A lot of people log in anonymously in order to state their opinion, because they dont want the stigma of being attacked or having their galleries trolled when they -do- state an honest opinion. or take another example: One of my old teachers from art school is a luddite - he won't go -near- the new media, and he needs to be bullied into using his email. he's happiest with his thick paper and his box of Derwents. Imagine someone like that stumbling over the site - logging in, and then commenting or leaving critique at some images. Would the opinion be less valid because there is no gallery to show this man's competence ? Should any opinion from someone who hasnt got a gallery be discarded ? It's odd that this only comes up when negative comments are left - I have yet to see anyone holler over a "oh - cool! from someone w/o a gallery - which looks like people get more pissed at the lack of an ability to retaliate than anything else. A good image is always a very subjective thing, especially to the artist. What may be the best thing one ever did and may be very proud of, may look crap, and beside the point to another. I really dont think you can get better as an artist if all the comments you get are "oooh! Pretty!" and "Kewl" - specially not if you keep to that staple of imagery that gives you the kewlies time and time over. ~S