A_67 ....that, unfortunately is just an 'opinion'....based around your own preconceptions and expectations of the 'worth' of a skin/wall.

What 'must' be appreciated is that it is almost an absolute certainty that there will exist people with quite radically different opinions of a works 'value' or standard [or sexiness, even] to yours.

When a rating appears unfairly wrong [read - low] and a skinner brings it to our attention it's almost always a simple divergent opinion, and not a 'vindictive' act....the latter is usually evident via 'trends'.

Two million plus members....chances are there's two million plus opinions....

Paxx used to have a rating guide that you could use to calculate ratings.  You would read the definition of what to consider, and there were clearly defined numbers to use to express your evaluation for the skin.  Once you plugged all your numbers into the graph, it would actually calculate the rating for you.  I liked the idea of something like that; however, whenever I used it the ratings actually came out lower than I would like to give.  This made me reevaluate my  own rating habits... and I came to the conclusion that I had a lot of emotional baggage attached to my rates.  It was a good training tool for me, to learn what to consider when I rated.

I still thought something like that might be good though, to have a formula that would have to be filled out as the only means to rate.  I thought perhaps a lot of the emotional response could be excluded if you  could only rate by submitting the numbers through the formula with the stipulation that you could only rate once until there was a major update (to keep a tenderheart like me from going back and fudging the numbers).  At the least, maybe going through some extended process to make a rate might slow hit-and-run raters some.

Having the weighted rate value was a good idea and it does  help to some extent.  The loyal, experienced members of the community can make a difference when they do rate.  Unfortunately, though, I suspect that lots of times these are the people who are creating and using their own stuff and  perhaps that means that they are not actively submitting rates.  It is something that I hadn't considered before, that perhaps one way of helping the community once you have made it through the ranks is to come back and do this more often.  Another thing I know is that the more honest rates there are on a skin, the less a wild rate will affect it.  I also agree with Keila that it is important to actually test a skin before you rate it.

I don't think an anonymous rating system simply benefits 'cowards'....what it DOES do is eliminate retalliatory ratings, good OR bad.

As someone who can/does see the ratings I can say it takes a person who is not personally pre-occupied with his own 'status' or public success/perception to NOT become piqued and want to eke revenge.  There's even the issue of "gee...Frogboy [example] gave it a '9'....he knows his stuff...ergo to be seen to know my stuff as well as he I better match his opinion/rating" [sad, but quite possible].

If someone gives me a '1'...when I 'naturally think its sheer brilliance personified' I just mutter 'what would he know, anyway?' and move on.  I have enough 'fun' responding to others' concerns about THEIR works maybe being targetted unfairly to ever bother with my own.....

Building a better mousetrap is always the dream of the mad inventor...so devising a better 'rating system' is a frequent and popular topic for skinners/artists.

There really only is ONE real issue with ratings...and that is to devise a way to get MORE of them applied to each work/upload.  The more there are the more 'accurately' the mean reflects the work's true appreciation.

OK...and since I was pedantic about 'only one'...the other issue is 'drive-bys'....people who just look at a  bunch of works on a page and madly click 'buttons' to up their rating count...a self-serving act which only degrades the efforts of those who apply a rating critically.

A 'suggested' solution to this would be to recode the site to only have a work's rating button active in detail view...and perhaps then only once a download is activated.

This will put an effective stop to the drive-bys [by slowing the process].....but will also result in fewer [albeit maybe more reasoned] ratings being applied.

So....back to that 'only one' issue again....how to get a better mean through more rating applications?  One 'help' was to weight rating effect via 'experience'...eg a Journeman's rating holds more sway than an Apprentice....but that only strengthens the 'professional/expert opinion' and does not always reflect a Joe-Average downloader's general concensus.

The only thing that'll do that is ratings .....lots of them.

Maybe quirky site-coding [T-Man will hate me] where the rating average is adjusted by some quaint formula of download count popularity....probably has its OWN issues...and isn't viable....but just a thought...

Perhaps we have a 'record' of how many ratings each person does in a given time...and if it ain't enough we send a goon squad around to their house to re-adjust their privates.....that'll work...

All I want is $10 dollars for every thread that references 'ratings' in its subject body....and retire to the South of France and take up wine drinking....

The concept of anonymous 'voting' is strongly based in the democratic process,  A secret ballot is far more acceptable than something that might lead to intimidation...

Some countries [eg. Oz] make the 'right to vote' compulsory...you are free to vote as you wish....BUT you must vote for something/one. [that actually equates legally to having your name checked off on the roll...and your insertion of the paper in the slot...you don't actually have to make a 'mark']...