I have very often seen on GameInformer articles that contain a bunch of details and information of a given subject, but that still have a bad rating... And I believe that is because people does not correctly use the site's rating system.


The way I see it, GameInformer's rating system is basically a tool used by the writer to know if people likes his writing, to know if the article contains the information necessary for the reader to feel satisfied about he's --Now new-- knowledges on the matter. But I believe that people actually makes their qualifications without taking into account if the article is well written or not, or if it is objectively written... Instead, I think users normally base their raitings on whether they like the information contained within the article or not... And to explain my self, I will take as an example Mike Futter's recent article: "Report: Skype Monitoring Began In Early 2011, No Changes In 2012 Under Microsoft Ownership". 


That article can gives us a great deal of information on Microsoft's latest news; it was revisited and updated to correct some aspects of it. Mike's analisis is four paragraphs long taking into account the new information added in the update. The article in fact is well written and can give the reader enough information so he can make an opinion of his own. But still it has a bad rating because people does not like what Microsoft apparently did.

(Edit: sorry I was going to include this on the original blog) And to demonstrate to you that I am not making it up, I am now posting this screen captures

Before asking, it was only a guess, but looking at those users's responses, I could confirm it (I had only two replies, so I took them as a definitive answer) ... Those were the answers I was expecting.

Of course this is only an example... I have seen plenty of articles that shows us the big effort GI editors make to bring this bunch of information in a easy-to-understand way.  I am not asking people to give a good rating to any article they read even if it is unobjective or if it has information missing... But you got to recognize a good job when there is one.