Thanks for the mocking.
Everyone has difference preferences, so the rating system does have flaws. But everything must start somewhere.
And I think for an average person (NON flashaholics), its doing ok. But I personally prefer Selfbuilt's reviews.
Seriously? For an average person, isn't attributing a "value" score to *any* of these lights a pretty questionable proposition? Most people DO NOT understand the value of good lights. I know of very few non flashaholics who'd consider a $50 flashlight ANY kind of a value. (At a certain point, price doesn't matter - $100 or $1,000,000, doesn't matter 'cause they ain't gonna pay it!)
Real life example: another forum I frequent is an astronomy forum. These people are in the dark a lot, out in a field, in the middle of nowhere quite often. More than that, they have VERY peculiar lighting needs - they need dim, variable brightness red lighting, to preserve night vision. (This is critical, getting your eyes dark adapted again to the level where you can really appreciate faint objects takes at least 30 minutes.) Will most of these folks pay for a really high quality light? Nope, despite the fact that it will be a tool they use all the time, for years.
I don't think the reviews on light-reviews are too bad. They are biased in a certain way, but that's fine, it's identifiable and consistent. They seem fair minded. I suspect their values line up with a fair number of their readers. It is hard to fault someone for a heavy weighting on performance / dollar. That isn't MY ultimate criteria, but it does matter, and it is a perfectly sensible criteria for a person to have. (If everything else is equal, it is the OBVIOUS criteria.)
In the case of a SF light, you are paying for a light that is very likely overbuilt for most purposes most of us will put it through. Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing, is 100% a personal choice.