The like/dislike system is efficient for knowing if something is good.
The star (or better yet, verbal score) system is good for knowing how good something is.
If IMDB had a like/dislike system, you could probably know if a movie is any good or not. However, you wouldn't know if a movie is great, good, average, bad or the worst thing you could every see.
Perhaps the best system would be "like/dislike" followed by a question "how much?".
For an overview on giving scores, read the following section...
If you use a scale of 1 choice then you are really giving no choice at all (even though you can count % of voters, I am not sure how effective that measure is).
P.S. TV talent shows work this way.
If you use a small scale of 2 choices (
like/dislike) then you don't give an option for neutral (e.g. "not good, not bad"), so users' closest option is not to vote. If users do vote for them as dislike, it causes stuff that isn't bad to look bad.
For example: serial down voters on SE.
If you use a scale of 3 choices (e.g.
bad, neutral, good) then people might not be sure how to rank things they liked a little - good or neutral (and the same for things they disliked a little).
If you use a scale of 4 choices, there is not neutral option for things you neither liked or disliked.
If you use a scale of 5 choices, you have
bad, baddish, neutral, goodish, good, so you can differ things you liked vs things you liked only a bit (same with disliked).
It is hard for people to objectively give scores on a larger scale e.g. 7 choices or 11 choices (0...10), even though they are informative.
Take the 7 choice scale of
exceptionally bad, bad, baddish, neutral, goodish, good, exceptionally good for instance, the scale is very informative, however, users may vote exceptionally good or exceptionally bad on a whim instead of contemplating on the meaning ("Is this one of the best (or worst) I have ever seen or not?"). Don't use numbers for above 5 choices, verbal choices help provide a common scale.