Each entry starts at 3 stars. It then gains or loses stars based on its tags with the exception of the following. If the website is blacklisted, hacked or completely broken, it's 0 stars. If the website is recommended, it's 5 stars. Otherwise, an entry's stars will be changed by the following table:
Recommended
+
Automatic 5 stars
High Quality
+
1
Online Community
+
0.4
Informational
+
0.4
Research
+
0.4
News
+
0.4
Directory
+
0.4
Event
+
0.4
Group
+
0.4
House
+
0.4
Organization
+
0.3
Article
+
0.3
Media
+
0.3
Literature
+
0.3
Art
+
0.3
Book
+
0.3
Shop
+
0.2
Blog
+
0.2
Social Media
+
0.1
Poor Quality
-
0.7
Intrusive Advertisements
-
1
Relic
-
1
Intrusive Audio
-
1
Controversial
-
1.3
Blacklisted
-
Automatic 0 stars
Broken
-
Automatic 0 stars
Hacked
-
Automatic 0 stars

So is this biased?

I try to be as objective as possible but ultimately, yes, I decide the weights on the tags and I decide what get's tagged. A fine example of bias in this process is the controversial tag. The controversial tag is for websites which suggest something which most VDOTs would disagree with and I try to be as open-minded as possible, but at the end of the day if your website claims "vampires can fly" it'll be marked as controversial. The weights above are set by how beneficial or detrimental that attribute can be to a Vampire, Otherkin, Therian or Donor viewing the website. If you disagree with these weights, or tags given to a website, please contact us.