I can see that this has generated a very lively and interesting discussion and brought forth many insights and several commendable ideas that might - if put into practice - relieve some of the stresses. With those who have commented that the Fractal Hot20 is significantly based on popularity, I must agree - though I must observe that this is not exclusively the case. There are many works on it everyday that IMHO are of high artistic merit and - as well - relative newcomers (myself included) who have not been here long enough to acquire a popular following do periodically make it to the list. You can not change human nature by fiat, nor can you by playing games with the mechanisms of the voting machine. People are competitive (whether they admit it or not) and popularity is a factor in any situation involving voting (whether we like it or not). That means to some degree there will always be winners and losers where voting and judgements are involved. That degree will be - for the individual - in proportion to the extent of his or her competitiveness in relation to the meaning and value the H20 has in his or her own mind, and - of course to his or her character. It follows that such a situation will always lead to some members being thrilled and others being disenchanted and/or upset. There is another factor which is vitally important to this discussion and which seems to have been overlooked: time vs. volume. Each of us must lead a real life apart from the time we spend making images and doing whatever we do while visiting Renderosity. Since for most of us the real life and image creation portions consume the larger proportion of our time, that leaves only a limited amount of time for posting, viewing, commenting, ranking, voting and otherwise participating in the community. I made a little measurement a short time ago to satisfy my own curiosity. Since Jan. 1, 2005 (to a couple of days ago) there have been over 5000 images posted to the Fractal Gallery! To me, that is a fantastic number of images in such a short span of time. If you post an image on page 1 in the morning, it is typically on page 3 or 4 (or sometimes even 5) by late evening. I think this is both germane and critical to any considerations for the following reasons: 1. given the volume of image creation and time available to participate, no one is likely to be capable of doing a completely fair and thorough appraisal comparing images to one another before casting a vote. 2. It seems likely that only a small proportion of viewers actually vote on images (very probably dont have or make the time) and, thus, that votes are less representational than we might like to think. 3. When you compare the average number of viewings to the average number of comments and the brevity and non-critical natures of most of those comments, it is clear that viewers are generally not responding for whatever reasons - to the postings robustly. I would conservatively venture that in all probability less than one third of the community comments (and less votes) for the postings made by less than one quarter of the community on any given day. It is not surprising then, that given the large volume and restrictions on personally available time, certain styles, color and shape combinations, software usage preferences, personalities of the posting artists and the like outcompete others for attention and votes and do so on a consistent basis. 4. If points 1 through 3 are valid, it seems to me to follow that circles of like-minded people will form in this virtual world (just as in the real world) and that this will lead to increased competition (often unhealthy), narrowing of focus and interests, exclusions, rivalry, bitterness and bickering - just as we see regularly in politics. Getting rid of the H20 wont change or resolve this. Adding additional Showcasing equivalents to the H20 wont change or resolve this. Relegating judgement to a panel of experts or placing requirements for qualification to vote in a gallery wont change or resolve this. Allowing disablement of the voting button at the artists choice and/or restricting the number of votes a viewer can make in a given time period will not change or resolve this. To my thinking, the only factors that will change and resolve these problems are: more robust participation by a greater proportion of the community and self-adherence by each voter-participant to a set of clearly understood and mutually agreed upon guidelines in concert with what appearance in something like the Fractal Hot 20 means. In my humble view, that last is where the moderators could plays their strongest role through education and advocacy a difficult but worthy task. While I personally feel ambivalent about the H20, post for the satisfaction of sharing with other artists and viewers and value constructive feedback that helps me grow as an artist far more than I value votes, there are a few things that could be done that I believe might improve the H20 (some of these have already been noted by others responding): 1. Limit the number of images any one artist can have in the H20 at any one time and/or increase the size of the H20 to H30 or H50.. 2. Limit the amount of time any image can appear on the H?? to somewhere between 3 to 5 days to increase the turnover and exposure. 3. Formally request (and repeat he request regularly) that voters refrain from signifying to artists when they have voted. While this has to be voluntary by the voters, it could be reinforced by the moderators by inspecting the comments on those images achieving H?? status and either removing those images with vote indications or requesting those whose comments signified their voting to cease the practice (perhaps even disqualifying the images after some significant number of violations). I realize there is considerable controversy over the issue of whether or not votes should be indicated to the artists, so this would really need agreement by a quorum of the gallery to be workable. 4. I would have suggested requiring all postings be anonymous (since Renderosity knows from whom each comes and has records), but I doubt this would help since most artists have fairly distinctive and easily recognized styles and there would rightly be concern about theft of intellectual property if it lacks ownership identification. Sorry for going on so long; it had not been my intent to do so. The issues at stake are thorny ones lacking easy solutions. I hope some of what Ive written proves to be of some help. Best regards, Rik