Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (17)

I don't have the time to read this ENTIRE thread, but I have to say that I agree with some of the points that have been brought up here. As far as I can see the ratings are pretty much useless. I've seen some well written articles with good sources getting low ratings simply because 10-year-old girls don't like the character an actor plays on TV, or conversely, I've seen some stubby articles getting five stars from multiple raters simply because people loved an actor's work 50 years ago. Granted, this seems to apply more to the "celebrity" bio articles more than the "science" articles about nuclear power, etc, but I've noticed this seems to be a theme running throughout MANY celebrity bio pages and not limited to just Justin Bieber and George Bush. I'm not an "exepert", but it's painfully obvious people are simply using the ratings to vote on how they feel about the SUBJECT of an article and there's really no reflection whatsoever on the merits of the article itself. Not to mention the "highly knowledgeable" option is just a joke. I could dub myself "highly knowledgeable" about quantum physics, but it doesn't make it true. From what I have read of this thread, it looks like the ratings aren't being taken too seriously by anyone who matters, so I guess that's good news, but then what's the point of having the ratings at all? Just to trick a few new people into editing? It seems to me that anyone who would be tricked into believing the ratings are any indication of what an article needs would be the LAST people you'd want editing the article.