This is not intended to be a breakthrough on anyway, I may as well get the "uhu we all knew that" . But well, I did not. And this is mostly a thought expression than any kind of empirical statement or provide any kind of evidence about anything, but let's go on with it. Forever I thought and considered them (ratings and rankings) to be mostly useless for me, and maybe useless to most. I consider rankings and ratings mostly biased. Biased because people that vote is, well, people that vote. Not everyone votes, and people that like/tend/want to vote already have some personality traits that may make like or or not like certain products. That is ever more so that people that vote must have to go that site in first place, and again is another form of bias. Also they have another form of bias which is good, that is people that rank or vote for a game, first they must play the game, that means that that the population is biased to "people that would try a game with X marketing or Y presentation in first place". And I think this is a strong bias, and while the other still apply , it means that these system are good for determining , what's probably one of the best or most objective, useful ways to determine a good product. That is that the product delivers, what people, based on marketing and presentation, promises.