deanagar

I must admit I'm not a fan of anonymous ratings. I kind of think if you have an opinion about a photo you should at least have the balls to stand by it.

Maybe the averages should be more like a mean rating. Discard the top and bottom scores for example. I don't know really.

My issue with the instant 3-3 scores is that they kill a photo when it comes to appearing in the top photos of the last 24 hours or 3 days which leads to great photos been forgotton. I've lost count of the number of times I've clicked through 5 pages of ok pics only to find a great shot (not mine BTW) with a 5-5 or a 4-4 that's been killed by a 3-3.

I have a pic in my folio that is the number 1 fashion pic of all time when viewed by aesthetics.

That pic survived that first few hours and then seemed to take on a life of it's own. There are better pics further down by other photographers that maybe got hit with a bad rating early on then never recovered.

So true about the nudes though! I like to think there is a cultured side of photo.net that admires the soft cast of light over one of gods heavenly creatures. I guess for many they have a very different reason for viewing the nudes 100:1 over other shots!

Oh well. As Homer Simpson once said "It's all just a popularity contest!"

:-) Dean

Whilst I'm not shy of a bad review this 3-3 rating phenomanon seems really

strange.

Almost every one of my art nude shots (and many others) will get a 3-3 in the

first 3 minutes of been posted.

Then it won't get another one.

5-5, 6-6 etc will follow but that first almost automatic 3-3 shatters it's

average.

What's going on? Is there a 3-3 group sitting there 24 hours a day?

Dean