When I rate a image a 5 it may be for wildly different reasons. Some artists combine poetry or stories with their art. The image alone may not have as much meaning until the poem or story is read that goes with the image. I have rated images highly from beginning artists where one area of a image was done very well. The pose or the lighting etc. I have seen many artists grow in ability from seeing what was complimented as good in their image. (Myself included) Images are not always comparable from from one category to another or even within their same category. Images vary wildly in the amount of post work done to them. Should a image rendered in Poser in 30 seconds but that had a day of post work in Photoshop be rated on the same scale as a image rendered in Poser with no post work done at all? Thousands of images are done where parts of it may have been done in 2 or 3 other formats and then post worked to death and then is put into a Poser category. Are they really even Poser images anymore? With all of those variables I simply rate highly the images I like and describe in my comments why I liked them. I would hate to have critics or a narrowly defined rating system. Lastly, what pleases my eye may not please yours. That does not make my opinion or yours less valid. Many artists have made a fine living from making art that the majority of the world thought was tripe but that some few others thought were beautiful.