Slight necrothreading, but I definitely support the idea, just so long as it's implemented well. As everyone has pointed out, there are pros and cons to having a rating system, but I do think that with the right amount of effort, the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. As Richard O. originally pointed out, having the rating system consider different factors is always a plus. Maybe some players want a GM who's high on Lethal Combat, low on Descriptions. Others might want the opposite. Having factors like these which are neither positive nor negative (intrinsically, anyways), is a good start to a system. It doesn't create animosity because there are no character judgments, only ratings on how well they did at different things within the system they were running. From there, expansion to a full-on rating should be done carefully (not that I expect it not to be, just saying). The most common suggestion here has been to make certain that there's a time implement. Displaying how long the person played with another person before the rating was given, or how long the campaign ran, etc., is a great idea on paper. For time factors, RPoL (a competitor of sorts, I know), does this well. It lists a GM's old games with post counts. While post count wouldn't really help us here, an idea of how long GMs typically run their campaigns (or even just average session length), or how long a player actually plays in a given game (on average), would be great. If players and GMs alike were able to select how much time was actually spent playing each session (or the toggle which Callum W. explained), it would also create a balanced view of how much time in a game was play vs other matters. However, for all the benefits, it would be difficult to get right, in my humblest of opinions. Per forum regulations, I will not attempt to explain why, but suffice it to say it sounds complicated in my head (but I also know very little about programming). Comments along with tags are always a good place to go from there. Tags allow a quick-glance look at the most popular ways people have described the GM or player. While it would certainly be possible to include both neutral and good/bad tags, it would overlap with a high/low rating system, so the tags would likely be something more like the current badge system, but with user-generated badges. I think the tag system should remain a positive system whenever possible, since comments are where the negative side would most likely emerge. Profiles could be expanded to have a comment system, with the Top 5 comments pinned to the top (by user vote). Initially, this would give rise to some groups forcing negative reviews on people (although Code of Conduct rules would certainly help here), but in time the most-helpful and accurate reviews would come to light. The most obvious solution here would be to not feature comments until they have X number of upvotes, or to not display a rating until Y amount of time has passed. You could also do an Amazon.com style review (As Callum W. suggests), where you have the most up-voted positive review side-by-side with the most up-voted negative review (negative not necessarily meaning "bashing" or "hurtful," just "objectively not positive". i.e. "Did not show up for games on time and quit game after disagreement, 1 star" rather than "This punk ain't worth anyone's time. Wish I could give 0 stars! 1 star"), giving a balanced view of the person at a fairly quick glance, and with other reviews listed in whatever order you see fit. The first option gives more voice to more people (possibly meaning joke reviews get high ratings, but I like jokes), while the second gives a quicker comparative look. You would need to make certain there was both a GM side and a Player
side to either system, just to be clear about what's being reviewed. After all, a negative review on a person's knowledge of mechanics is much more alarming if the person is a GM rather than a player. Either way is good, and there are certainly other options, so it's mostly just a matter of deciding what's best for the site. The final consideration to all of this is the game system factor. Grouping reviews, comments, player vs GM status, and whatever else by gaming system would be useful. Not having a system selector opens up a can of worms (which I will, again, not get into), but it may help keep down on clutter. If you do something like Michal S. said, grouping reviews by game, or by systems chosen by the GM for the game, I think it could be a pretty neat-looking idea. You could have the systems list with a generic rating by each (Exalted 1e: GM 3 star, Player 5 star) which, when clicked on, would give the more detailed review system. There could even just be a generic rating for each game with no average given except by the players and the GM. Whether or not this is feasible is something I can't begin to imagine, but it would certainly be nice to have. So, this is a +1, just so long as we consider it from all angles. ^_^