I never studied the rating system much, (does it have any other consequences than displaying the rating in the comment with which it was given?), and always considered it 'bad form' to rate your own games. If authors would want to relay the message that they consider a particular invention of them one of the best they ever made, it would have more impact if they would write that in the Notes section of the article, than by commenting on their own articles (where the comment would slowly be pushed out of view as more comments are added).
As to the Apothecary ratings; perhaps there are more people that like smaller games, and is the fact that a game is large a deal-breaker for them, irrespective of how well it is otherwise designed. Rating games is largely a matter of taste. I don't think that an inventor should try to steer public opinion on this. One of the advantages of announcing your own opinion on the game in the Notes section is that you can motify your conclusion.
I never studied the rating system much, (does it have any other consequences than displaying the rating in the comment with which it was given?), and always considered it 'bad form' to rate your own games. If authors would want to relay the message that they consider a particular invention of them one of the best they ever made, it would have more impact if they would write that in the Notes section of the article, than by commenting on their own articles (where the comment would slowly be pushed out of view as more comments are added).
As to the Apothecary ratings; perhaps there are more people that like smaller games, and is the fact that a game is large a deal-breaker for them, irrespective of how well it is otherwise designed. Rating games is largely a matter of taste. I don't think that an inventor should try to steer public opinion on this. One of the advantages of announcing your own opinion on the game in the Notes section is that you can motify your conclusion.