The bigger problem I think is bad and inconsistent rating of the maps. In an ideal world, there would be some kind of scale put into site, where you can only rate 10% maps as 5/5, 20% as 4/5, 40% as 3/5, 20% as 2/5, and 10% as 1/5. Something like that would keep the rating more consistent. However since there is nothing like that put into site, just following the guidelines is what I do when I rate maps.
5/5: Amazing (does it make you wonder how something this good was made? does it surprise you that something this good could be done in a warlight map? don't exaggerate. Rare rating.
4/5: Great (do you have unusually much fun on this map? Essentially the best of what would be put into 3/5.)
3/5: Good (do you find it fun and unique?)
2/5: Okay (do you find it fun but bland?)
1/5: Not recommended (I assume fizzer meant bad or something like that, since I don't recommend playing on 2/5 maps myself. Anyhow, do find barely any fun in this map? Then this grouping.)
I want to say over 80% fit in groups 4 and 3. C'mon, there are really so few bland maps or just flatly bad maps? You can count on your fingers how many maps are rated below 2.0. (https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=9175
) this is an "okay" map, according to rater average? No maps over two monthes old fit in 5/5, which is surely reasonable - has a map ever really put you into wonder and not knowing on how it can be made? (https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=3461
) this is a fun and unique map?
I think the problem arises when folk are afraid to say a hurting truth (the map sucks), bias of the folk themselves (each map as you can see, goes down in the first two monthes, as the folk who are hyped for it (if the map development was public) will play it first, then folk who are friends or fellows of the mapmaker (and the mapmaker itself, evidently), who influence other folks' thoughts about the map - but eventually it reaches the real playerbase).