Perhaps, but I don't see any "dumb" people who gave ratings to people. They were all reasonable and most were informative. but would you mind naming any of these "dumb" people?

Overall I agree more with Daz, it's more accurate that the rating depends on the person who was being rated and his behavior, not the person who was rating it. Again, like I said in my previous post, I don't think it's that people are dumb and give low ratings, it's just their experience and opinion about the person being rated.

Also what's with ^?

Quote from Drizzle

Mr. A: I don't know anything about him at all but since everyone said he's cool, 10/10.

dumb rating^ and it still counts regardless.

Really now, I did say I'm re-counting the ratings. And these recounts are more strict--- meaning that these kinds of rating are not counted.

Quote from nutsophast

Are you talking about the rage discussion or the user rating discussion?

Well both have probably been a bit better controlled on here than they might have been elsewhere.

Ratings should be given only for the people that have experience with the person who's being rated or atleast knows the person, that can explain in detail. (Obviously)

hue, this was tbh, flawed from the start- everyone's ratings are inaccurate. If you don't know the person well enough, don't rate them.

So... I guess it's done now?

No not at all. I'm just extra busy (read: lazy) as of late. I'll probably get it by today.

Looking forward to the new ratings Ai.

Same here Ai, i can guess what's coming up for me anyways.

ooh this seems cool