I used to be in the wine industry (though at a much lesser level than TheRiddick) and used to write wine reviews for the catalogs and guides of a huge wine and liquor store chain. I've seen first-hand the impact that wine scores had on the consumer, from the eonophile to the non-drinker buying a present for someone. The prevalent thinking was "I can get this 87 rated wine for $14, but for just $5 more I can get an 88 rated wine !" I've also seen that abused, as crap direct-import labels were given ratings of 94 and 96 by the store itself, and people were buying that junk by the container "A 94 rated wine for only $3.99 ?! Give me a case !"
But ratings can be useful, especially if you identify a reviewer with whom you share a similar taste or mindset. For me, I tend to agree more with Wine Spectator than with Robert Parker. I'm a new cigar smoker, so I use everyone's ratings to get a general idea of what I might like to try. If I see the top rated cigar of the year in CA is only $6, then I'm going to run and try it. If I see one gets a rating of only 80, I probably won't unless I see some other people suggest that they liked it. Then I'll make up my own mind for my taste.
Ratings systems try to describe a relative level of quality. We do it with so many things...movies, hotels, athletes, internet models, companies (is the 11th best company to work for according to Forbes a better company for me than the 17th ranked one ?) and in the case of PMP, even our wives! (that was hilarious, PMP...I've begun to review my wife in the scope of assigning her a score).
I happen to enjoy reading everyone's cigar reviews on here (except the CC reviews...I'm naive...I guess I don't fully understand how everyone is getting them without worrying). I guess my point in this too-long post is that ratings can be highly interesting and informative, but are very subjective and should be considered accordingly.