Often when a question about the authenticity or a qualification of a hadith is asked I find scholars quoting that scholar A considered the narrator X as fine, while scholar B considered him as da'if while scholar C say his hadith is munkar (rejected).
Here a couple of relevant posts of mine:
Is al Hakims Hadith collection Al Mustadrak reliable? (here al-Hakim has been described as lenient)
And here ahadith where some narrators have been a matter of discussion between scholars of jarh and t'adeel:
Prohibition from drinking water from a broken or a cracked vessel
Is this hadith about not killing a kafir under protection authentic?
Is it part of the Sunnah to fast for 6 days in the month next to Ramadan?
Is this hadith is authentic? "All the sins of my followers will be forgiven except those of the mujahirin..."
Is there a hadith "He who buys the stolen property, with the knowledge that it was stolen, shares in the sin and shame of stealing" and is it sahih?
I want to ask is there a scale where we can "put" or add some scholars to those who are rather picky when qualifying narrators (one could say hard liners), while others are rather more lenient?
Or maybe one could say can we put scholars of jarh wa t'adeel in different categories according their rigor when judging or qualifying a narrator.
For example an answer could look like (this is not an answer draft just an example maybe the answer would put these names in different categories):
Lenient: al-Hakim, X, Y ...
Less lenient and not too picky: a-Dhahabi , Z ...
Hard-liner: ibn Ma'yn, ....