My thought on ratings is that most ratings are given for eye-appeal and subject interest rather than on technical merit. I have tested this theory by putting up a post that was eye-catching and colorful or contained subject matter that I felt was most appealing, but the photo quality was mediocre at best. I received very high ratings and lots of jolly comments. Then I posted a photo that I knew was of excellent technical quality but was not of a subject of great interest unless you had nothing to do but stare at the picture and look for hidden meanings (LOL). It got low ratings. 

My other burr is that you can get all the sweet, endearing, fluffy comments that amount to no more than "Great Photo" and ,amazingly, after all that verbal praise end up with only 3 stars. Are then the ratings a true reflection of what your "followers" feel regarding that post or are people just programmed to pat you on the head in the comment section rather than step on your toes and, then, anonymously use the ratings to reflect their true opinion?

As you can see, I think ratings are not an important gage but overall they can tell you if your photo is generally well received or a dud no matter what the technical quality which is a really a marketing tool rather than a true rating system for ability and skill.

This, folks, is my long-winded opinion. :-)

Flannel Knight's Photos
MrsLubner
Forum Moderator
______________________
"It please me to take amateur photographs of my garden,
and it pleases my garden to make my photographs look
professional."
                                          Robert Brault