Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Overwatch | Elder Scrolls Online | Final Fantasy XIV

    Facebook Twitter YouTube YouTube.Gaming Discord
Quick Game Jump
Members:3,851,140 Users Online:0

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed Staff Blog

The staff of gets together to bring you some behind the scenes insights on stories, the industry and the site itself.

Author: staffblog

Contributors: BillMurphy,MikeB,garrett,SBFord,Grakulen,

Review Scoring: Feedback Wanted!

Posted by Dana Thursday July 30 2009 at 1:07PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

Reviews are the hardest thing for any site to do. It's a lose/lose situation. No matter what the score, someone is always going to be upset, so generally, our policy is to give the author of the review the clearest guidelines we can, then stick with what they say. They, after all, played the game with a review in mind and as much as we might like, we cannot all play every game. We have to trust the reviewer.

Right now, we use a scoring system out of 10. Generally, we tell our reviewers that they should look at it academically. In school, generally speaking, the scale looks something like this:

  • 10 = A+ (perfect)
  • 9 to 9.9 = A (great)
  • 8 to 8.9 = B (above average)
  • 7 to 7.9 = C (average)
  • 6 to 6.9 = D (below average, but not unacceptable)
  • 5 to 5.9 = F+ (failed, but not totally without redeeming qualities)
  • 2 to 4.9 = F (failure, with lessening degrees of redeeming qualities)
  • 0 to 1.9 = F (totally without merit)

That's the logic we use in our scores, but I freely admit it is not a perfect system. No system that applies scores to games, let alone games that continue to evolve and change like MMOs is going to be totally fair.

Fact is, no matter how hard our reviewer tries, there are only so many hours in a day and they cannot possibly do everything in a game. We can only pay them so much, and reviewing an MMO is a temporary full time job.

Editorially, we insist on at least three weeks with a game before we review it. That is longer than most sites, I believe (how the heck do some sites have a review ready on launch day?) and gives the game a fair shake.

We are also going to re-review games far more frequently moving forward. Whenever enough time or major updates have come by, or even if a company comes to us and says "Hey, it's much better, want to give it another try?" We're happy to give games second, third and fourth looks. These are not console games, they change and we'll constantly go back to try and bring it up to date.

Nonetheless, there will be imperfections. Obviously, the Darkfall review was bound to be one of our most controversial. Fact is, there is absolutely no right answer there. Every single possible number was going to piss off a third of our community. So, we did what we always do and trusted the reviewer.

So, I throw this out for everyone to chew on. How would you score games on Keep in mind the following rules:

  • It must be a numeric score. Not everyone uses things like letter grades, numeric scores are more standard.
  • It must be the same for our hype/rating meter as it is for the review itself.

Beyond that, we'd love to hear your feedback. We always want to improve and since the reviews are done to help people make informed purchasing decisions, I figure it's best to ask you all how you'd be best served by them.

Feedback away in the comment thread!

parrotpholk writes:

The scoring is fine. In the DF review though it seemed to be more a 4 or 5 judging by the text.

Thu Jul 30 2009 1:12PM Report
johnspartan writes:

Match the review to the text.

As a reviewer you CANNOT give a score just because it'll be less controvertial or because that MMO is supporting your site.

It's bad ethics and you'll lose all kinds of supporters if they think you are nothing more then shills.

What I think you should do is grade individual section.

Graphics 9
Gameplay 7
Polish/Bugs 2

etc. then caclulate the average, in the above case 6 and use that as your "final" review score.

More informative, more accurate.

Thu Jul 30 2009 1:16PM Report
atziluth writes:

Posting what I wrote in the DF review here for this discussion.

The problem with what you wrote is the fact that the mod post above yours states that not all countries use the letter grading system yet you are artificially imposing it on your number system.

An average score using the number system would be a 5.5 since 0 is not an option. That means according to a standard interpretation of the number system, DF according to this review is ABOVE average.

I would suggest going to a 5 number system as it would better imply the quality of game better then your 10 number system.

5 - excellent

4 - good

3 - average

2 - poor

1 - broken

This would be a much more reasonable system then having 5 points in a 10 point system indicating a broken game. By that metric few if any games at all could be scored a 5 or below thus making them pointless to have in your system.

Creating new labels for the numbers will not clarify an inherently flawed system. Also please go back to standardized catagories when creating reviews so that the entire scope of a game is covered and not just choice selections that could introduce overt bias beyond the subjective nature of reviews.

Thu Jul 30 2009 1:20PM Report
johnspartan writes:

That's how  you let US submit our own reviews, on a per-section basis, do the same yourselves.

So even if the average comes out a 6 if the Polish/Bugs score is a 2 then we know it's just pretty game with decent gameplay and should still be in beta.

Inform us.

Thu Jul 30 2009 1:20PM Report
risenbones writes:

How about get rid of the numbers all together.  They are totally subjective and as many people point out a review is pretty much an opinion piece.  Let the review stand on the text alone and let the reader make up their own minds based on say checking the authors profile to see what kind of games they have played and enjoyed and matching it to their own tastes.

I dunno quantifying an opinion seems really bizare to me.

Thu Jul 30 2009 1:24PM Report
steamtank writes:

well first i think it should stay a 10 point system.  But one that doesnt have everything reviweed falling abouve a 5.....  otherwise their is no point in having 0-5 on the scale.


2nd:  a strong criteria where the reviewers break down the game



decent list, but i think it could be added to.

3rd. The reviewers need to have sub categories they MUST address that more or less get reflected in the major categories of the piece.

Things like, Ai intelligence, the games scope,  DIFFICULTY level at various stages. (example i think EvE is more difficult right at the beginning than once you are 4 months in. however in vanilla WoW, the starting areas are easy, while your first steps into Molten Core got you wtfbbq'ed.)


The reviewer should HAVE to spend time doing all the major activities.  If the game has raiding, he MUST join a raiding guild. (preferably one that is LEARNING the content, not having it on farm status.) If the game is about pvp, they must join pvp guilds. 1 small one, 1 big one. To see the difference in the game at those levels.  If the game has quests: what is the difficulty level and variance in the types given?


What I am saying overall, is their needs to be a hard list of criteria to score with, as well as a hard list of questions the reviewer must answer in the piece.


It does a diservice to ALL mmo's to be able to pump out a review in 2 pages. If you can sum up a review of an mmo in 2 pages, the game is probably pretty bad.

Thu Jul 30 2009 1:24PM Report
Paragus1 writes:

Scoring an MMO with a numerical score is a tricky matter because everyone has differing tastes.   I always try to avoid using numbers because I recognize what I like in a game may not be what someone else enjoys.

One good idea I think would be to have a section for member reviews for various MMOs.   A member would have to meet certain requirements to be able to post a review to avoid new account spam reviewers.  You could then have sort of rating system where people can either vouch for, or negatively rate each player submitted MMO review.  Maybe add a section where people can comment on the player reviews like the blog section of this site, but with a rating system that actually works.

You can then have the official review and second opinion and user reviews to get a broader spectrum of viewpoints on any game.   Players may be more inclined to trust a certain reviewer more than other based on their MMO backround.   I wouldn't want a die hard WoW guy writing the premier Darkfall or EvE review, and visa versa.

Unrelated to the Darkfall review, this site has a real credability problem when it comes to MMO reviews.   I find this tragic because this is in my mind the premier MMORPG website on the internet.  People should want to come here over a site like Gamespot for MMO reviews, but under the current layout, I don't think that is the case for many.

Thu Jul 30 2009 1:31PM Report
panchoe writes:

<5 is an F ?  Letter grades are stupid, and your number scale is ridiculous.  Do some research before you post such stupid ideas.  Do you have any idea how other organizations rate?  Here's an example:

10.0: Prime
This exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way.
9.0-9.5: Superb
We absolutely recommend any game in this range, especially to fans of that particular genre. However, games that score in the 9 range are also typically well suited to new players. Games that earn 9s are naturally uncommon, and earn GameSpot's Editors' Choice Award for their outstanding quality.
8.0-8.5: Great
This range refers to great games that are excellent in almost every way and whose few setbacks probably aren't too important. We highly recommend games in the upper half of this range, since they tend to be good enough to provide an enjoyable experience to fans of the particular genre and to new players alike.
7.0-7.5: Good
A game within this range is good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults.
6.0-6.5: Fair
Games that earn 6-range ratings have certain good qualities but significant problems as well. These games may well be worth playing, but you should approach them with caution.
5.0-5.5: Mediocre
A 5-range score refers to a game that's "merely average" in the negative sense. These games tend to have enough major weaknesses to considerably outweigh their strengths. There's probably a substantially better, similar game out there for you.
4.0-4.5: Poor
Games that just don't work right and maybe didn't spend enough time in production tend to fall in to this category. They simply lack the cohesion and quality that make other games fun.
3.0-3.5: Bad
You probably shouldn't get too close to a game in this range. Any of its positive qualities most likely serve only to make the rest of it seem even more disappointing.
2.0-2.5: Terrible
Beware, for a game in this range is almost entirely devoid of any remotely decent or fully functional features.
1.0-1.5: Abysmal
Ouch. The rare game that falls in this lowest-of-the-low range has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Don't play this game.

Thu Jul 30 2009 1:32PM Report
DarthRaiden writes:

the decimal point system is there for reason. It gives you more freedom  to scale you ratings. With the 5 point system the outcry will be big on the forums having given 2 games the same rating.

About translating a ten point system into a 5 point system and let one peculiarity 'F' cover 60% of the decimal one results in inaccuracy and fail.

50%+ is not "fail" btw..'F+' looks like an artificial non natural rating ..there is 'D' as a 'natural' representation of something has done 50%+ right


Thu Jul 30 2009 2:29PM Report
Inktomi writes:

 3 F's and one is an F+? Never heard of such a thing. An F is an F in my book. Fail with redeeming, blah, blah, blah still a fail.

"Yes your term paper was terrible, but was written on nice paper, so here's an F+", is something I could never hear my proffessor saying to me.

If the game warrants an F, give it. 

Thu Jul 30 2009 2:36PM Report
Paragus1 writes:

Just to add to what I sad earlier and point something out...

If you look at this list of review scores on this site, there is only one game to ever score a 9 on that list, Wrath of the Lich King.   So even by your new system, the only "Great" MMO ever released according to this site is a WoW Expansion pack.

The reviews on this site are so inconsistant, it is easy to see why they lack legitimacy.  Some game called "Pixie Hollow" got an 8.5, higher than the original World of Warcraft (8.1)?  I am not a big fan of WoW, but everyone has to recognize that it is one of the most most quintessential MMOs ever made.

The Matrix online, which is about to shut down from being a complete failure scored a 6.6, which is higher than Age of Conan, Darkfall, Star Wars Galaxies, and Final Ftanasy XI? (all of which are still online?

It just doesn't make any sense at all when you compare the sores of certain games.

Thu Jul 30 2009 3:03PM Report
Teala writes:

OMG your system is fine.   Some people just can't stand the fact that didn't either score DFO 7+ or score it -5 or less.   Don't go changing how you do things to please a few and I do mean a few people.   Let it stay right where it is.    Take a stand and do not back down.

Thu Jul 30 2009 3:20PM Report
PulsarMan writes:

I feel that your current system is fine. It takes a different scale to review an MMO.

I don't have much to say other than that all this Darkfall rage is a little over the top.

Thu Jul 30 2009 3:34PM Report
Rhygar writes:

You need to get sub-genres for MMOs. They are far to complex to dump in one category.

Thu Jul 30 2009 3:35PM Report
Paragus1 writes:

I don't have any problem with the DF review honestly, the score at the end is in the ballpark of what I would consider fair for it (6-8 IMO).   Having sub genres for MMOs might be a good idea as Rhygar said.   Free to play and Play to play as an example should probably be different scores.

I would very respectfully disagree with Teala though.  I don't know many people on this site, or on other sites who have much respect or value the official reviews on  I think it would be of great value for the site here to come up with a way to gain some credability.

Thu Jul 30 2009 3:44PM Report
ericbelser writes:

My comment is simply this: Is the review scale relative or absolute? To me, that is the biggest question mark.


If 10 of 10 is as good as an MMO can or will ever be, Nirvana in code itself. Then giving something like Darkfall a 6 is a travesty. The "best" games out there don't really rate better than a 6-7 right now on the absolute scale.

On the other hand, if 10 of 10 means, "as good as the best currently available" then I have no problem with Darkfall getting a 6. On the relative scale, it's a reasonable rating.

Get the difference?

Your reviews have always seemed to be on the absolute scale, but it's never stated and they aren't very consistent in regards to each other.

Thu Jul 30 2009 3:51PM Report
StrixMaxima writes:

The scoring system is nice. The scores, however, are not. There are major inconsistencies when you compare games. I see no easy way out.

No game out there is "bad"? This is what I find strange. Most of them are in this gray area of "some problems, but ok". This is the kind of review that, quite frankly, annuls the whole system.

Keep the system, but take a good hard look on the games out there and their score. Some are BAD. They really are.

Thu Jul 30 2009 5:04PM Report
ghstwolf writes:

Like many have said before: an element by element breakdown would be huge.  I'd also add a Bio about the reviewer of sorts to all reviews, how they've rated other games is a very useful bit of knowledge.

"Average" also needs to be 5, not 7-7.9.  It's for that exact reason VG reviews are largely a joke, the scale always seems to set "average" as above (or well above) the center of the scale. 

Thu Jul 30 2009 5:07PM Report
Vandenberg writes:

In regard to something Paragus said:

"If you look at this list of review scores on this site, there is only one game to ever score a 9 on that list, Wrath of the Lich King. So even by your new system, the only "Great" MMO ever released according to this site is a WoW Expansion pack."

I think this is a problem with the common perception that review scores are relative to each other, when they really shouldn't be (the obvious exception being a series of expansions for one game). A game that scores a nine isn't automatically better than any game with eight. Especially in the case of an expansion, where it's scored on what it brings to an existing game, rather than being a game itself.

I gave the Apocrypha expansion to EVE Online an 8.7 based on its own merits (and that I felt it was better  than the previous expansion), that doesn't mean it's somehow slightly better than the main game, which scored and 8.5.

The expansion pack reviews don't affect the main rating or appear on the MMO game list, either, so the site isn't dubbing it a great MMO.

You did hit on a great point earlier, though, with second opinions. Re-reviews every so often are a great idea, and it's been great to see gaming sites take a different approach to reviewing MMOs over the years, but having someone else write a shortreview,or summary with a score attached might ease the ridiculous amount of pressure placed on a single score. I imagine that 'd be a bit difficult to do it with every game, though.

The current points scale is fine, I feel, and the decimal place gives it a bit more freedom (to express a high eight, or a low eight, for example). Other than that you're still going to get people screaming at each other over a scoring method that is, essentially, more of an art than a science.


Thu Jul 30 2009 5:30PM Report
Vandenberg writes:

Damn, forgot to mention that:

“The contents of this post do not necessarily reflect the views of and its management.”

Thu Jul 30 2009 5:38PM Report
Harpy_Lady writes:

It would be nice to get reviews from more than one person on the same game. Maybe one from a primarily pvp player to a primarily pve player. That way you would get a review from both slants.

Unfortunately no matter what you do, there will always be a group that cries foul.

Thu Jul 30 2009 6:48PM Report
Sortran writes:

Personally when I play a game, I have a set group of areas I look at:

Graphics : self explanatory
UI/Controls : Self explanatory
Sound : Self explanatory
Animations/effects: (i know those can fit in under graphics but I set em aside due to usually focusing on my avatar when performing skills etc)
PVP/PVE options: never found a middle ground game as of yet. though I enjoy being able to do either in a game when I want to do em.
Loss penalties: xp/skill/loot those depend on whether or not I have the time to play, more or less meaning casual time investment or hardcore time investment
Casual/Hardcore: will I have enough time to invest in game, and this centers around what the game does to draw me
Fun factor: If the game overall is fun is a primary factor for me. I dont have to have top notch everything else to enjoy a game, just like it when its immersive.
Miscellaneous: everything else not really covered above.

If I were to score games this is roughly what I would do, every category has a 1-10 rating in my eyes, except fun factor which has 
1-20. If all the non fun factor categories have a 6 or higher rating chances are I am going to enjoy the game and its gonna be upwards of an 7 to 10 overall rating.

That being said, mmorpg's rating system for the most part is fair, although I would like to see more in depth breakup of some of the areas. even sound can be broken down alot more ( i know breaking em down creates a lot more work for reviewers but an indepth branched out review goes along way to giving players and non players alike more info on the draw or dislike of a game)

Thu Jul 30 2009 7:09PM Report
SlyLoK writes:

Looking at the numbers and what you guys have them meaning.. I think the review matches a 4 or 5 more than a 6.

Thu Jul 30 2009 8:38PM Report
SlyLoK writes:

Talking about the Darkfall review that is :).

And I would probably use a scale of 100 instead of 10.

( cant edit blog posts :( )

Thu Jul 30 2009 8:41PM Report
Orthedos writes:

The review that sparked off this debate is actually well written.  The only contention is the score, an overall score.  An overall score hides the relative importance the reviewer gives to each aspect.

Looking at the text alone, people who values pve or polishness would see a score of 6 too high, vice versa.

Why not break the score down to individual aspects, and create a standard set of weights to each aspect.  That way people who do not agree to the overall score and look at the individual score, and or apply his/her own weights.

Try something like this:

Gameplay (25%), Graphics (20%), Music (10%), Character customisation (10%), Questlines (10%), combat feel (10%) and so on.  Normally the %s adds up to 100.  Everyone would have assigned different weights to each aspect, but once you clearly laid down the weights in use, half of the misunderstanding fades and the other half can be channelled to user rebuilding own scores with his or her weights.

Thu Jul 30 2009 11:28PM Report
haratu writes:

I like a scale out of 10, however to avoid situations like Darkfall disagreements and conflicts with words it would be better to have detailed ratings (graphics, gameplay, etc) as well as have a reference section in the website on what reviewers look for for those details. 

Fri Jul 31 2009 2:21AM Report
severius writes:

Personally I read through some reviews from time to time but no one can tell me if a game is good let alone great besides myself.  I find that any publication web or print based is going to be biased in regards to what review is published because there are $ involved.

Seriously, why even put a score?  just tell us about initial experiences, how the game ran , the kind of people that were encountered, and whether or not everything promised/hyped is actually there and functional.

Fri Jul 31 2009 2:38AM Report
Giubba writes:

Agree with atziluth

Fri Jul 31 2009 4:23AM Report
solarine writes:

The academic letter grading system never made much sense to me. It's numerical projection apparently used by makes even less sense.

If you're using a 1 to 10 numerical grading system,  "average" should not be 7-8, it should be 5-6. If you're going by the numbers, go by the numbers themselves. It's intuitive, and it's universal.


Fri Jul 31 2009 5:03AM Report
Narug writes:

I'm going to voice another "please don't change your system!"

Gamespot made its changes and has lost credibility over time because of them.

If you do absolutely have to change things I would start in minor increments instead of a whole revamp.

Ultimately though I've always put more stock in a 5 point/star system.  Addam Sessler of X-Play explained that one best but I don't remember exactly what he said.

Fri Jul 31 2009 7:34AM Report
Scalebane writes:

Agree with some others that your current reviewing is fine.  People just want things to in favor of how they see things.  Bottom line your never gonna have a score system that makes anyone happy.

I really don't see an issue of credibility with this site and its reviews, i know this site isn't liked so much mainly because of the people that post here, supposedly this sites community is very bad.  -shrugs- 

Anyways, all these sites that do reviews share the same issue, they have their fans that think they are credible and the ones that think they aren't.  Even if you do a new point system your gonna see the same complaints. 

If scores bother people this much, then maybe just give reviews with no scores, that way people stop bitching...oh wait they'll still bitch because they want to agree with the review even without a score.

i do like that this site has the user rated score and your reviews score.

Fri Jul 31 2009 1:55PM Report
Scalebane writes:

Agree with some others that your current reviewing is fine.  People just want things to in favor of how they see things.  Bottom line your never gonna have a score system that makes anyone happy.

I really don't see an issue of credibility with this site and its reviews, i know this site isn't liked so much mainly because of the people that post here, supposedly this sites community is very bad.  -shrugs- 

Anyways, all these sites that do reviews share the same issue, they have their fans that think they are credible and the ones that think they aren't.  Even if you do a new point system your gonna see the same complaints. 

If scores bother people this much, then maybe just give reviews with no scores, that way people stop bitching...oh wait they'll still bitch because they will not want to agree with the review, even without a score.

i do like that this site has the user rated score and your reviews score.

Fri Jul 31 2009 1:57PM Report
Scalebane writes:

err sorry stupid double post...

Fri Jul 31 2009 1:57PM Report
Bellarion writes:

I agree with Solarin and Panchoe. Their intelligence was refreshing.

Sat Aug 01 2009 12:41AM Report
Wizardry writes:

I agree that the scoring/rating system of 0-10 is not a very accurate one.I do feel it is a decent system when rating EACH aspect of a game,but not too good for an over all rating.

The reason is because you may for example have a few things in a game that have brought the over all rating of a game down.Wel lwhat if those few things do not matter at all to some gamers?then the game coudl have easily been a 9 or a 10 to those other gamers.You have to always remember that each individual has their own likes and dislikes about gaming,so that is why rating systems are so varied.

Sun Aug 02 2009 1:14AM Report
Bhagpuss writes:

As a reader of reviews for nearly forty years, music, film, books, games, you name it, what I most want is to be entertained.

Witty, well-written, amusing - all these come way before "informative" or even "accurate". In all other genres, at the top end at least, reviewing is much more about the reviewer than what's being reviewed. Purely factual information belongs in the news section, not in the reviews.

Back in the newsprint days of the 80s, gaming journalism wasn't that much different from music journalism. Opinion and personality were valued and reviews were often a pleasure to read in and of themselves, whether or not you had any interest in the game under review. There was a wonderful magazine called "Crash" that was almost entirely reviews; I used to read it from cover to cover every month, even though I had no intention whatsoever of buying 99% of the games reviewed, because it was just a great read.

Nowadays, with instant feedback, not to say personal abuse and death threats, much of that irreverence and vibrancy has vanished. Online reviewing seems to have stagnated into a dull, worthy attempt to be "fair" and "accurate". Terrible shame.

If game reviewers insist on going down this route, the result will be that no-one reads any review unless they are already specifically interested in the game already, in which case they will be disproportionately disposed to feel aggrieved at any negative criticism, thereby causing a feedback loop that makes the reviewer play even safer next time out.

My advice is cultivate strong, idiosyncratic writers, who can draw an audience on the strength of their writing and opinions alone. Short of libel, let them review games however they choose. Stick with them long enough for we, the readers, to learn their tastes and quirks.

After reading certain film and music reviewers for ten, twenty years now, I'm able to use them as belweathers. It doesn't matter whether they conclude a new release is good, bad or indifferent because I have an understanding of how their standard of quality relates to my own. A vituperative demolition by a certain reviewer may tell me that band is one I probably wnat to look out for; a rave may tell me to steer well clear.

As for a points system, well thay are always amusing, but never meaningful, so use whatever you fancy.

Sun Aug 02 2009 2:51AM Report
Jowen writes:

They recently redid the school grade system in my country as they realized there is no point in having more than one or two grades to cover failure of meeting the minimal required performance. One for a slightly under average performance and one for an absolutely unsatisfactory performance.

To have a ten grade scale but only ever using the top five (as scores below 6 are reserved for game who are absolutely unplayable which is a very rare incident) is a bit silly.

In the case of scoring a 6, while it looks to be a score for an average game it is in fact the lowest possible score for a game who just manages to be playable.

Mon Aug 03 2009 4:10AM Report
Gnomig writes:

I think the current system is quite Ok, though i feel it may be a bit misleading at times. The Problem I see is that scores do not diminish over time. A game that was great 2 Years ago mostly because of innovation and excellent graphics might (!) be an old, ugly hat by now - but the score stands as high as on day 1, when every fanboy hyped it as high as possible.

A partial solution may be to split the overall score into a "technical" and a "gameplay/fun" one. Let the "technical" be set by the reviewer(s) and degrade over time, while the "gameplay" score gets to be voted ontop of that and degrading slowly only when nobody voted for the game in 30days. 

So, my 2ct for today... ;-)


Mon Aug 03 2009 4:30AM Report
jcpillars writes:

I think you should reverse the numbers. 0 is the best game ever made, and 10 is the worst crime ever committed on the game-playing public.

There are several advantages to this. I won't bore you with the mundane ones, you can think of those yourself. The most important is on websites that compile a number of different reviews. Your gigantic "3" will stand-out among the ubiquoutous "7.5", and you will get more hits on your website.

Your welcome, that one is free.

Sun Aug 16 2009 12:09AM Report writes:
Login or Register to post a comment