Now hold on, there is merit here, let's not be too hasty to dismiss the attempt. I am sure the OP doesn't think this will solve everything, and as the person who suggested it, I believe it would have an effect if something were agreed upon and taken on by most of the bloomilk raters. Hate ratings would be insignificant in the overall scores in many cases if 20-25 people were consistently rating in the same ways.

As to criteria I would suggest the following.

1-10 remain, I see no merit in a 1-3 system. You need a variety of choices or the effects are magnified from hate ratings, and you need there to be a scale of differentiation or all squads will end up with very similar ratings.

To start with, I believe ratings of squads should use 3 different criteria together. First and foremost should always be the actual strength of the squad in competitive play, otherwise, we are using a rating system to simply denote what we like, not what is the best of the best. The three pieces of this are squad strength, originality (or creativity) and success of the squad.

Squad strength is based on how well you think the squad will do against the rest of the meta for it's point level. Obviously this changes, and metas are different from place to place, but the idea is that a squad should have similar power levels if people take this seriously. You also need to consider era. If you are rating a past Gencon winning squad 2 years later, you need to take into account when it was created and used, not simply rate it low because you think it's no good any more. Squads need to be viewed in the meta they were created for.

Originality isn't really how original a squad is, but more an adjustment based on giving credit. For example, you wouldn't automatically look at creation dates and rate one version of a squad higher than another similar one, but rather would use this to adjust the above ranking up or down a notch based on who created it, when they created it, and if they copied another player, etc. It's an adjustment remember, not something that makes a 4 squad a 10, but rather perhaps a 5 or 6 instead.

Success is based on play experience with the squad, the OP's reports of it if any, success by others with it, and so on. Theoretically, any new squad will have little of this information available, but as it is, you can use it to adjust your ranking again, like criteria 2 up or down a few notches. Again, this isn't indended to take a 10 down to a 6 or a 2 up to a 7. It works like this. "Lobbin' Luke" received a 9 from me originally for Fingersandteeth, when he won Gencon with it, I changed my rating to a 10. He had proven it in my book.

Next we should look at how the various numbers of the scale should be used.

1-3 ratings should be reserved for squads that need serious help. This does not mean they totally suck and never should have been created. These are squads that have very serious issues in the meta, more than comments like, "This will lose to X". We are talking about not squads primarily where a person is trying to use a sub par piece, but ones that just aren't well thought out, are missing key things, or could easily be improved by several different changes. These are squads you would expect to go 1-3 or 2-4 at a tournament if played well.

4-6 ratings should be reserved for average squads. These are all squads that are not maximized in the current meta. They don't require a major overhaul to improve, but usually need a small change here or there to compete at most venues. These are squads you would expect to go 2-2, or 3-2 at a given tournament if played well.

7-9 ratings should be reserved for the best of the best. A 7 would be a well maximized squad, where any changes are more for local meta and personal tastes rather than for a higher level of competitiveness. A 9 would be one that should dominate big tournaments like regionals or Gencon. You would expect these squads to compete for the top prize if played well at just about any tournament.

10 rating should be reserved for squads like the 7-9 levels that have been proven. It might mean it won Gencon, or won some other big tournment, but perhaps even more, these represent the best squads of their era. As such, there should never be more than about 5 at any given point level on average for any time period of the game. These would be the top 8 squads at Gencon, in their maximized versions, posted by those who played them, or by those who inspired them to play it.

That would greatly improve the rating system as a place for players, especially new players, on what to look for in squad design, what the best squads and pieces are, and so on.

Now hold on, there is merit here, let's not be too hasty to dismiss the attempt. I am sure the OP doesn't think this will solve everything, and as the person who suggested it, I believe it would have an effect if something were agreed upon and taken on by most of the bloomilk raters. Hate ratings would be insignificant in the overall scores in many cases if 20-25 people were consistently rating in the same ways.

As to criteria I would suggest the following.

1-10 remain, I see no merit in a 1-3 system. You need a variety of choices or the effects are magnified from hate ratings, and you need there to be a scale of differentiation or all squads will end up with very similar ratings.

To start with, I believe ratings of squads should use 3 different criteria together. First and foremost should always be the actual strength of the squad in competitive play, otherwise, we are using a rating system to simply denote what we like, not what is the best of the best. The three pieces of this are squad strength, originality (or creativity) and success of the squad.

Squad strength is based on how well you think the squad will do against the rest of the meta for it's point level. Obviously this changes, and metas are different from place to place, but the idea is that a squad should have similar power levels if people take this seriously. You also need to consider era. If you are rating a past Gencon winning squad 2 years later, you need to take into account when it was created and used, not simply rate it low because you think it's no good any more. Squads need to be viewed in the meta they were created for.

Originality isn't really how original a squad is, but more an adjustment based on giving credit. For example, you wouldn't automatically look at creation dates and rate one version of a squad higher than another similar one, but rather would use this to adjust the above ranking up or down a notch based on who created it, when they created it, and if they copied another player, etc. It's an adjustment remember, not something that makes a 4 squad a 10, but rather perhaps a 5 or 6 instead.

Success is based on play experience with the squad, the OP's reports of it if any, success by others with it, and so on. Theoretically, any new squad will have little of this information available, but as it is, you can use it to adjust your ranking again, like criteria 2 up or down a few notches. Again, this isn't indended to take a 10 down to a 6 or a 2 up to a 7. It works like this. "Lobbin' Luke" received a 9 from me originally for Fingersandteeth, when he won Gencon with it, I changed my rating to a 10. He had proven it in my book.

Next we should look at how the various numbers of the scale should be used.

1-3 ratings should be reserved for squads that need serious help. This does not mean they totally suck and never should have been created. These are squads that have very serious issues in the meta, more than comments like, "This will lose to X". We are talking about not squads primarily where a person is trying to use a sub par piece, but ones that just aren't well thought out, are missing key things, or could easily be improved by several different changes. These are squads you would expect to go 1-3 or 2-4 at a tournament if played well.

4-6 ratings should be reserved for average squads. These are all squads that are not maximized in the current meta. They don't require a major overhaul to improve, but usually need a small change here or there to compete at most venues. These are squads you would expect to go 2-2, or 3-2 at a given tournament if played well.

7-9 ratings should be reserved for the best of the best. A 7 would be a well maximized squad, where any changes are more for local meta and personal tastes rather than for a higher level of competitiveness. A 9 would be one that should dominate big tournaments like regionals or Gencon. You would expect these squads to compete for the top prize if played well at just about any tournament.

10 rating should be reserved for squads like the 7-9 levels that have been prkoven. It might mean it won Gencon, or won some other big tournment, but perhaps even more, these represent the best squads of their era. As such, there should never be more than about 5 at any given point level on average for any time period of the game. These would be the top 8 squads at Gencon, in their maximized versions, posted by those who played them, or by those who inspired them to play it.

That would greatly improve the rating system as a place for players, especially new players, on what to look for in squad design, what the best squads and pieces are, and so on.