I must disagree because a star rating without text review to back it up don’t can’t be used as feedback to the developer. All the developer receives is “I like it” or “I don’t” while more valuable feedback would be:
- I don’t like it because there is a better alternative.
- I had crashes on my OS / setup.
- “I don’t know what I’m doing.”
- “It wasn’t this plugin’s fault, it was the engine / mine / my OS / whatever”
- Documentation / support etc. was lacking, so I couldn’t get started.
- “This plugin sucks, because … and could be improved like …”
And not only to the developer, this is useful to other potential buyers as well. I think no rating would be more fair than a star rating without text to explain it.
There’s also a theory that users are more likely to share a negative experience (vent) than to come leave a positive rating, but that’s another matter. Especially on negative ratings it’s important to know what went wrong so that it can be improved. And sadly often, a problem is user caused. I’d not be able to do anything with 50 star ratings without explanations.
And what if currently there’s a consistent 5 star rating and you don’t know why? Is it the documentation? is it the support? is it the blueprint friendliness? Or is it the opposite, how you give customers the full freedom in C++ without holding their hand on every step? Just what is it?