well we all know why error014 had a good rating. detailed honest posts that can pass on criticism without insulting and even be subjective without thinking he's being objective.

no one ever expected the ratings to be skill based. they were "is this person a wanker (1 star), average (don't vote), or are his/her opinions an asset to the forum (5 stars)?"

* to prevent misinterpretation of my message, i'm not callling low-rated users anything of the sort. you can probably expect that that's the gist of what was running through anyone's mind when they rated someone.

of course i voted no. we don't need ratings.

julz