The only part that's qualitative on PSN is the designation and usage of the words "Common," "Uncommon," "Rare," etc. These designations and cut-off points are relatively meaningless. Why? Because we have better data. Quantitive data. Data that is binary. Did user unlock trophy? Y/N. Data that tells you what % of players have unlocked this trophy and what % of PSNP users have unlocked this trophy?
I'm all for handing out a ribbon if you earned an UR platinum trophy as that is a cool feat. I'm all for handing out a ribbon to those who complete a game 100%. What I do not understand nor condone, is some arbitrary cutoff point that determines if I "put in effort" to play a game and earn the trophies for several reasons. 1) I'll call this the Spider-Man effect. The current platinum % is above 50% and yet the game took me well over 50 hours to earn all of the trophies. Under the proposed system threshold, I will not earn a ribbon of effort. 2) There are several games where the platinum % varies greatly between regions. Why should anyone earn a ribbon of effort simply because they bought a game from one region and not the other? 3) While I admit this probably doesn't happen all too often, there are certainly niche genres like a schmup where the enthusiasts of that genre are highly skilled and it won't be widely played. This would present a situation where the platinum % might be high because there is a specific audience of highly skilled people playing that game yet they won't earn a ribbon of effort?
In short, I am in favor of more statistics and ways to measure trophies. I am not in favor of making arbitrary assumptions that someone put in effort/didn't put in effort because 300 votes in a forum determined so.
PSS - Maybe my distaste for this ribbon of effort would be cured by renaming it/rebranding it? I really just don't like the rather dismissive "this game requires no effort" because platinum % is >50.