It is a pity for the morale of the artists to have their image ranked down after they had worked hard and managed to get an excellent. I didn't enjoy yesterday's event as I have come to know the artists and their works and felt for them under the situation. On the other hand this incident did highlight the ranking issue. As a result of yesterday's 'ranking down', the images that didn't get hit, remained excellent and the ones that did get hit ranged from good to great. This was the first time that a page of pictures showed anything but excellent (rarely great) or nothing. It can be upsetting to have your image ranked lower when you thought it was the best picture you ever did, but this has helped me over the past 3 months to produce images much better than I anticipated. It's hard not to identify images by excellent or nothing but do its generally based on the number of ranks (and/or comments). This is also not a true indicator either as many well known artists in Vue and other galleries have such a great following of fans that they get many comments because they are on many people's favourites lists. Even when they don't do a great one (happens to every artist throught-out history). Also, if you change your rendering tool, and therefore your gallery, you take your fans, that have you on their favourite lists, and get a new lot of fans from the next gallery. Most people in the other galleries don't know my art exists, but I do sometimes get a comment come through :). There are many complex ranking systems but many fail as there is generally a hole in them or they are abused (look at the Olympics, its very difficult to even find the fastest person... no drugs, bionics, amature, genetics...rules/caveats). In many areas ranking is often done by professionals (those that have a proven success in that field). This can be the same for these galleries. The artists that have highly ranked images over time get more weight. Artists that have contributed images over time get more weight. Artists that have ranked other images over time get more weight. Finally non-contributors over time get some weight. All these weights add up so a great artist that contributes, gets ranked well and also ranks gets weighted the most. Artists that stop ranking others and/or contributing begin to lose their weight (over a long time). This system would have to have a ceiling as a single rank from a 'brilliant' artist would tip the scales. This may control some of the problems. Just food for thought sacada