[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Numerical ratings are meaningless. Where is the bias in the ratings? Towards image quality, ease of use, egronomics, photography usage?

Take the Canon G1/G2 cameras for example. Highly rated, but I didn't like them because of really terrible egronomics, and I didn't take long to strike them out from the list when I was looking at a digital camera. To me it scores a 3/10. To those who stare at resolution charts and spec sheets all day it might rate a 9/10.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Numerical ratings are meaningless. Where is the bias in the ratings? Towards image quality, ease of use, egronomics, photography usage?

Take the Canon G1/G2 cameras for example. Highly rated, but I didn't like them because of really terrible egronomics, and I didn't take long to strike them out from the list when I was looking at a digital camera. To me it scores a 3/10. To those who stare at resolution charts and spec sheets all day it might rate a 9/10.

[Macguy59]

Thanks everyone for the recommendations and links. Much appreciated

[Littleshmee]

The numerical ratings are broken down into 2 categories, Functionality and Photo Quality, and those categories are further reduced to 5 subcategories (including ergonomics, indoor and outdoor photo quality, battery life, etc). So while I agree that some numerical ratings can be useless (CNET's, for example) I think Megapixel's system is pretty good.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I suppose it's better, but not entirely the best. Don't forget reviewers bias. Also photo quality has way too many variables to be condensed into a single number.