Threads are rated by the mods/admins only. It's not an average either, it's just a toggle between 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Official, and Event.
OK, this answers my question. Therefore, the star ratings are strictly the very subjective opinion of one person.
Just like on Iron Chef, when Chef Morimoto makes a certain dish to appeal to a particular judge, the ratings are the result of whether some mod thinks clementines are more tasty than pineapples, horniness is funnier than wit or someone's political view is more trenchant than another's.
Go Mods!
And just like I prefer the Rollings Stones to the Who, I am a Con, not a Mod....
So, let me therefore ask a different question:
What would be everyone's (non-mod's) particular guidelines for assigning stars?
Things I look for (and therefore would rate highly):
1) Originality, cleverness and wit.
2) Something that is of interest to the majority of Board members.
To me, simply posting a link to a web site (that may be in fact very clever or interesting) shows that someone had the time on their hands to find a site and post the work of someone else.
There are ways by which we all can single out the wit of a particular person within a topic thread (the topic itself might be unremarkable but someone's response might be great... (and then we can post within the thread how much we like that person's reply.))
But I raise the question. Do you think mods should assign ratings to the topic title/subject OR the content within the topic? Or both?
Personally, I dismiss the star ratings as arbitrary (although perhaps not capricious) under the current system. But I do see value in a more democratic assignment of stars.
CK1
<img src = http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/headi.gif>
2%
slanted and enchanted...
adf sig pics rawk!