Actually, it's easier to judge quality with no rating at all because scaling is completely subjective, so you get to read actual reviews and decide for yourself.
Some use a scale 'accurately' where as you'll find some won't put below 5 unless it was appalling, and the mediocre number is around 7 when it should be 5.. and so on.
But of course it takes a little longer to read a paragraph or two for every review, and not just those "Thumbs up, good host. 10/10" or "Ok host, nothing special. 6.12312346/10."
But what makes them "good" or "nothing special"?
All because people perceive the mid-point to be a 0 and not what it really is.. the middle.
Same goes for magazines rating computer games "This was just a run of the mill, average game. 75%" so 75% is the mediocre point..
[/rabble]