The ratings are a popularity contest. The site should have a separate place where tournament-winning squads can be highlighted so there a clear view of what the top squads are. They're mentioned in the play reports, but there's no central place to list them. Instead of a top-5, I'd be more interested in seeing...

All of the regional squad winners and runners-up.
Top 4 squads from every GenCon.

I'd say editing a squad should wipe the ratings from it, as when a squad is changed, the ratings no longer reflect the squad.

Seconded. It makes things a lot more straightforward.

Um, it mattered enough to you that you felt the need to post in the thread.

I think I'm hardly the person to reflect this point onto. I care very little about what people think of squads I make for a number of reasons. But I do recognize that people do care about them, people look at them, and people use them as a guide to understanding some things about the game, about the top tier, and so on. I think it's worth discussing in all honesty, and the "waste your time" comment is so full of irony

It isn't a big deal, I just think its worth thinking about how we can continue to make the site better. No need to be rude about it.

Now back on point. I don't think wiping the ratings is the answer. There are a lot of times that you might switch a squad around, for a number of reasons, that have nothing to do with majorly changing the squad.

For example, I will often make a squad twice (don't always make the second version and instead just edit the original). There is the concept version, and then the tournament version. Usually this involves changing the support for flexibility, and it might not occur until just before I'm taking a squad to a tournament. The problem can come from making a new squad just before the event, just to keep the ratings, and then some noob will come along and show you how his version was made first because it has an earlier date and has similar pieces. Look at the two squads I linked and compare their dates. Deri's is much later in the month, but I bet you can think about why, and why it doesn't matter without me explaining it.

It's a fine line, that I'm not sure would really improve the ratings all that much.

What we really need is for the community to take ownership of the ratings and rate with at least some consistency. Not everything can be fixed, but the reason I posted this example was because it shows quite blatantly that people are not even doing the bare minimum of thought and reading before rating these two squads.

Now, I'm all for making a Top Squad section that is separate from the current system. Something like taking all top 4s at Regionals, top 16 at Gencon, and then a way to insert other "honorable mention" squads into it as well - perhaps a players committee decision or something. I'm not sure it's worth all that work though, and don't really think people would keep up with it as they should. I'd prefer if we can have a civil conversation about how you rate, and the members that want to participate can come to some consistency and thoughtfulness - instead of quickly hitting a squad, and giving it an 8 because it looks pretty good without any thought or consideration.

Personally, I think rating like that is irresponsible behavior. When someone asks you for a rating, if you are going to do it, you should at least give them an honest thoughtful and considerate rating, not a "looks great 10" comment and rating.

In the long run, no, but it is a feather in your cap to see one of your squads in there, which is enough for some people to pad their squads with high rankings to get them in there.

Well the top 5 is a lot better than it has been in a long time. At least we dont have Revan at the top spot anymore. The only squad I have ever had in the top 5 got 8 1's right away so it was gone really fast.A squad is only as good as the player is. I dont think the community really understands who the top players and top squads really are which starts all the 1's,who made what battles and what not. Just because you made a good squad means nothing unless you know how to play it and how it works vs the national meta and your local meta.

no a squad is only as good as the player. Most of the time good squads win big tournaments. Being creative is one thing but can you play it and win with it is another.

and both are only as good as your dice rolls for the day

Just because a squad hasn't been played extensively doesn't make it a bad squad. The game has evolved to the point that people are able to debate the merits of particular synergies and squad make-up without ever having seen it in action. Individuals are also capable of anticipating particular match-ups and making suggestions accordingly. Why, then, should someone be required to conduct extensive field testing for a squad to be considered well-constructed?

While I also have a problem with the way you framed the discussion (particularly this thread's title, as it encourages a particular frame of mind in approaching the issue), my main issue is with the thought that you can't have a good squad if you haven't played it a ton. This particular requirement is then prejudiced towards those who compete more in 'meta' gaming, such as Regionals and Gencon. While it is certainly possible to have tournaments outside these particular venues, I infer that you mean to say more competitive venues are what make a squad legitimate, which I disagree with. Admittedly, you might not be implying this at all, that's just how I see it.

One issue is that not everyone rates squads based on how competitive they are. Say someone builds a semi-competitive squad with Darth Revan in it. Someone might think it deserves a 10 because it's the best possible squad with Revan. It might not win GenCon or a Regional, but if you want a good Revan squad, it's the best around. The person rating that squad a 10 isn't wrong, they just have a different set of priorities when it comes to what gets a 10 and what doesn't. When you play a squad in the Championship, squad originality or creativity doesn't come into play at all. When that squad is getting rated here, it might. And there isn't anything wrong with that. You seem to be making the argument that the only way something can get a 10 is if it wins something. What about players who just play theme games, and see a really cool Battle of Endor themed squad that they think is just awesome. Why can't they give it a 10? In their opinion, it deserves that 10. There isn't anything wrong with that.

The reason ratings don't mean anything is because of that; because there isn't any rubric for rating squads. People can rate them based on creativity, competitive play, or whatever they want. And there isn't anything wrong with that, as long as when you view squad ratings you keep it in mind.

I think a "competitive" rating section is a good idea. But it shouldn't replace the rating system as it is. If someone makes a really unique, creative, fun squad, it should be just as worthy of getting a 10 as the most competitive squad around in the current system.