@bobd > There's one package, for example, that I was planning to use that gets a 2 > for code quality
That's precisely my point! You are making a decision based on a cursory assessment by a person who has looked at hundreds of packages in a month. You should **not** reconsider using that package because the code quality is written to be 2! If you, and other people, do that, the author of that package may lose motivation, essentially for no reason at all. Moreover, say the author uses this as an opportunity to improve the code quality (which may already be high!): should they update packages.json to signal that they have done improvements? It feels awkward. I don't know any other platform that gives votes to packages in this way. Example on my own packages: I know for a fact that - say - the code quality on Neo is much higher than that on CSVtools or memo. This is because I have written them. But judging from the spreadsheet you may think that it is a good idea to use CSVtools and a bad idea to use Neo. My only package that gets a 4 on code quality is Alea. While that is not especially bad, I have no clue why that should get a 4 while others get a 2. >From what I can tell on my own packages, these votes are essentially arbitrary.
