CacackleLasson I'm not even arguing, dude. You claimed that low ratings are more credible, informative and authentic. I am simply pointing out that they are not.
I don't know why you seem to think I am defending 5 star reviews. I am not. I am simply pointing out that low ratings are just as worthless as 5 star reviews because they don't contain anything useful. More often than not, they are worse because they are filled with swearing and insults.
Also, I don't approve of authors deleting reviews either, unless they are spams (like emoji spams). I have never claimed that the ranking system is good. I am merely debunking your point that low ratings are more legitimate, because they are often not. Unless you're telling me that stories deserve one stars simply because the main character is "bland." I am not so blind as to pretend that the popular stories deserve 5 stars. I think the 5 stars are just as BS. But at least they are not as harmful as reviews filled with swearing and insults.
Just to clarify, when you say low ratings, are you actually including mid-ratings like 2.5-3.5 stars? Because those are the ones that actually provide a more comprehensive coverage in a review, including what you said about main characters (beyond the usual tired insults of him being beta, spineless, retarded, etc.), writing quality, story development, consistency and world building. Hell, a lot of the 4-star reviews (is that considered high?) do that too. I don't see you talking about them. In contrast, I rarely see a 1 star review (probably never) that actually covers all that. Most 1 star reviews, if not all, just read like a juvenile rant about how shitty the story or main character is (mostly because the writer didn't pander to what the reviewer wants to read).
Just go look at the reviews for The Divine Wolf, or...?, for example. The low rating reviews are always infantile screaming about why Ark (the protagonist) trusts humans, is a spineless beta (because he trusted humans) or why he doesn't act more like a wolf and abandon his humanity totally (never mind the fact that he is a human reincarnated into a wolf's body). Are you telling me they are more credible than the high-rating reviews (usually 4-4.5 stars) Tyrone received, which actually detailed how consistent the story is, the world-building and how engaging the characters are? I think not.
Or asaade_ragnarokm screaming about how the protagonist of a Naruto fanfiction is a spineless beta who grovels at people's feet, kisses people's asses and lick their shoes all because the guy spends two sentences praising a couple of characters he defeated in a previous chapter. Did he mention the writing quality, story development, consistency or world building? No. He just lost his s* over two insignificant sentences in just the second chapter and wrote a rage-fueled 1-star review calling the author trash. And then he attacked people for writing 5-star reviews. Seriously? Now I would normally say he had a point about the random 5-star reviews (there are a lot of "I love this story, please update!" that are not very useful to the readers but at least it's encouraging to the writer), but he was doing that to justify his insulting 1-star review. Is that what you're arguing for? Is that what you are claiming is more legitimate and credible? Just because he describes (insults) the main character in his review?
The high and low ratings represent the extreme ends of both spectrums. Either it's just blind praise and adoration or it's rage-filled swearing and juvenile insults. Honestly, the most credible and legitimate reviews are the ones with mid ratings, not high or low.