The normal way of reviewing things that most people tend to focus on, I believe, all fall upon the “review score.” The five-star system and the ten point system are what first come to mind, ascribing things such as a piece of media a quantitative score. This score is based on the quality of a piece, how “good” it is in the eyes of the reviewer. Yet I believe these systems of reviews don’t do a well enough job of what they’re really meant to do—recommending the work being reviewed.

Certainly, a lower score is meant to discourage one from experiencing the piece of media, while a higher score is more of a recommendation that one should watch it. But a simple score doesn’t capture the nuances of the media itself. For what does one do towards the center of the scale? Certain works that some may put towards this middle may be overlooked by those who’d love it, simply because it’s not very highly rated. Works that are highly rated may not click with those who watch them because of their perceived quality, and for the same reason even media which is poorly rated can snubbed even if the viewer would have a great time watching it.

Therefore, the ratings system on this website tries to remedy that: focusing on recommending not on quality alone, but focusing on the audience itself. It’s all about who would like the given piece of media, rather than trying to draw everyone to it based on quality. The review scale is therefore based on five different combinations of thumbs up and thumbs down, but unlike the five-star system, their meanings are much easier to understand. It’s like asking for a recommendation from a friend, and being signaled with their hands as they talk briefly about the subject.