I tend to use the star system to rate technical merit, rather than watchability....so I guess I'm kind of the opposite of everyone else...
5 stars: I have no idea how this video was made. The technical aspects of it's creation stun me. The concept, timing, and editing are tighter than a snare-drum head. Example video: Demonlighter's
Live Again, a highly underrated video.
4 stars: An excellent video. I could reproduce it with a month or so of solid work. Complex editing techniques, solid concept and story, etc. I give a lot of 4s, mostly because I tend to gravitate to the better creators or more hyped videos. Example video: Murf's
Inside Dungeons And Dragons, which is funny and excellent, but not 'perfect'. Nitpicky, I know.
3 stars: A 'normal' video. Something I'd come up with. Not terribly original, not terribly complicated, just a solid video. Example: Vanetz's
No Brakes, which I find entertaining, though it's not a technically excellent video.
2 stars: A so-so video. It still gets it's point across, but barely. Bad scene choices, bad source, etc. Example (and I'm not trying to 'single out' your video, here, you have better ones): ReannaKing's
Hi-ho, Trogdor! video, which has a good concept, but terrible source footage detracts too greatly to give it a 3.
1 star: Terrible. I've only given five 1s. I refuse to give an example, to save the .org the pain I went through.
awesome quote, where's it from?
Lol, just kidding dude. But hopefully that Kai Doh Maru one will turn out well.
i see the logic behind it, but it still sucks since i've forced myself to do something i like 
