Previously a sites rating was determined more on a gut reaction than anything else. After a while I looked out for a few things, but it was still unorganized. Also comparing a corporate giant against someone's personal page wasn't very fair and would lead to some really low reviews for someone's best effort.

So I added a category for personal and corporate pages and the following breakdown: graphics, navigation, reviews, layout, and language. Each has three sub-categories when totalled and averaged together results in the Sites 1-5 rating.

Graphics
Efficient use of graphics for astetics, load speed, and usage makes up this first category. Also quantity doesn't make for a higher score.

Navigation
In order for any site to be useful, it needs to keep its vistor's from getting lost. A What's New Section, Search engines, Indexes, and other buttons to move between pages is helpful.

Reviews
A lot of sites offer just a short paragraph or even sentences about a particular freeware or shareware. Some people just want to offer links and downloads to get as many visitors as possible. A combination of links, screenshots, system requirements, and product details is what helps me when I'm deciding which package to download.

Layout
Layout is mostly a matter of style and each site strives to have their own, but only some of them work. Some are too slow, some have too many buttons, some have too little room, or are trying to do too much.

Also a continuing problem, does the page view correctly regardless of the browser?

Language
A Site can be great to look at, but do the articles and reviews keep you reading or do you scroll to the download now button? A Writer's word choice and style has more of an impact than graphics or layout.