It's very odd that images can get featured without have any comments, and ones that get positive comments score low. I will never understand how this place works.

Relevance: 3.27
Impact: 2.57
Composition: 2.92
Technique: 3.00
Quality: 3.15
Overall: 2.982

Roberta, it can be frustrating. I know how you feel. But I think this place works just like any place where human beings interact. There is always a subtext at work. When people leave comments like "a charming old town" (that would be me) and "lovely old sign" I think that's their way of remarking on an aspect or feeling of the shot that they like, but, by omission, does not disclose the things that may not work for them, or perhaps the fact that overall the image doesn't move them very much. I must admit that's what was at play for me, but I neglected to include that in my comment. I hope you don't hold that against me! As I recall, my ratings on this shot were 4 4 4 3 3, for what it's worth. I find it relevant, it had impact, but I feel the lighting could be more effective (hence a 3 in Technique) and the white specks around the smaller print is distracting (hence a 3 in Quality). I hope this helps.

Thanks George. The reason I made the comment above is because it ticks me off that people do the things you just admitted. I won't hold it against you, but I want people to have the balls to explain the way they rate when they give 3's or less. I don't need to hear the image is pretty, or whatever, I need to hear what is wrong with the image. I am here to improve as a photographer, and I can't do that if nobody has the guts to be honest and explain their ratings, like you've now done.

I may not always agree with the ratings, and I may explain why I don't, but I believe that's a valuable exchange where each party learns something. For example, rating 3 for quality I don't agree with. The white specks is part of the sign and not an image flaw. Quality, as I understand it, is for the image - things like grain, artifacts, aberration, pixelization, etc. I'm not sure where an element that is part of an image that you don't like would be marked. Impact, maybe. ?

In any case thanks for replying.

Roberta, you make a good point on the QUALITY rating. This was my reasoning: the image to me is not average; it's above average, which is why I gave it a 4 for IMPACT. However, even though I realize the white specks are part of the sign, I do find them distracting which is why to me the QUALITY suffered a bit. I could have given a 3 for IMPACT and a 4 for QUALITY, which wouldn't have changed the overall average for my ratings, but obviously would have somewhat affected each category's overall score. I suppose this image could be made when the light isn't quite as strong or direct, so as to minimize what to me is a distracting effect of the speckled bits, which appear to my eye a bit blown out.

I like this conversation. I hope I made myself clear :-)

True. Six of one, half dozen of another. This picture was taken on an overcast day, so it's doubtful the specks could be minimized. I could have maybe reduced the contrast though, which may have helped.

Anyhow, thanks for the discourse. I do enjoy hearing people's explanations so much more than these short hit and run comments.