10 stars (or 5 stars with the ability to give half-levels) give more precision, and allow better distinction between someone saying a place is good, very good, or extremely good.

There is a common problem with having novices give 5-star ratings, where many people end up rating places that they thought were "good" with 4 or 5 stars. The result is that the average rating for most pretty-good places in such a community end up being some decimal between 4 and 5, with the only options for votes by people who liked it 4 or 5. People then have to decide which places they like will get 4 and which 5, and may look at the current average and vote to swing them closer to 4 or 5. In other words, you get pretty crude and skewed input. I.e., for places you like, a 5-star system really only offers a choice between 2 values.

Whatever rating scale is used, I think it can help a lot to provide visible meanings to each rating, to help people vote more consistently with each other. You can see the difference in what can typically be expressed by the typical meanings available on 5-point or a 10-point scale:

5: Excellent 4: Good 3: OK 2: Poor 1: Bad

On a 5-point scale, if you can only choose "Good" or "Excellent" for a positive experience, there's little room for one person to rank the places they like against each other.

10: Outstanding 9: Excellent 8: Very Good 7: Good 6: Better than average 5: Average 4: Below average 3: Poor 2: Bad 1: Awful

There's a lot more room to express your actual opinion of a place, even within the good and not good places.

Adding a zero rating may also be good, both for catharsis and to detect the people who are irate or feel a place is really terrible.

For a hotel, a 5-star scale gives no ability to express the difference between:

A truly outstanding/special/memorable/favorite place. A great place that did nothing wrong. A really good place. A good place.

For people who care about giving an appropriate rating, having to decide to rate a hotel either a 5 (excellent) or 4 (good) tends to always present a dilemma of which way to be inaccurate.

10 stars (or 5 stars with the ability to give half-levels) give more precision, and allow better distinction between someone saying a place is good, very good, or extremely good.

There is a common problem with having novices give 5-star ratings, where many people end up rating places that they thought were "good" with 4 or 5 stars. The result is that the average rating for most pretty-good places in such a community end up being some decimal between 4 and 5, with the only options for votes by people who liked it 4 or 5. People then have to decide which places they like will get 4 and which 5, and may look at the current average and vote to swing them closer to 4 or 5. In other words, you get pretty crude and skewed input. I.e., for places you like, a 5-star system really only offers a choice between 2 values.

Whatever rating scale is used, I think it can help a lot to provide visible meanings to each rating, to help people vote more consistently with each other. You can see the difference in what can typically be expressed by the typical meanings available on 5-point or a 10-point scale:

5: Excellent
4: Good
3: OK
2: Poor
1: Bad

On a 5-point scale, if you can only choose "Good" or "Excellent" for a positive experience, there's little room for one person to rank the places they like against each other.

10: Outstanding
9: Excellent
8: Very Good
7: Good
6: Better than average
5: Average
4: Below average
3: Poor
2: Bad
1: Awful

There's a lot more room to express your actual opinion of a place, even within the good and not good places.

Adding a zero rating may also be good, both for catharsis and to detect the people who are irate or feel a place is really terrible.

For a hotel, a 5-star scale gives no ability to express the difference between:

A truly outstanding/special/memorable/favorite place.
A great place that did nothing wrong.
A really good place.
A good place.

So, for people who care about giving an appropriate rating, having to decide to rate a hotel either a 5 (excellent) or 4 (good) tends to always present a dilemma of which way to be inaccurate.

10 starts, or 5 stars with the ability to give half-levels, give more precision, and allow better distinction between someone saying a place is good, very good, or extremely good.

There is a common problem with having novices give 5-star ratings, where many people end up rating places that they thought were "good" with 4 or 5 stars. The result is that the average rating for most pretty-good places in such a community end up being some decimal between 4 and 5, with the only options for votes by people who liked it 4 or 5. People then have to decide which places they like will get 4 and which 5, and may look at the current average and vote to swing them closer to 4 or 5. In other words, you get pretty crude and skewed input. I.e., for places you like, a 5-star system really only offers a choice between 2 values.

Whatever rating scale is used, I think it can help a lot to provide visible meanings to each rating, to help people vote more consistently with each other. You can see the difference in what can typically be expressed by the typical meanings available on 5-point or a 10-point scale:

5: Excellent 4: Good 3: OK 2: Poor 1: Bad

On a 5-point scale, if you can only choose "Good" or "Excellent" for a positive experience, there's little room for one person to rank the places they like against each other.

10: Outstanding 9: Excellent 8: Very Good 7: Good 6: Better than average 5: Average 4: Below average 3: Poor 2: Bad 1: Awful

There's a lot more room to express your actual opinion of a place, even within the good and not good places.

Adding a zero rating may also be good, both for catharsis and to detect the people who are irate or feel a place is really terrible.

10 stars (or 5 stars with the ability to give half-levels) give more precision, and allow better distinction between someone saying a place is good, very good, or extremely good.

There is a common problem with having novices give 5-star ratings, where many people end up rating places that they thought were "good" with 4 or 5 stars. The result is that the average rating for most pretty-good places in such a community end up being some decimal between 4 and 5, with the only options for votes by people who liked it 4 or 5. People then have to decide which places they like will get 4 and which 5, and may look at the current average and vote to swing them closer to 4 or 5. In other words, you get pretty crude and skewed input. I.e., for places you like, a 5-star system really only offers a choice between 2 values.

Whatever rating scale is used, I think it can help a lot to provide visible meanings to each rating, to help people vote more consistently with each other. You can see the difference in what can typically be expressed by the typical meanings available on 5-point or a 10-point scale:

5: Excellent 4: Good 3: OK 2: Poor 1: Bad

On a 5-point scale, if you can only choose "Good" or "Excellent" for a positive experience, there's little room for one person to rank the places they like against each other.

10: Outstanding 9: Excellent 8: Very Good 7: Good 6: Better than average 5: Average 4: Below average 3: Poor 2: Bad 1: Awful

There's a lot more room to express your actual opinion of a place, even within the good and not good places.

Adding a zero rating may also be good, both for catharsis and to detect the people who are irate or feel a place is really terrible.

For a hotel, a 5-star scale gives no ability to express the difference between:

A truly outstanding/special/memorable/favorite place. A great place that did nothing wrong. A really good place. A good place.

For people who care about giving an appropriate rating, having to decide to rate a hotel either a 5 (excellent) or 4 (good) tends to always present a dilemma of which way to be inaccurate.