Everyone has their own set of rating systems. Some people like the 5 scale or the 10 scale and some rank beauty separate from sexy/hotness. I for one rank everything on a 100 scale. I pick 10 facets of the subject and put each on a ten scale then rank away on each then combine the cumulative score. Five primary and five secondary attributes are responsible for the ten facets so when need be I can put it on a five scale for someone looking for that score. When I'm shortening it I generally will just divide by ten and round to the nearest half down. The importance of the primary attributes shouldn't be overlooked. The reason I separate them is so that when working on a five scale the important parts get across because the secondary attributes don't matter much under or in comparison to the primaries.
For example one primary attribute I commonly use is replayability in a game while a secondary that's related to it is how long the game lasts. It doesn't matter so much if the game only takes four hours or a whopping one hundred hours if the game is only good for one playthrough. That's something that comes across a lot in games like call of duty in which the campaign is usually a good score but the replay is next to zero. Thankfully I give out separate scores for single and multiplayer because I found it's just wrong to compare the two or have them share a score. This is also becoming a little more relevant as different teams are sometimes and increasingly more often responsible for the two separately. Other common attributes are things like difficulty, not only overall but also in transition, is there a specific area where the difficulty is substantially different either easier or harder, so consistency is also an attribute. Though not all of these are always translatable between all games so sometimes I have to re-work them though I have a base set for each of the 7 primary genre's.
The one thing I'm known for with my reviews is brutality. I never go easy on anything, including myself, because we deserve not only honesty but we deserve the best and if we give away these good scores the developers aren't under any pressure to do better they think "oh we did good guess that was enough". The highest rating I've ever given a game was an 83, and it's also the only one over 80, as of yet I have never come across a game to rate or warrant in the 90's. If there's one thing I have experience in it's games, which in itself should be enough to be a fairly trustworthy review to begin with. I've played in the thousands if not tens of thousands of games over the years and beat them all. Going as far back as commodore and early atari's that still had keyboards through modern day, the only consoles I haven't owned since the 90's aside from arcade machines are the DS, Wii, and Vita and even so I've still played them. I might as well be a gaming machine myself. Add to that the fact I have professional experience in analysis and related fields I'd say I'm prime to dish out a review.
How do you review? What is your preference on rating scales? Can you stick a piece of gum in your mouth and not chew it?