Doonge

It's easier to judge if you like or dislike something, rather than constructing a coherent personnal scale. It might be interesting to raise the cost of rating something, so you try to cater only to an elite audience, but you have less data. A simple 5 point scale is barely more difficult than a binary scale, I don't see the point very much.

Not only people have different tastes, but they have different scales. In most rating systems, moderates have less traction per unit than extremists, which means incentivizing the louder voices.  The 1 or 5 situation in a 5 points scale system is just what's incentivized.

Different tastes, different scales AND different drive to rate things. Again, power to the clickers, apathy for the others. Bayesian can help here, but it is very limited. Regrouping and diluting ratings by user helps aswell, but is limited aswell due to the weight of anonymous ratings (if allowed).

All of this and the point of ratings, or critics, is just to have some good idea of what to expect. Rating here is meaningless without knowing what's the aggregated opinion of the average voter. The same way reading a critic review might be if you don't know the critic's tastes and style. Do your tastes match the average voter?

Paraphrasing homogenized, you are explaining you grew accustomed to some other ranking system, and you are used to a sweet spot elsewhere that you named "70-80". Answer is simple: different ranking system here, different sweet spot. You are just asking the ranking system here to match MU one's, without showing in what way it is better. You explain people are afraid to vote 3/5, which mean, by your logic, people are afraid to vote 6/10. Means 4/5 or 5/5 in a 5pts scale system, and 7-8-9-10 in a 10. Just adjust your sweetspot here. Why should the whole system be changed to accomodate people who have sweetspots in MU? What about those who have sweetspot in Batoto already? Should they adapt again?

Lastly, I'd be interested having a lot more numbers from the database, if that's possible Gendalph.  Your computation is wrong, I suppose you did it by hand.  I mean, "fol/view*1000" for Beelzebub is wrong at least. I am interested in the fol/vot ratio, wondering if the "rating" number is superflous, because redundant with "follow" (if the ratio follow/vote is fairly constant, at least relatively to the "5" votes).

Problem with Beelzebub is that I see there's a "popular comcis" list existing. Removes the need of "follow" for popular comics =(

I think you misunderstand what I said there.

"Plus, to the people who witness the guy doing good, or are at the receiving end of his kindness, I don't think whether he knows anything other than good would matter to them. He'd still be a good person in their opinion." is invalid because of a biased observer. Because this is a hypothetical question we can look at it from a neutral point of view, one in which we filter bias and discuss the core of the act and the person.

Think of yourself as a random alien that's observing humans as humans observe animals.

Whatever biased or neutral the "opinion" is, it is foreign to the subject observed (the person doing "good" deeds like a robot). It is necessarily the observer who's making this claim of goodness, based on his own referential, his own opinion of what goodness is. Whether biased or not.

You cannot lay your scenario then claim that observer opinion (even an alien) of the man does not apply. It was included in the hypothesis.

You are saying you don't like scenarios with a "biased"  observer, implying that the observer in your hypothesis is unbiased, hence that goodness is something universal and absolute.

You say that person does only good deeds, according to unbiased observer, and wonder if that person is "truly" good. Linguistically, you use the adjective "good" for actions here (deeds), so "good" applies to things. You then wonder if "good" should necessitate "agency" when it applies to people: you wonder if a person without agency, without choice, can be truly good.

Well, is this person without agency, doing good deeds out of ignorance like a tool/robot, "truly" a person? What differentiates a person from a thing, if not agency?