Rating -update

[igla]

SORRY CARL

[h._p.]

"it's always been my contention that if one does not have images on the site, one should not be allowed to rate or critique other's photos."

 

That's a view, certainly.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> it's always been my contention that if one does not have images on

the site, one should not be allowed to rate or critique other's photos.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Maybe you should start your own site.

[enigmaphotography]

Simply a *brillant* response to a valid comment <insert sounds of seething sarcasm>.

[._._z]

Want your own rules, create your own site. I know hard hard it must be for osme to

follow that....

[beepy]

<blockquote>

In our bell curve scenario, I wonder how we might describe an "average" meal?

</blockquote>

Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions - on a sesame seed bun.

[john falkenstine]

Sorry, Fish sticks with apple sauce and a glass of 2 buck chuck..As for raters who post no images of their own...Derek has a valid point. If it wasn't for us deer staring blankly into the oncoming headlights, there would be no hunting for the non-posters. We voluntarily expose ourselves to the consequences of our exposed images. We of course, look for praise, fireworks, being carried on the shoulders of the cheering masses and being handed gigantic trophies for photographic stardom for our teeny tiny grungy pictures. We have no influence, zero control over the ratings and critiques..(assumedly)and for this privilege we also gladly hand photo.net a teeny, tiny amount of cash. If we dither and complain about the situation, remarks like above also come our way without control. Its a nasty world out there, full of nasty people(play that Randy Newman song in the background now)...and nasty photographs that are ALWAYS better than ours, even if folks submit a blank file.....just be careful of those digital dark alleys and partial open doors with eyes staring back at you....