Rate a crag?

So we've got a climb rating system via the 0-4 star measure. What I'd like to know is if people would be interested in a crag star system?

Before going on a trip to a new zone I really like to mtnproj the shit out of that zone. Sometimes you pull up potentially great areas, but then realize it's not that awesome once you read the reviews. To have an immediate idea of whether or not the crag is worthy of my presence or not would be awesome. I understand it would have flaws as many classic climbs are located on a crag where everything else sucks.

Anyone else have any input? I know this idea is full of holes so feel free to shoot some more in it, but I was just wondering who out there would be interested?

It might be good. I would like the rating to be defined a little more though to help people not give medeocre places 4 stars just because they were psyched that day about putting up the new chossy boulder problem and to think of terms of what else is out there.

Stars on routes seem bad enough. I mostly just put them on if I'm psyched on a route, not psyched, or if I posted the route.

It wouldn't be a feature I would find very useful, but it probably wouldn't make a difference to my star hating ass anyway.

What if there was an average taken of all the starred climbs to produce a crag star system? seems fairly legit.

there could be problems with this because there could be a couple upper-grade classics on the crag (11-13) so that crag would be rated very highly. but if someone is looking for good moderate grade climbs then this crag is not good for them even though its rated highly.

my logic is odd. i need more sleep

Of course the stars might just get even more people to congregate at the same old crowded crags and not branch out. Maybe we should have a thread listing regional great but relatively unknown or visited crags (ones that can handle more visitors of course)