Why Ratings Are Not Objective.

Well, that's the other problem, isn't it - "winning" isn't usually an objective assessment, either. We very rarely (on any side of any argument) squeeze a concession out of our opponents around here - I don't doubt that many of our debates leave participants on all sides believing they have "won" the argument.I'm not a fan of ratings in general. It's too simplistic, and works more as a distraction than reasonable feedback.

I'm not sure what the ratings "usually" represent. It could be a perception of having made an effective argument, proving one's point or refuting another's position.Or it could simply be an agreement with an individual's position, regardless of how effectively it's argued.Or it could be a ranking of writing quality.That's the problem - a bare 1-5 ranking system is too simplistic. You are receiving low ratings that may be undeserved from one perspective, but are well deserved from another. Is it simply because you are a Creationist? Are you making poor arguments? Is your writing style not well-liked? Did a given post have anything about bigotry? Were you blatantly factually incorrect? Did the voter simply not like you?There's no way to tell. And that's the problem. The ratings serve only as a distraction whose meaning is wholly subjective. They can even do harm, as people can assign a degree of authority or credibility based on rankings that has nothing to do with he effectiveness of a given post. I see your current rating is a 2.2...and there's no way for me to tell why.Personally, I don't even pay attention to ratings. I try to take each argument as separate from others, so that I can make arguments and rebuttals on the merits of what is actually said and not my perception of the poster. I'm not always successful (I am human, after all), but I try.