be. I tend to conclude that the vendors\ is either deluded or insincere.
But yeah, if textlaundry can convey in that row of radio buttons (terminology?) that "great" service means that the text is worked on by more editors than work on text using the "good" service, that would be an improvement.
I would get rid of the quality gradient altogether, instead ensuring your users that all of your work is "excellent." If you still want an extra tier to your pricing, I guess you could do what translation services do and charge per revision or by number of people the text passes through, but the idea that you simply aren't trying as hard if I check "good" doesn't sit well.