Joel Benford: This might seem an odd comment, but... 75% seems a bit high for a lens that isn't very good, just less bad than the competition.
How do you plan to scale lens scores? Is it going to be "relative to it's class", meaning above average but unspectacular lenses of any kind will get 75%? Or is it an absolute scale, so premium macro lenses are going to get more than 95% and Lomos less than 50%?
For what it's worth, I think a single scale would be best. That way a potential buyer gets some idea of what they'd lose by buying a superzoom instead of a two zoom set, or a 24-70/2.8 instead of primes.
Of course, it's entirely clear from the text what the story is, and some might say that anyone who only looks at the numbers deserves what they get. But the fact remains some people will just look at the numbers, especially if preparing a shortlist.
I unterstood that 75 % means it is a good superzoom in relation to other superzooms. It does not mean that it is a super-lens in general.
All in all, that's a realistic review. In reality, it's a lot of fun to work with the 18-300. My hands are large enough to handle a D7000 with this kind of lens a day long. In-camera correction of distortion works OK, and in most cases, a small amount of remaining barrel distortion is benefitial on wideangle. Use DxO or whatever to completely correct this. Use 18-200 if your hands are not large. Use dedicated primes for low light or maximum quality. The stabilisation issue described here... don't know, I will do some tests. At 300 mm in many cases you will have mild to heavy blurring because of the atmosphere you are looking through, remember that.