‘Rated-I’ is basically a simple site classification that does not rely on ‘hits’ or ‘votes’ to determine a site’s value as these can just as well indicate that a site panders to the perspectival and linguistic deficiencies of the day. Rather, a site is classified as ‘Rated I’ if,
1. It deals with issues that aren’t generally scrutinised
2. It deals with issues from angles not generally utilised
3. It deals with issues that aren’t generally supposed to be the concern of those inhabiting the selfsame ‘bloggersphere’. i.e. a local site that deals with global issues.
The underlying belief here is that versatility is the key to profundity in any specific arena. Additional elements of an ‘I’ site is where it deals with issues with greater depth, systematically, logically, appreciating the various elements that come together to produce a particular phenomenon, amongst others.
This classification may be applied to any site whatever the subject matter - tech, photography, art, music, etc.
Rated I is not so much a ‘brand’ but rather a reminder to ourselves, or a check on our tendency to ‘go with the flow’, to spout commonly held perspectives, dwell in that which concerns the ‘majority’, or our own learnt and narrow sphere of interest.
The underlying belief here is that versatility is the key to profundity in any specific arena.
postscript: The ‘Rated I’ classification was conceived by a2ed.com - based on film classification logos - as an answer to singapore’s racially/culturally biased ‘blog awards’ that relied mainly on ‘hits’, ‘votes’, and based on a criteria that determined ‘what’s good or ‘insightful’ after all non-Chinese cultural perspectives had been diluted/marginalised to the point of having little or no impact on the public imagination. Such a criteria is laughable as it is not formulated with the best of all ideas but post-discounting of ideas not congruent with one sectors perception of reality.