Almost five years ago, a discriminating reader named Dave sent me this message via email: “Well, well, well. It just keeps getting better.”

That’s all his little note said, and I’m still waiting for the punchline. If you happen to know Dave, please tell him I’m all eyes and ears because I still have no idea what he’s talking about.

In the early days of the modern web, when folks still asked questions like “Do you have access to the internet?” instead of assuming you lived half your life there, communication between reporters and the rest of the world was a little easier. Your phone rang, you picked it up and people yelled at you. You maybe had no idea what was happening or why, but at least you halfway knew from their accent they were not in Russia.

Now people read a story online, see an email link next to your name, click it and hit send. I’m halfway to being an old man now and I seem to have traded angry feedback from Bostonians with raucous accents for contextually challenged, passive-aggressive emails from wherever Dave lives, presumably in or around St. Paul, or at least the Midwest, but possibly the Ukraine.

Context is a good thing, and on the whole, St. Paul-area readers are better at providing it than irate Bostonians when they call and write. But in these days of rating, comparing and running through journalists like so many slabs of cheap meat, I think it’s time for reporters to openly rate and review you, the news consumer, at least from time to time.

Now don’t get me wrong: I value each and every reader equally, just some more equally than others. After years of your feedback, here are some of my own, with pro tips, a 5-star rating rubric and other obnoxious, I mean helpful and informative, tutorials.

“Angry Late-to-the-Party Reader”: *

I give 1 out of 5 stars to “Angry Late-to-the-Party Reader.” This young man — who represents a small-but-vibrant subclass of reader — left an anonymous voicemail on my phone a couple of summers ago that went like this: “I just read the story you wrote 10 years ago about my friend, and it’s not true. None of it is true. He’s a much better person than you’ll ever be. So go (prostitute yourself to men) for meth.” The words in parentheses here capture his gist but not his actual phrasing, which is unprintable.

Now, I don’t partake of drugs or feed addictions of any kind beyond caffeine, alcohol, Twitter, midnight snacking, the occasional slot machine and some other things I won’t describe. But the vulgarities here only cost him a star or two. The real problem is he left no clues as to whomever or whatever the article in question was written about. There’s no date or headline for me to search the archives for. And even if he were to find a thread of misinformation, it’s tough to tell editors and almost useless to tell readers you really need to run a small correction 10 years too late. You, sir, receive only 1 star!

“Vague Richard”: ** ½

A crime reporter I know placed her name (we call it a reporter’s “byline”) on 314 articles last year, averaging more than six stories per week. With this in mind, I give only middling marks to Vague Richard, who tends to write to me with opening lines such as “I see little interest in your story.” Are you referring to my story from Tuesday, or perhaps another from last Wednesday? The story in reference could be a decade old, Vague Richard, and require me to prostitute myself for meth. I have no time for guessing games, as much as I enjoy them (and I do like them, very much!). You, sir, receive 2½ stars!

“Specific and Instructive Feedback Guy”: *****

A few weeks ago, a reader I will refer to only as “Specific and Instructive Feedback Guy” penned me this digital note: “Mr. Melo – I just read your February 11th article about rents in St. Paul. Thank you for addressing this topic. It is increasingly very important for our communities. I do have a couple of comments related to the article …”

His specificity was exemplary, his observations keen, and his contact information was also quite helpful. A conversation ensued, with plenty of back and forth, and an entirely new article was borne from the discussion. You, sir, receive our highest honor — 5 stars!!!

I could go on, but I’ve upset myself about something (I won’t tell you what) and I need to send an urgent communication (I won’t tell you to whom). If you come across my problems (I won’t tell you what they are), please fix them for me. And do so sooner rather than later! Whatever this is about, it’s quite urgent!