SiteSaw this on Quarter to Three forum where they are giving feedback to help build the site.
Its a game review aggregator, like gamerankings or metacritic. But this one seems more interesting and more "fair" than those other two.
First, their internal rating system isn't entirely based off of a sites own review scores. In fact a site doesn't even have to give a score to be included. They judge what the review was saying and don't try to convert the number score to some other scale. These get placed on a small scale: Poor, Mediocre, Good, and Excellent.
On top of that are user reviews. Users however don't review games, they review sites. The reviews are moderated so you don't get some fanboy rating a site as "Poor" since they gave Halo a 9.6 instead of a 9.8. The better reception a site has the more "weight" their reviews factor into the games aggregate score.
The same holds true for individual authors, they get rated like sites do. Some sites have bad authors or just people whose opinions you don't trust. So you can rate them and see how other people rate them and decide if you want to take their review at face value.
And finally you can sign up to the site and customize all this. Don't give a shit what IGN says about any games? Hate that one douchebag reviewer that rates everything the exact opposite of how you would? Ignore them! You can have their reviews removed from the rankings you see and all the scores will be recalculated for you.
I haven't signed up for the site...yet. But it looks like a pretty slick way to handle this review aggregation thing.
