@bloodykills - i'm just no fan of 'ratings', because for the most part there's little or nothing involved in assigning a score to really tell the author about why you rate it so low/high etc. Now i'm not implying that it happens here (but in probability, it's highly possible as elsewhere), but there's a pretty big 'if i rate you high, you'll notice me and maybe return the favour on my mod, irrespective of how sh*t an effort it is' similar to how in SocNet circles, there's huge "i'll give your post a like, so you'll do the same for me". To my way of thinking, if you take even 5 seconds to note a written like/dislike of the effort and at least a short note to why, it gives the author food for thought - if it's just irrational hate stuff written, it's disgarded but if it's highlighting maybe something you kinda never finished that's maybe ruining an otherwise good effort (or a seriously flawed element that never came on the author's radar in test, but intensive use reveals it), that's doing the author a huge favour and for those starting out, it's almost essential you help them realise what they may have done wrong (often by overlooking something, or created a problem through overly complicated and unnecessary algorithms).

That's why, in the instance of this mod, i made a point of noting that focusing more on the 'clown car' aspect of it (as a form of funny weird chaos) was worth doing and toning down on the more 'destructive potential' bit that goes with a 'chaos car' idea - it shows you realise it's not bad, maybe not flawed even, just maybe needs a little refocusing on the object of the exercise - a star rating and a random two/three syllable 'cool dude'/'it sucks dude' comment (of which there are many examples of that kind on forums etc) is hopeless at pointing the author in the right direction (of where you feel they were trying to go) or pointing out scope for a different direction (but not necessarily calling it flawed/bad).