Some while since I started this thread & good to see some thoughtful input.
Having given further thought I have the following comments to make.......
1. The food generator, (even in current form), can perhaps be open to abuse by those looking to score higher ratings, however, some woukd argue that the generator has had a significant positive influence & has caused manufacturers/ brand names to have to add meaningful ingredients &/or avoid others.
2. David &/or perhaps others deemed appropriately skilled, could underwrite any computer generated score adding comments to support a score or in some circumstances,. marking down a score if it seems the food is lacking, or food suspected of being a "code cracker" & with negligible quantities of point increasing ingredients/nutrients.
3. Points could be added for ingredients but only if quantities declared were genuinely deemed beneficial. Examples might include adequate levels of Omega 3 & 6 in fish based foods with an appropriate Omega 3:6 ratio. Meaningful joint aid supplements in claimed joint supportive foods, meaningul levels of vitamins. Caged vs free range eggs, ethical protein ingredient sourcing. A point could be added for declaring metabolisable energy ratings, (importantly higher energy ratings should not encouraged as some want high enery foods & others may want to feed a food with a lower metabolised energy figure).
4. Clearly some companies that score highly are doing far more to show what is in their foods than their price equivalent competitors. Care needed not to discourage or demotivate the better companies. Regulars on here will know likely companies I am talking about.
5. As a customer &/or potential customer I have had occasion to verbally speak to various companies.....wherever able engaging with business owners themselves or there established staff. I am mindful that many customers stop short of doiing this. I can honestly say that there are huge variations in terms of customer service, product info, transaprency & passion for what is being sold. Perhaps wrth consdering prior to awarding a final score. Penalisation should not be given if required info not immediately available but vague engagement & misinfornation are clearly not worthy of positive recognition.
6. We do, however, need to be careful what we wish for......It would be ironic if better food companies working to favourably score highly were forced to hike prices merely to score against a newer algorithim.....This brings me back to the potential value of underwriting of scores.
I am very mindful that the task to create a genuinely improved alogorithim & rating system will be difficult. I hope that my expressing concern that some companies could abuse the generator do not result in it's total removal ! Whether existing generator improved or not users should be encouraged to look beyond scores to avoid rejecting a food that is potentially more suitable than a slightly higher rated product, (e.g. Intolerances, ease of sourcing locally, celivery cost, storage, acceptable carb levels, local prices etc ....all factors that may be more important than say one decimal point either way on a review score).
David - Apologies if my ramblings cause a New Years headache.....Please take at face value, dismiss any suggestions too complex & PM me if you wish.