Precisely because they haven't viewed it properly.   OK, to take an admittedly extreme example, if a new biography of Rembrandt took all of its illustrations from the postcards in various galleries, rather than from the paintings themselves, would anyone take it seriously?   I was browsing the gallery here earlier and found  a very good C4D image (although no Rembrandt, strikingly good all the same).  My settings are defined to maximise the picture, so what I saw was the picture, as the artist intended it to be seen, and I left a comment.   I felt obliged to do so, because it was a good picture (although I admit that it was a decidedly banal effort on my part , but at least it expressed my approbation).   If my browser settings, plus my gallery options. had dictated that  the image be displayed at a reduced size, masking much detail, I might have felt less compelled to comment and might even have had a diametrically opposite view of the piece.

To return to the original theme of this thread...  When I opened the aforementioned C4D picture at full size, the "Full-sized View" counter remained at zero.   QED.   When I clicked on the scene, just to make sure (and an identically-sized image predictably opened in a new window), the "Full-sized View" counter still remained resolutely rooted in double-nothings.   QED.   There was no change from re-loading the page, either.   QED.

I note, from re-reading the comments of the site's Professional Optimist, that "This is not a malfunction of the statistics script".    So he didn't say, in terms, that the stats bore any relation to reality, merely implied that everything was fine, OR that any errors were somebody else's fault.