[RussEfarmer]

Can we get some clarification on the star rating system? It's been around for literally ever, I see it every day, and it STILL seems random. Looking in the news subforum, "Addressing toxicity in the community" has a 2/5 star rating despite being literally the most controversial forum post ever made, while Gabe's follow up thread has a one star rating yet has significantly less downvotes.

And now that I look at it, profiles seem to have a star rating system too, and it ALSO seems completely random. A user will ever seem to only have no, one or four stars, and there's no pattern for who gets what. Forum user @Alk has one thread, one post, zero rep and one star, while forum user @Hugh Mungus has ZERO posts, ZERO threads, and no rep, and STILL has one star, but forum user @City has 416 posts, 53 threads and 148 rep, and has NO stars. My favorite is the four star users; understandably, forum user @"Burrito Bowl" has a four star profile with 1,143 posts, 54 threads, and 464 rep, yet @"~$$~ BlackCatTheGreat ♣♣", the most downvoted user on the forums with -257 rep, 552 posts and 37 threads, has a four star profile. What?
(I tried to shoot my pings at inactive users, btw)
I'm not blaming anyone here, I honestly don't think and single person on this forum cares, but I'm bored and figured I'd put this together.