Why is everyone misunderstanding my statement about 0% ratings? All I said was that you can't rate an album less than 0%, which seems to be a very true statement for me - it's the way scoring on this site works. I'm not saying that nothing can be worse than a 0% rated album and I don't consider myself any higher authority to proclaim a global rating standard to judge albums either and I don't have a problem with people giving albums 0% ratings. It's only annoying and (in my very personal view) an abuse of the scoring system to give almost every album a 0%. There is a scale from 0-100% and it's there to be used or else we could switch to a like/dislike system or 1-5 stars. Just as it is not very useful to only review albums the reviewer gives 100% - the same goes for the opposite.

I really hate rating things because I feel a lot of people look at scores and go "Oh this has a 78% it can't be that good" and you don't really read the words of the reviewer. Generally it goes like this for me:

75+: A good album/release. Something memorable, something that will have me come back to it later in time.
50-74: Mediocre, bland, uninspired, or lacking. Some bands just have bad releases. I sometimes go back to these releases, but often I look at them and forget about them.
25-49: A bad release. Something went wrong with this. The band isn't good enough, the production was bad, maybe the guitar was out of tune.
Maybe I just think its weird sounding.
0-24: Worthless. I feel below 15% the release itself is meaningless as there really isn't much between a 14% and a 2%. Of course some may differ but to me regardless its not going to be particularly enjoyable or memorable in the slightest. Looking into it isn't necessarily even needed as it's not good.

I feel a star system is better then a 100 point scale but scores don't mean an album is good or bad, a persons opinion does.