Now, after that correction, the rating of my game might be lowered for reasons which have nothing to do with how good the game is! It makes the rating lose objectivity.
It looks like your project got 8 ratings, where the average number of rating across the jam was 25.9. That low number of ratings would not be conclusive enough to calculate a fair score.
Show rankings of the raw score. It would almost erase the issue for me personally, as all I want is the objective information on my rankings.
The average rating for projects that receive a low number of ratings will have very high variance and poorly represent how participants felt about your game, so we do not show a ranking for that score. It would be unfair.
Put a hard limit on the needed amount of ratings. This can be calculated from the number of submissions for example or can be set as an option by jam organizer.
That might be worth adding, but in this case you would still have too low number of ratings to make a difference based on how we would recommend hosts to configure the jam.
Also, I really don’t get why you would choose to take median and not 10th percentile for example. It literally makes the lower half of participants by popularity lose their scores.
10th percentile would be way too lenient, and allow for games with high variance in their rating overtaking projects that have a more accurate rating due to the larger number of ratings.
The system is built this way to encourage you to participate in the rating process. If you want to receive ratings to be eligible for a more accurate and non-penalized final score then you will need to rate other people’s work and leave constructive comments on their submission pages. That will allow your project to show up on the “most karma” sort and also people who see your comment will be linked submission to get a chance to play and rate your project back.
Hope that helps!