Hi, I've been reading bit-tech for a while now and I absolutely adore this site. I'm not a regular poster to the forums, though I do lurk. I just wanted to post and maybe incite a little discussion about ratings systems. Personally, I'm a little bored with the ratings systems in general, for a number of reasons that apply to not just this site, but to the standard de facto for all hardware/software review sites. My gripe is with arbitrary ratings values (the "10 point scale") that I perceive meaningless. I think the arbitrary/percentile system is kind of weak. It's a little flawed in the sense that it groups everything into one particular generalization which is usually multifaceted. For example, two games can get a graphics rating of "8" though one might be technically inferior, because the graphics accomplish a certain effect. In other words, two aspects of graphics (technical performance and sentimental value) are rated opposite, yet equally. Worse yet, and perhaps as a direct result, most ratings fall between 7 and 8, because the extremas aren't right. Nobody will outright say "this sucks" or "this is the greatest thing ever made." And even if they do (case in point: the original half life review in PC Gamer mag), it's not going to be long before something else even better comes out only to achieve a lower rating. That line of reasoning turns the 10 point scale into something of a 5 point scale (6-10) in all but the most extreme circumstances, and most of those extremes are usually not worth the time to publish articles about. I think saying that "yeah, I'd use this" or "I highly recommend this" has much more meaning than a single "8" value. I always take more heart with the "bit-tech recommended," or "bit-tech excellence," etc notes than with the arbitrary "8/10". My suggestion for change would be to perhaps have several people contribute to review pieces and then just offer opinions on whether they liked it or would recommend it to other folks -- Siskel and Ebert style. I'd much rather see a short list of office recommendations (or perhaps a semi-detailed debate amongst several office staffers) rather than a confusing and arbitrary set of values that are effectively meaningless. If for some reason a scale is absolutely necessary to the existence of these review sites, then I'd recommend the 5 point likert system (1 - least, 5 - most, "standard" average of 3.4) instead of the 10 point system.