I get what he's saying, though. Like you might love a certain unhealthy sandwhich from a deli or a fast food chain, and enjoy the food more than some other fancier place with more expensive food and higher quality ingredients.

And yet you might give McDonalds a score of 1 and the fancy place a score of 5. And i completely understand that.

The thing this leaves out is that theres a good chance you eat the deli sandwich more often than food at the fancy place, and not to mention you enjoy it more.

You might accidentally treat the rating system like a teacher grading a students test: there are specific criteria, and something can be objectively better or worse, on the test. But theres other elements, like despite the fact that a student's grammar might be terrible, you mightve read something in that students essay that changed your life, or that you felt it contained a really ingenious notion that you very much liked.

Now.. in terms of how much pain they put themselves through to make the essay? maybe not much, at least not the kind the test is supposed to measure. But the value? Perhaps the value is much harder to measure or articulate.

This is why the thumbs up and thumbs down thing works. Cause if you liked the show, at the end of they day youre more likely to give it a thumbs up. But a guilty pleasure show that you spend more time watching, you might be reluctant to give a good rating to, despite the fact that if you had to be alone on an island with 10 TV shows, this would be one of them.