I am a fan of medals. As a matter of fact, I was elated by the Top Reviewer award I received. Unfortunately, that means I am being rewarded, or ranked, based upon either the sheer volume or the quality of my reviews.

If I am being recognized for insightful, independent evaluations of games, then I think the ranking has great merits. That means those who are awarding the medal are reading what I write, critiquing the content, and providing feedback. Following that line of business would be a lot of work for them.

If the top reviewing award is determined by sheer volume (quantity) of reviews submitted (regardless of length, quality or grammatical accuracy) then there is a problem. I can see rabid, medal mongering members submitting 120-word, or 10-word reviews offering nothing more than "THIS G4M3 RU13Z! If u don git dis, ur stupid!"

Not the quality community reviews I look for from the Gamespot community. Plus, that offers negative feedback to those of us who try to honestly evaluate the content of games, and provide relevant evaluations. To see game reviews gone wrong, one needs only reflect upon the entries in most of the Halo games . . . or perhaps Final Fantasy VII.

Irrelevant.