There are as many ways to rate any given thing as there are things in the world. My rating is of course subjective. All ratings are subjective although there are those on the internet that would have you believe they are not.
My ratings fall into two broad categories, things I pay for, and things I don’t.
Things I pay for are the everyday items we all pay for, a video game, a craft beer, a shirt, a ticket to a concert, or any of the other things we all purchase on a daily basis.
Then there are the things we don’t pay for, but are still important to a great many people, or maybe just to me personally. The performance of the New York Football Giants, the government’s health policy, the route offered up by the Tour de France, a YouTube channel.
When I rate something that I have parted with cash for, really what I’m rating is the level of satisfaction I got from that item. This is formed by a combination of the value presented compared to outlay for the item. This does not mean that cheapest is best, in fact this is quite often not the case. What is more relevant is whether I feel like it has delivered on what it has promised and whether the price was reasonable based on what has been delivered.
When I rate something that I have not paid for, for example a YouTube channel, obviously price ceases to be a factor and what becomes more relevant is whether I find it to be of value to me in terms of entertainment, education or just enjoyment. It may be that the item has value or is detrimental to society generally, for example a Government policy.
Where none of these things apply the remaining place to draw a rating from will be to compare the item to its peers, for example the New York Football Giants coaching staff as compared to the other coaching staffs in the league.
I would emphasise that all of my ratings are intrinsically subjective. Disagreement is not only to be expected but to be welcomed. It is difference of opinion that keeps the world interesting.