Shipping ice was inefficient, but it worked: it actively provided the same benefit as refrigeration later did and it didn't have an "adversary" (as in, people or food that were actively undermining it). In contrast, the research on five star rating systems is that, mathematically, they don't work (as no one is using scales that are compatible, you cannot do algebra on the values to get an "average"). Meanwhile, they are actively gamed, and so can be worse than noise, making people believe something harmful. If you want a better analogy, it is like a bunch of people relying on some combination of apple cider vinegar (which might do something, or might not, but may as well try it), snake oil (which definitely does nothing, but is claimed to do everything), and garlic (which does something, just not that well, but is often placebo effect) in an industry already attempting to indiscriminately deploy antibiotics (which works, but only temporarily, as once an infection adapts it is all downsides and no upsides)... and no one is even sure if a cure is possible. Ice works, we knew it worked, we knew why it worked, and all we needed was more engineering to make it efficient and scalable (by eventually figuring out how to simulate ice using carbon, chemicals, and metals): don't pretend for a second that rating systems have anything in common with something that worked.