Quote - @Terradreamer;  Agreed, so what's the point of recording the full size view then if it's not accurate?

Well, it is accurate if you have your display preferences set to "resize images regardless of artist preferences".   To test this, I changed my settings to the above and went to find images that were at larger sizes, say 1200xwhatever.  It did record a view and updated the view count, but did not record a full-size view until I clicked on it; it then updated the full-view count.  Changing my settings back to view full size regardless of artist preferences simply records the view, not a full-size view.  So, that's how it's working, and as a result, you really have no idea how your images are being viewed, other than assuming it's being viewed full size all the time and those who opt not to will on ocassion do so because of further interest, hence the full-size counts.  In my opinion, it's a useless counter because of it.  With that said, the only counter of benefit is the first counter recording views period, as it records them all, regardless of view size.

Quote - Lots of good discussion here, but my question still remains...What is the point of the intermediate sized image?...seems like it's just taking up server space...Why not just trash the "resized" view all together and leave the default the full size?

I would imagine it's geared to the dial-up crowd, but that's purely speculation on my part; I seriously doubt they had this in mind when they designed it.  I would agree that the option of full-size only is a better option.  It was this way before and I never heard many complaints about it.

EDIT: I'll also agree with a few others here that many, many users are completely unaware of the view options available to them.