Wow, this surprises me. I would never rate a comic on story alone; story alone is called A BOOK.
I feel comics are a balance. Something that differentiates comics from other art forms is THE INKING. Ground-breaking is also important. Rekindling my emotions plus showing me a bit of what is to come in the future also has weight in my rankings.
The coloring & scripting is the main difference between the old & the new eras. Computer coloring cannot be compared to pantone & really should always be considered to give "ethical" ratings . Some people, especially artists I know, really do not like modern computerized, realistic coloring. I am cool with either. BUT style...that is another kettle of fish altogether. I love great INKING style & many modern comics suffer from some poor inking. Leni Yu's work on some x-men (& avengers) I read a few years ago was so awful, I rated those books a 1s; the story wasn't too good anyway. Modern comics are also about balance, but unfortunately computer coloring is a double-edged sword that puts greater onus upon the story re: ratings. I don't care for manga, so that also has a negative effect on my rankings.
In my silver age rankings I doubt there is a single 1 rating, there are lots of 3s & 4s.
The 5-star rating system is not fine enough resolution to rate properly IMO. My system is a 5 star + or - which is 15 notches: 1-, 1, 1+, 2-, 2, 2+, 3-, 3, 3+, 4-, 4, 4+, 5-, 5, 5+. If the book rates a number plus or minus, that's my rating I input (to MCDU) [5- is a 5; a 3+ is a 3, etc]. I am not reading the "Order" persay, so I haven't ranked any books on the site.
I rate on the balance: if art is bad but story fantastic, then rating takes a hit. If art is phenomenal, but story awful, rating takes a hit. If the combination is all good then rating is more straightforward. I also consider at my reading from the beginning like going to comic store & buying the books when they are/were released, so, to some degree, I attempt to view them "for the first time" & base my decisions on the era...BUT, it is true: I do have knowledge of the future & does influence my ratings.
The chances of a comic drawn by Gene Colan or Steve Ditko is highly unlikely to ever get a 5 from me...Colan books I rate around 3. Joel Sinnot inking Steranko is going get a 5 pretty much every time. Dale Keown is going to rate high, especially with Peter David writing the book. John Romita Snr almost always gets 5; but John Romita jnr is gonna get 2-s. Guys like Billy Tan drawing THE SAME NOSE ON EVERYBODY is going to drop my ratings (altho, some of the X-Men stories were very good). John Romita Snr= 5....JR jnr is gonna get 2-s.
So if I start reading THE ORDER & rating, maybe some guidelines should be laid out so ART CRITICS don't muck up the #s.