A few notes about my course ratings; what I notice and don't notice; and my personal biases:
I tend to be prepared for all types of courses and terrain. I keep several different pairs of shoes in the car, and wear whatever is appropriate to the course, so unless teepads are particularly pitiful, I don't really pay attention to teepads, so they will seldom be mentioned in my reviews. I also don't really care which baskets are used -- everybody plays the same baskets, so I just consider that one of the features of the course -- yes, a Mach III will catch more putts than a shallow, single-chain homemade basket, but as long as everybody has to hit the same targets, I don't really care which are in use as long as they aren't visibly abused (bent, chains missing etc...) I know mediocre baskets are a pet peeve for some people, but not me.
I do pay attention to signage -- I try to play new courses whenever possible, so I frequently have the experience of being a new person trying to navigate a new course. Good navigation is worth extra to me. Along with that, I have a bias in favor of clean courses (minimal cigarettes, other litter, trash, deadwood in the fairways, etc...). I usually pickup a grocery bag or two worth of trash when I play a course, and it annoys me when courses are poorly treated.
Personally, I like a mix of holes, and I am a bit of a masochist, usually favoring more difficult courses over easier courses. However, I am very aware of course design, and I don't believe that length = difficulty. A well designed short course will always score better than a poorly designed long course. To me, "difficulty" isn't really reflected in average total number of strokes as much as it is reflected in the penalty for an errant shot. A course that forces you to play your whole game well, and that requires a variety of shots to score well (FH, BH, hyzer, anhyzer, upside-down, S-shots, bombs, technical alley holes, etc.). I also love the risk-reward factor of fast greens that force people to make hard decisions on the course.
I have a bias against poorly-kept underbrush. Thorns, poison ivy, briars, ticks, etc... are all a frustration and take away from the enjoyment of the game. On a perfect course, a bad shot should be penalized, and should also be easy to find. A bad shot that takes 15 minutes of digging through thorns and poison ivy to find detracts from the experience of disc golf and makes it much harder for players of varying skill levels to enjoy a course together. If a difficult hole just adds strokes, that's fine; if it always draws blood, that's not OK.
I'll add other biases as they come to mind, but these should give you a starting framework for understanding my reviews. I try my best to be objective and to evaluate each course with recommendations on the skill level necessary to enjoy the course and/or to play it to its potential. Thanks.