I would hope eventually posters can rise above impulsive high and low ratings according to the result. Ratings are getting better IMO.Still failing to acknowledge the relative differences between players as relevant.
There's nothing statistically interesting to be found in the way you go about the comparisons.
Combined with your self proclaimed ability to disregard some posters ratings based on what newspapers use as a base line even though the ratings would be essentially incredibly similar (e.g. newspapers give all 6's, after a loss poster gives all 4's, after a win poster gives all 8's) - it makes this nothing more than your own project you are trying to pass off as a community thing.
It's not a community thing because of how you deal with the data.
My comparisons give a wider sourced and broader perspective on players performance. It's an alternative view. I am interested how others gauge performance. I don't want to rely on potentially impulsive or skewed ratings. So I give an alternative. A narrow and potentially biased spectrum of opinion without any vetting does not give a credible enough outcome, but that's my slant on it. Those that want a pure Spurs biased and skewed rating for fun purposes can go with that, I don't do it as a fun exercise.
The ratings process is in its early days on this forum. There is a long way to go yet. Let's just go with it, watch the comparisons, discuss the ratings a bit more without getting nasty about it and see what happens.