And so on.

I’m much more interested in the body of the text of the very interesting reviews you guys write.

It seams this feature isn’t placed more obvious be course TTAC isn’t quiet confident in its star system.

1-star: The vehicle can be summed up in one word: Craptacular! Its market can be described by the quote, commonly (but apparently falsely) attributed to P.T. Barnum: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

2-star: The vehicle either failed to meet or lived down to the reviewer’s expectations.

3-star: The vehicle lived up to the reviewer’s expectations.

4-star: The vehicle significantly exceeded the reviewer’s expectations.

5-star: While there may be some nits to pick, the reviewer is deeply impressed by how well the vehicle does what it was intended to do.

add up the stars, divide by 4.

No excessively overweight car should get five stars.

But I suspect if you take 50 different TTACers, you’ll get at least 40 different ideas on what deserves five stars. (The rest of you guys who don’t agree with me don’t know what you’re talking about.)

Whenever you bring in any numerical rating system, that system is supposed to be a consistent objective measurement of criteria.

When you say a baseball player is a .300 hitter, you mean he’s gotten 3 hits every 10 at bats. It’s a very objective measurement of something quite specific. It’s not the same as saying that person is a good hitter, a great hitter, an all-star slugger, etc etc… which are imprecise subjective measurements.

For the star system to be useful, IT HAS TO refer to a specific objective measurement… but it’s clear TTAC doesn’t use the system that way. I mean, there are SUV’s that receive five stars in performance, and yet that was the rating for the F430. Do you guys seriously mean that any car receiving five stars in performance performs just as well as an F430? Are the ratings comparable only within a vehicles class? It’s all just so haphazard and thrown together. That’s a shame because a system of objective measurements like the star system could be really useful but it needs to be specific, clear and consistent.

thank you voice of reason, faster_than_rabbit

Basically we’re being asked to completely ignore the final rating by some reviewers, because it is a subjective rating that may or may not have anything to do with the previous 600 words. Then why have it at all? Or clarify it with the caveat that this is not the final rating for the car based on its actual (mostly objective) merits. Yes, thats it. A big asterisk or disclaimer stating that the stars are only the subjective rating. Therefore every Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche, every car you’ve ever lusted after, or (as Berkowitz so elegantly and kinda freakishly suggests) that you need tissues for, would get an automatic five stars. Yet the car that perfectly executes everything it is suposed to (ahem, Prius…) gets only 3, cuz you just dont really like it.

O, but it gets worse, because then we get articles that wax poetic about the love affair with a certain Alfa that apparently is only worth 2 stars? So why is that? Because objectively it is slow, breaks down and is a virtual deathtrap (all compared to today’s cars). So here the 2 stars have nothing to do with the subjective lust for the car, or even its own merits compared to its peers, but compared to a standard which it could not possibly meet. By that token, a classic ‘65 Mustang with vinyl(!!!), poor suspension, lousy mpg, OMG, the list is too long, should get 1 star at best. I dont even think the thing came with a decent SatNav system or and IPod jack. It must really suck.

So I’m of the belief that you should either do away with the stars or make them consistent.

The overall rating should be based on how it did in each individual category, or each category should be weighted and the total tally based on that should determine the overall rating. The way the star system is used removes the legitimacy of these reviews and makes it no better than the opinions of any Joe on the street.

Jonny, BTW, was the T-reg ride subliminal, sublime, or both?

Star ratings within a publication are only useful when they’re consistent from review to review. If the number one factor is sheer driving pleasure, then try to make sure all of the ratings line up that way. Frequently, where non-objective criteria are in play, publications have the ‘reviews editor’ assign the star rating to maintain consistency. (I haven’t noticed any particular inconsistency at TTAC, just sayin’.)

That’s the beauty of a blog: you’re not limited by quaint representations like little stars that work for newspapers and mags where space is at a premium.
Put a big ass graphic of a frowning or smiling face at the bottom of the review, centered.

Or not.

I don’t think a 5-star rating was out of line for this. The nit about long-term reliability is valid (you should get fabulous reliability at this price point) but otherwise, this vehicle sounded like it was a blast to drive and would be a real pleasure to own.

TTAC is unique as it encourages those who can thoughtfully deliver a fair and balanced [tongue in cheek, inasmuch as FOX News can claim so] assessment of a vehicle. If you don’t agree with Jonny’s fawning review, then take the couterpoint and submit 800 words of “Take Two”.

Explain how they work somewhere and note your biases and they will be worth more.

What puzzles me, are the reviews for old (used? not available as new?) cars, i.e., the 1986 Alfa Romeo.

If you want to reminisce, that’s good. I like the idea too. But to review a car as if anyone could buy it (like a new car) is a little odd, IMO. At least it would have more value to me if I COULD find the car somewhere…