Enter Your Reply

David, in general your proposal is excellent. I'd ask for 2 simple
modifications. 
Don't close out the general public even from your excellent 5-part rating
system. If you weight each member answer as 100 non-member answers, you
have effectively eliminated non-members from affecting the rating, but we
still get their comments. A 10:1 weighting would pretty much do the same
thing; and a 5:1 would actually give non-members a slight say in how
things are rated.
Add a '5 - Outstanding' to the numeric ratings. I think some games, such
as Alice Chess or Ultima, are so good that it's unfair to have the many
excellent games have to go up against them as a comparison for what
qualifies as excellent. Either that, or add a 'Very Good' category
between good and excellent. 
While the second proposal is just a 'splitter vs. lumper' argument, with
me favoring a couple more categories, the first proposal is something I
urge we accept. It should be easy to implement and leaves us open without
being vulnerable to hit-and-run opinions, or even a campaign by 1 or 2
people to praise or condemn particular games, because after 50 or 60
anonymous greats or terribles for any game, not only would an editor
notice and erase those posts, but, at 100:1, that's still only half an
opinion. 
Please leave the door open, even if only a crack.