We 'aim' as opposed to we 'are'. Don't interpret anything truly mathematical into this statement.
The ratings are done on a case by case basis, of course.
However, when looking at the overall results, it is fairly obvious that that the rating distribution is simply similar to a bell/gauss curve.
As a matter of fact most of today's lenses are actually quite good. There are just few that are truly outstanding ... or truly bad. So this just reflects reality.
Conversely in many other magazines, you may spot that their distribution isn't quite like that but rather heavily weighted to the 4*-5* range - this pleases both manufacturers as well as owners. That's the happy stakeholder approach which is great from a site marketing perspective (thus we are actually quite stupid here).
The ratings are done on a case by case basis, of course.
However, when looking at the overall results, it is fairly obvious that that the rating distribution is simply similar to a bell/gauss curve.
As a matter of fact most of today's lenses are actually quite good. There are just few that are truly outstanding ... or truly bad. So this just reflects reality.
Conversely in many other magazines, you may spot that their distribution isn't quite like that but rather heavily weighted to the 4*-5* range - this pleases both manufacturers as well as owners. That's the happy stakeholder approach which is great from a site marketing perspective (thus we are actually quite stupid here).