Thanks for your feedback, I'll take this all under advisement. Matt's rather new so there's room to improve.
Regarding the score - I tend to not interfere too much with that. At the end of the day it's mean't to abstractly quantify an opinion. My golden rule is that the words should support the score, so that someone reads an article and this is not surprised by what they see at the end.
If you guys think it's high (and FWIW, even I thought it may have been a tad generous), then that's fair enough but there will always be outliers.
This used to be a well-written site, until you hired an editor who can't write himself.
I've said time and again 'Editing' on the more technical end of the scale isn't really my strong suit. I like to think I know how to write to make it entertaining and that's where most of my editing duties focus. But yeah, you're going to see errors and the like in my writing. I'm also less likely to catch those things in other people's writing (although I do catch them). I will always strive to do better.
Kelsey and Dave were very good at that and I'm not, but that's why I've hired Nick and a few others who also have better technical skills than me. I also try to not do as much writing here as the other websites: I know you guys are used to a certain level, and I will do my best to deliver that one way or another.
I also have to balance the realities of running a website like this, and ultimately I believe in giving newer writers a chance. If this isn't enough for you then you can enjoy more of Dave and Kelsey's (and even Tof's and Alex's) writing over on Stately Play.
But if you still have some appreciation for what we do here and are willing to stick around, then I'd like to say thank you for your patience and patronage.