I assume you are questioning Conegamers maths, and not correcting (4/5 of 100 is 80)

The problem isn't with the maths, but the fact that converting a 6 point scoring system (0-5) to a 101 point (0-100) is only going to work if the reviewers using the 6 point system follow similar rules to those who use 101 point systems..... ie if 75/100, or 7.5 is generally considered an average game score... then the 6 point system has only 2 possible scores for above average games, but 4 for below average. This is clearly ridiculous, especially given that ganerally a lot of rubbish games don't actually get reviewed... so most of the publications reviews would then fall under just 2 scores.

I would say reviewers that use a 5 or 6 point system will at minimum assume 3 to be the benchmark for 'average' (which is what I hope is what reviewers think of a game that you can enjoy, but may not be worth your money unless you are a fan of the series/genre or whatever) Personally it would make more sense to me to use 2 as 'average'... that way you can use 1 to call a game dull or poor, and 0 to say 'stay away, don't even look at the game box'.

As such, 6 point systems don't gel with the 100 point systems, and shouldn't be combined.

Except that you don't actually know who's getting more weight, here. There's no transparency to the system. We don't even know if the weight is the same for sites between different reviews.

I don't hold one reviewer's set of opinions as being inherently higher than others. IGN's been around for about 15 years or so now (probably longer), but they still employ some of the worst reviewers in the industry. Giving them higher weight because of their age or popularity doesn't add to the veracity of metascore, it subtracts from it.

Keep in mind that the age of a publication has almost nothing to do with the experience of its reviewers, though it often has something to do with the experience of its editorial staff.

No, I prefer a simple mean average, unweighted, so I can see how the game actually reviewed. If I want to just look at a few sites, I'll just look at a few sites. If I just want to average a few sites, I'll do that. If I want to weight a few sites, as we do in our heads by giving more prominence to certain publications (Edge and Eurogamer for me, though I still disagree with them a lot), then I'll do that.

Review aggregates should leave the averages alone, or be transparent in how they weight them.

I assume you are questioning Conegamers maths, and not correcting (4/5 of 100 is 80)

The problem isn't with the maths, but the fact that converting a 6 point scoring system (0-5) to a 101 point (0-100) is only going to work if the reviewers using the 6 point system follow similar rules to those who use 101 point systems..... ie if 75/100, or 7.5 is generally considered an average game score... then the 6 point system has only 2 possible scores for above average games, but 4 for below average. This is clearly ridiculous, especially given that ganerally a lot of rubbish games don't actually get reviewed... so most of the publications reviews would then fall under just 2 scores.

I would say reviewers that use a 5 or 6 point system will at minimum assume 3 to be the benchmark for 'average' (which is what I hope is what reviewers think of a game that you can enjoy, but may not be worth your money unless you are a fan of the series/genre or whatever) Personally it would make more sense to me to use 2 as 'average'... that way you can use 1 to call a game dull or poor, and 0 to say 'stay away, don't even look at the game box'.

As such, 6 point systems don't gel with the 100 point systems, and shouldn't be combined.