While a simple scale rating system is just that, simple, anything more complex quickly exceeds the amount of effort both rater and searchers are willing to put

While a simple scale rating system is just that, simple, anything more complex quickly exceeds the amount of effort both rater and searchers are willing to put in to understanding it. "Rate this restaurant on a scale of 1-10" is much simpler to understand than a massive questionnaire (even ratings on something like 3 or 4 axes may be too many/too much effort). It also has the advantage of being ambiguous enough that ANY opinion can fit into it -- you would be hard pressed to find the right kind of questions that fit all the different things that can be rated (What if you liked a place but didn't experience any of the specific things being asked about? Would you rate a movie theater on service if you never used the concession stand?). A site that didn't allow a reviewer to put in prose to explain their rating would be useless; I believe all the sites the OP talked about do. The rating scale is just meant to be a summary, each one is a summary of the thing being reviewed, and in aggregate it's a summary of the community's feel for the thing being reviewed. When flipping channels looking at movies that are on, the star rating system is largely worthless because 1) it was most likely done by some paid movie buff who has inherently different motivations and likes/dislikes than I do and 2) there is no explanation as to the reasoning why a rating was given. It's all subjective measurements, and it can't be objective. The whole point of rating systems is opinion. It's just like asking a friend if a place is worth going. Often times, the use case is "find something good with a minimal amount of hassle". This comes down to things like "places people liked that are within a mile of where I am right now". I have five minutes to make a decision on this, the single data point of a rating scale helps me make the decision quickly and (perceptually) accurately (it may not actually be accurate, but I feel like I'm making a good decision). These sites are also designed for repeat users and users being contributors. You learn the way other people have rated things on the site over time and are more able to decide for yourself what a "1 star" means vs a "5 star" means given the context. I think a larger problem is getting people to want to expend the effort to provide a review of a place that they aren't extremely excited about (either positively or negatively). I know I don't bother to review places I had a so-so experience at, but if I had excellent service or really bad service, I make it a point to rate them. In some way, this skews the results, but is most likely isn't that big of a deal. I don't know what the OP has in store for his next posting, but if it's truly revolutionary, he should be starting his own competing review service.