I have noticed, not just with myself, some podcasts do it for you. What is more, whatever podcast does it for me, may not do it for somebody else or even for me at another moment in time. What I am getting at is that podcast quality is fluid and when starting to compare, it becomes more fluidly so. I am so interested in history, I may enjoy a rather poor podcast in history more than an outstanding one about physics - or just the other way round, it may make me more critical of history podcasts and enjoy a rather mediocre on about physics. And for you it may be different in a whole range of other aspects.
However, when you read my impression, you can get a feel of what I like, you get an impression of what the podcast does and you will get an idea, enough idea I suppose, whether it is worthwhile for you to check the reviewed podcast out. And a rating of 4 out of 5, or 3.5 doesn't make any difference. Only, maybe, an extreme rating, but most of the time, you can't give them, otherwise the whole system is moot. So what remains are those that are trumped by the content of the review anyway. Hence, I concentrate on writing about podcasts, say about them what I have to say and leave it at that. That is all you need.
More about the blog:
About Anne is a Man,
What to write about a podcast?,
When do I write in my blog?,
When do I listen to podcasts?,
Time to start again.