Rating Scales

one problem I see with rating scales these days is that they are either way too generous or unbalanced. If you can give a score of 0-10, the average of all scores should be somewhere near the middle. Take the NBA dunk contest for example. I know the judges are just NBA figures who don't put that much consideration into their scores. But when the lowest score possible is a 1 or 0 and the judges never give anything lower than a 7, things don't make sense. Don't be scared to give lower scores guys. If you're going to give 8's 9's and 10's to every dunk, it leaves nothing separating the best of the best from just "good" dunks.

A good rating scale would go something like this:
10% of all scores would be 2/10 or lower
20% of all scores would be between a 2 and a 5/10
30% of all scores would be between a 5 and 7/10
30% of all scores would be between a 7 and 9/10
10% of all scores would be 9/10 or above

I know that doesn't average to a 5/10 like the perfect rating scale would, but it's a start. Much better than a rating scale where the average score is a 9. You're a critic, you don't have to love everything. Dwight Howard's glorified layup shouldn't have been a 50 last year. Nate's dunk this year was a 9. Vince Carter's dunks were all 9 and above.