I've put up some changes to the CG gallery, where the ranking is listed on the main page, and you can sort through the images based upon their rankings. If the members like this system better, I'll add it to the the 2D gallery and over on Renderotica.

I for one like it Most viewd does not equal highest ranked. anybody could keep viewing there own art and get most viewed Thanks fur Hawkfyr

I just glanced at the new system and I do like it. However all images of the same rank are not sorted in any way.Maybe sort by rank first then by most recent? It really is a killer way to see some extrodinary art. It will be a great place for me to send people who just want to see how good it can get. Thanks jje

Equally ranked images are then subsequently sorted on the number of rankings submitted. An image that has gotten 10 '5's is ranked higher than another with 3 '5's.

I foresee a slight unfairness in this system. You are now ranking on a percentage. If a picture receives a ranking of only two 5's it and another receives fifteen 5's and one 4 it will be ranked lower than the one that has only two 5's. Is that indicitave of a true ranking? I don't believe so and until you come up with a better idea than that I don't believe that you can say it is a true ranking. I went through the rankings and found a lot of work of superior quality which were marked in this fashion in the middle while there was a fair amount of lesser quality work in the higher rankings. This gives a false impression and is not really fair to the viewers or the artists. My opinion may not be popular with some but it is a fact. Sorry if I offend anyone but that is the way I see it. Check it out yourself.

If you have another formula you want to recommend, lets hear it.

Roy; I didn't say I had another idea so don't get in a knot about it. What I pointed out is only the truth. Don't try and put it on me just because I pointed out a flaw in the idea.

I'm not in a knot about it. :-) After rereading my message I can see how that it might of came across as short, sorry. I agree that its probably not the best way to rank things, but I don't know what is better.

Yeah, well I shouldn't have snapped back either. As to the way to do it properly I would think with all the people who come here one should be able to come up with a formula to make sense. I would think something along the lines of the amount of ratings posted on a picture times the total of the ratings or something like that. I'm not a mathematician but there has to be one among the members. I truly believe that no rating is better than a false one no matter how well intentioned the idea. I like the idea of a rating system and am sure if you throw it out to the members at large that we need a formula that works (maybe a contest?) you will get a response from others who will figure it out and we will have on this forum another first.

Actually, I went back and reviewed the gallery, and I think its listing them as well as it can. If you think some images should be higher/lower in the rankings, you should vote on them and they will move. You also have to take into account that 1) a lot of the images are almost a year old and were never edited to allow a ranking to be added, and 2) people have gotten better over the course of this last year, what used to get a 5 back then maybe only gets a 4 now. I think people have always recognized a good artistic interpretation, and often overlook the technical quality of an image if the subject the artist is trying to get across still comes through.