Hello all,
This will be a pretty short post.
I have seen M78 and NGC1333 as IOTD so many times over the last few months, that it seems to me that the judges and folks on the side of the voting systems have a massive preference for dusty data.
I went and looked and narrowband imaging has as massive lack of representation on IOTD. I have also seen imagers posting data with the dust stretched beyond reason, being more commonplace.
Are folks pandering to this trend? Why are we not seeing galaxies at all yet? We are in Galaxy season!
I think Astrobin suffers from a judge panel that prefers processed images, if they show enough dust, at all other costs, for them.
Let me know your thoughts on this matter.
-Bill
Note: This has nothing to do with my images personally. This is about the process and a perceived lack of diversity in IOTD images.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Perhaps dust is harder to get, so images full of dust are considered as technically superior?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Dust Addiction sounds like a great name for a rock band...
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
What is stretching beyond reason, are there any examples among the IOTD images you're referring to? In general I think that if you have the data, why not utilize it.
While browsing the latest IOTD images there's 5 (perhaps 6 at a stretch) images of galaxies. For some reason certain people don't include data details but there are also several images with lots of NB data there. That's only the first page which goes back to 13.03.24 though but it does seem to be somewhat similar on page two.
So I don't quite agree with this statement, to me at least, it seems to be a varied pick as it should be. Also, an excellent image is still an excellent image. Only seems fair that it should get the pick even though the same or a similar object has been picked in the last few months, even if it is "galaxy season" - given that it is overall judged above the others.
Disclosure: I'm not a submitter nor a judge in any way.
EDIT: Grammar error.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Wei-Hao Wang:
Perhaps dust is harder to get, so images full of dust are considered as technically superior?
Dust isnt really hard to get. The bad images that keep getting IOTD prove this. They are grainy, have zero good qualities about them at all, other than the dust.
The ways this hobby shifts to the terribly bad data, just boggles my mind.
None of the folks submitting the data, care at all about their stars. I have seen IOTD images have stars that are nothing other than a gigantic ring (no actual stars).
Likewise to noise. What it seems, is that the communtiy just looks at images that dont fit their preferences, and decide based on that. There is no techcial reason why many images get IOTD. Many of them are technically horrid. But, if they have something that makes the particular judges like them, they get IOTD.
Go look at the images and data that fit the Top Pick and IOTD critera for this site. You will see a very consisent and biased result.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Example:
One of my favorite images on Astrobin, is @John Hayes Fighting Dragons. I think it the best version of this field, I have ever seen in my life:
The Fighting Dragons of Ara over a Teal Dragon Egg - NGC 6188 & NGC 6165 (John Hayes) - AstroBin
This incredible image, earned not enough votes for anything at all. Not even a top pick nomination. That is absolutely absurd. If anyone that looked at this image in its process of being judged on, I would love to hear the feedback to John on this. I have seen other images of this field IOTD and absolutely ZERO of them were this good.
IOTD is a dog and pony show. This same problem is found all over this site and it needs to be fixed, or Sal needs to admit he cannot control his volunteers enough.
-Bill
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jan Erik Vallestad:
What is stretching beyond reason, are there any examples among the IOTD images you're referring to? In general I think that if you have the data, why not utilize it.
While browsing the latest IOTD images there's 5 (perhaps 6 at a stretch) images of galaxies. For some reason certain people don't include data details but there are also several images with lots of NB data there. That's only the first page which goes back to 13.03.24 though but it does seem to be somewhat similar on page two.
So I don't quite agree with this statement, to me at least, it seems to be a varied pick as it should be. Also, an excellent image is still an excellent image. Only seems fair that it should get the pick even though the same or a similar object has been picked in the last few months, or even if it is "galaxy season" - given that it is overall judged above the others.
Disclosure: I'm not a submitter nor a judge in any way.
You can do research yourself. I am not going to do it for you. I gave an example, look at that and do as you wish with it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
You can do research yourself. I am not going to do it for you. I gave an example, look at that and do as you wish with it.
That was my point, you didn't give any examples in you original post. You gave a generalized statement about consistent over-processing of certain images without any examples to back it up with. Which then prompted my question. When making claims you should always be prepared to back them up, telling me to do my own research is kind of patronizing. However, I still did my own research and found that I disagreed with your statements (as I mentioned).
I'm not going to comment on the technical quality of images that are getting picked as I'm in no position to do so. I agree with you that the basics should be present in the images, like good stars. But I think it's kind of harsh to slam the work lots of people are putting into this hobby. I know you're trying to target images that, in your opinion, isn't deserving their status but by doing it this way you are also kind of targeting the community in general. So even though it's meant as a constructive post I find it sort of unhelpful as it may lead to speculation and negativity.
Getting a badge on your image can be rewarding and fun, but if getting top picks and IOTD's are the driving factor for people then they really should re-consider things. I'm sure several photographers don't even submit their images even though they could be in the running, and there's no way of knowing this for sure (as far as I am aware).
There are guidelines that all the submitters have to comply with, not all of them are based on the technical aspect, but the submitters are all photographers and may weigh things differently. An image may receive an APOD from NASA but not even get a top pick on AB. It might get lots of likes but not be technically as good as others. I don't think it's realistic to get a perfect system in place for this without having some compromises. This topic keeps coming up and it's impossible to please everyone.
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Let me know your thoughts on this matter.
You asked for my thoughts, please don't be rude when I give them. If you feel personally provoked by something regarding how the system works then it would be better to take it up with the admins or Salvatore directly.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Hi fellow Astrophotographers,
as @Salvatore Iovene pointed out many times, the IOTD ist not a competition. I have been a volunteer (submitter and reviewer) in the past and therefore have some (maybe outdated) insights: While I was in the team, we had (sometimes intense) discussions about quality and there have been modifications to the process to improve. Guidelines here. However, in the end it is volunteers work and there is a considerable workload especially on the submitters. I guess this workload has even increased since then as the number of useres has increased as well. Back then this was one of the main reasons for high quality pictures to be overlooked. If you want to help to improve quality, please volunteer.
There have always been IOTD with sometimes serious technical flaws and I fear there will be some in the future. From my experience I can tell you that the vast majority of the IODT volunteers is trying their best the make good choices.
Other than that I have noticed some general changes here: There is a significant increase of average integration time. Remote observatories and collaborations have given us new information on familiar objects (e.g. M 31) and lead to new discoveries. Then there is the new AI based toolset. They have their pros and cons but very often they are - in my opinion - way overused: Super soft backgrounds, many sharpening artifacts, and very poor star presentations.
CS
Fritz
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Fritz:
Hi fellow Astrophotographers,
as @Salvatore Iovene pointed out many times, the IOTD ist not a competition. I have been a volunteer (submitter and reviewer) in the past and therefore have some (maybe outdated) insights: While I was in the team, we had (sometimes intense) discussions about quality and there have been modifications to the process to improve. Guidelines here. However, in the end it is volunteers work and there is a considerable workload especially on the submitters. I guess this workload has even increased since then as the number of useres has increased as well. Back then this was one of the main reasons for high quality pictures to be overlooked. If you want to help to improve quality, please volunteer.
There have always been IOTD with sometimes serious technical flaws and I fear there will be some in the future. From my experience I can tell you that the vast majority of the IODT volunteers is trying their best the make good choices.
Other than that I have noticed some general changes here: There is a significant increase of average integration time. Remote observatories and collaborations have given us new information on familiar objects (e.g. M 31) and lead to new discoveries. Then there is the new AI based toolset. They have their pros and cons but very often they are - in my opinion - way overused: Super soft backgrounds, many sharpening artifacts, and very poor star presentations.
CS
Fritz
Great response and insight. I appreciate it, Fritz.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Fritz:
Hi fellow Astrophotographers,
as @Salvatore Iovene pointed out many times, the IOTD ist not a competition. I have been a volunteer (submitter and reviewer) in the past and therefore have some (maybe outdated) insights: While I was in the team, we had (sometimes intense) discussions about quality and there have been modifications to the process to improve. Guidelines here. However, in the end it is volunteers work and there is a considerable workload especially on the submitters. I guess this workload has even increased since then as the number of useres has increased as well. Back then this was one of the main reasons for high quality pictures to be overlooked. If you want to help to improve quality, please volunteer.
There have always been IOTD with sometimes serious technical flaws and I fear there will be some in the future. From my experience I can tell you that the vast majority of the IODT volunteers is trying their best the make good choices.
Other than that I have noticed some general changes here: There is a significant increase of average integration time. Remote observatories and collaborations have given us new information on familiar objects (e.g. M 31) and lead to new discoveries. Then there is the new AI based toolset. They have their pros and cons but very often they are - in my opinion - way overused: Super soft backgrounds, many sharpening artifacts, and very poor star presentations.
CS
Fritz
I have stopped caring much about this one way or the other. But it bothers me when on the one had it is claimed that IOTD is not a competition and on the other hand we are asked if we wish to exclude ourselves from IOTD and other contests in our preferences. I think everyone that cares about it looks at it as a contest and claiming otherwise is a false premise. But let us look at the facts - there is a selection criteria, selection panels, and awards. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and calling it a chicken does not make it one. Other than this, I have no opinion one way or the other on the representation of certain types of images or their quality. Having made my opinions on the matter of categories in the contest known, and having it been decided that things are not going to change, I decided to respect that decision, but also get to make my own as to how much attention I should pay to the contest in the context of my imaging. I certainly do respect that the job of the submitters and reviewers is not an easy one and takes significant effort.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Arun H:
Fritz:
Hi fellow Astrophotographers,
as @Salvatore Iovene pointed out many times, the IOTD ist not a competition. I have been a volunteer (submitter and reviewer) in the past and therefore have some (maybe outdated) insights: While I was in the team, we had (sometimes intense) discussions about quality and there have been modifications to the process to improve. Guidelines here. However, in the end it is volunteers work and there is a considerable workload especially on the submitters. I guess this workload has even increased since then as the number of useres has increased as well. Back then this was one of the main reasons for high quality pictures to be overlooked. If you want to help to improve quality, please volunteer.
There have always been IOTD with sometimes serious technical flaws and I fear there will be some in the future. From my experience I can tell you that the vast majority of the IODT volunteers is trying their best the make good choices.
Other than that I have noticed some general changes here: There is a significant increase of average integration time. Remote observatories and collaborations have given us new information on familiar objects (e.g. M 31) and lead to new discoveries. Then there is the new AI based toolset. They have their pros and cons but very often they are - in my opinion - way overused: Super soft backgrounds, many sharpening artifacts, and very poor star presentations.
CS
Fritz
I have stopped caring much about this one way or the other. But it bothers me when on the one had it is claimed that IOTD is not a competition and on the other hand we are asked if we wish to exclude ourselves from IOTD and other contests in our preferences. I think everyone that cares about it looks at it as a contest and claiming otherwise is a false premise. Other than this, I have no opinion one way or the other on the representation of certain types of images or their quality. Having made my opinions on the matter known, and having it been decided that things are not going to change, I decided to respect that decision, but also get to make my own as to how much attention I should pay to the contest in the context of my imaging
Anything that grades some matter of creation, is a contest.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Arun H:
Fritz:
Hi fellow Astrophotographers,
as @Salvatore Iovene pointed out many times, the IOTD ist not a competition. I have been a volunteer (submitter and reviewer) in the past and therefore have some (maybe outdated) insights: While I was in the team, we had (sometimes intense) discussions about quality and there have been modifications to the process to improve. Guidelines here. However, in the end it is volunteers work and there is a considerable workload especially on the submitters. I guess this workload has even increased since then as the number of useres has increased as well. Back then this was one of the main reasons for high quality pictures to be overlooked. If you want to help to improve quality, please volunteer.
There have always been IOTD with sometimes serious technical flaws and I fear there will be some in the future. From my experience I can tell you that the vast majority of the IODT volunteers is trying their best the make good choices.
Other than that I have noticed some general changes here: There is a significant increase of average integration time. Remote observatories and collaborations have given us new information on familiar objects (e.g. M 31) and lead to new discoveries. Then there is the new AI based toolset. They have their pros and cons but very often they are - in my opinion - way overused: Super soft backgrounds, many sharpening artifacts, and very poor star presentations.
CS
Fritz
I have stopped caring much about this one way or the other. But it bothers me when on the one had it is claimed that IOTD is not a competition and on the other hand we are asked if we wish to exclude ourselves from IOTD and other contests in our preferences. I think everyone that cares about it looks at it as a contest and claiming otherwise is a false premise. Other than this, I have no opinion one way or the other on the representation of certain types of images or their quality. Having made my opinions on the matter known, and having it been decided that things are not going to change, I decided to respect that decision, but also get to make my own as to how much attention I should pay to the contest in the context of my imaging
Anything that grades some matter of creation, is a contest.
As long as there is grading and a like button to satisfy ones dopaminergic system, it's a contest. A better idea would be to remove the like button and the IOTD, and just randomly display pictures submitted as "pictures of the day".
It would be interesting to see what happens.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
AdrianC.:
As long as there is grading and a like button to satisfy ones dopaminergic system, it's a contest. A better idea would be to remove the like button and the IOTD, and just randomly display pictures submitted as "pictures of the day".
It would be interesting to see what happens.
If that changes seeing M78 and NGC1333 or similar data every day, or fuzzy 10 minute lucky imaging runs of random PNs, I'll take it.
The recent IOTD is so predictable. Dust, fuzzy PN, or new discovery. Meanwhile images like the one I posted that John took, gets zero love.
That's not right at all.
Bill
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
If IOTD bothers you, you're in for a shock if you look up this thing called APOD. LoL
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jan Erik Vallestad:
That was my point, you didn't give any examples in you original post.
I gave an example in a second post well before the one you made here. I would suggest reading that.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Brian Puhl:
If IOTD bothers you, you're in for a shock if you look up this thing called APOD. LoL
I have no issues with APOD. We all know what that is as well, so I am not really sure what the point was in this post?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:
AdrianC.:
As long as there is grading and a like button to satisfy ones dopaminergic system, it's a contest. A better idea would be to remove the like button and the IOTD, and just randomly display pictures submitted as "pictures of the day".
It would be interesting to see what happens.
If that changes seeing M78 and NGC1333 or similar data every day, or fuzzy 10 minute lucky imaging runs of random PNs, I'll take it.
The recent IOTD is so predictable. Dust, fuzzy PN, or new discovery. Meanwhile images like the one I posted that John took, gets zero love.
That's not right at all.
Bill
Dear Bill,
with todays AI tools it's very easy to setup a webpage at home on a small Intel NUC. I've seen many wonderful sites from pasionate astrophotographers like Rolf Olsen for example.
Like this you can display pictures at higher resolution than astrobin can, and you can even share them as a download link. You can even share the raw integrated image so people can process your data...
This is a valid approach and perhaps a better way of sharing the images, and it will bypass issues like IOTD or the number of "likes"
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Exclusion from participating in the IOTD process reduces the workload of the volunteers involved in the process. And maybe reduces the workload of the machines Astrobin is hosted  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
And don't get me started on the solar images that won IOTD in the past.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Die Launische Diva:
Exclusion from participating in the IOTD process reduces the workload of the volunteers involved in the process. And maybe reduces the workload of the machines Astrobin is hosted
It is certainly true that participation is by choice. It is also true that the community loses if more and more people are divorced from certain aspects of what makes it a community in the first place. My own opinion is that making any meaningful changes to the IOTD process holds the same degree of difficulty as getting something passed through the US Senate or amending the US Constitution. So we will just continue with the way things are. Fortunately, it isn't by any means the most important thing in most people's lives!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I am one of the submitters, the first line in IOTD process.
The process is far from being perfect, but:
1- it is free
2- it is based on democratic evaluations by a significant number of volunteer submitters, reviewers and judges every image goes through. This makes highly improbable (impossible is not of our world) for a great image to be missed. I suggest people who would like their outcry and idea to weight more to give some minutes of their lifes to the process being personally involved instead of limiting their action to coarse external criticism. That will certainly have a positive impact on IOTD process.
3- it is by far the one with best images around (APOD, AAPOD-2...)
4- anyways, it is constantly moving, looking for improvement
5- because it is AB interest in having a IOTD being the best it can be
At the end of the process, the images who did not make it to TPN, TP, or IOTD are still on AB, published in its opening page, and all the community can enjoy their view.
After all, as far as I know, being nominated TP or IOTD is not associated with any reward, prize or whatever, except personal satisfaction, and I echo what Jan Erik earlier said in the thread: if getting top picks and IOTD's are the driving factor for people then they really should re-consider things.
My 2 cents
CS
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Arun H:
Die Launische Diva:
Exclusion from participating in the IOTD process reduces the workload of the volunteers involved in the process. And maybe reduces the workload of the machines Astrobin is hosted
It is certainly true that participation is by choice. It is also true that the community loses if more and more people are divorced from certain aspects of what makes it a community in the first place. My own opinion is that making any meaningful changes to the IOTD process holds the same degree of difficulty as getting something passed through the US Senate or amending the US Constitution. So we will just continue with the way things are. Fortunately, it isn't by any means the most important thing in most people's lives!
I suggested a model of stack ranking, instead of cherry picking, to Sal long ago.
You get a set of images, as a Reviewer or a Submitter, and you no longer cherry pick them. You drag and drop them in a stack ranking and submit. That is a far better model IMO.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Arun H:
My own opinion is that making any meaningful changes to the IOTD process holds the same degree of difficulty as getting something passed through the US Senate or amending the US Constitution. So we will just continue with the way things are.
To be fair, the IOTD/TP process is being improved and fine-tuned very often. Non-believers can refer to GitHub. The issue is that often times I get request that call for a radical change / complete redesign. You understand why I'd be hesitant to do something that:
- will require probably 6-12 months of work followed by years of fine-tuning (all of which will take time away from other aspects of AstroBin)
- has no guarantee of yielding better results other than the proposer thinks it's better
- throws away 10ish years of work and gradual improvement because the process is not 100% failproof (spoiler: no such process is)
Over the years I've received lots of suggestions for the IOTD/TP. They fall into these categories:
- good idea for a minor improvement: I've implemented lots of these!
- bad idea for a minor "improvement": it would actually make things slightly worse
- good idea for a major improvement or radical redesign: it sounds like a good idea and it might or might not work: it's probably not worth the risk at this time
- bad idea for a major "improvement" or radical redesign: obviously not gonna do it and I typically explain the reasons (sometimes not for the first time  )
Sometimes I get conspiracy theories like "fixing" results in exchange of money, favoring remote hosting sponsors, or again "fixing" results because the IOTD/TP team is biased against them or whatnot. Sometimes I get plenty of verbal abuse. Sometimes I get sensationalist and accusatory opinions like "the IOTD/TP is a farce".
Those who know me and have some understanding of what it takes to run a website like this know that I work a lot and do my best to keep things running as well as possible in the interest of the astro community.
At the of the day, while I'm not claiming that the IOTD/TP is perfect, it's surely a system that has addressed a lot of low-hanging and high-hanging fruits that anybody who would want to set up an alternative system would have to figure out, even if such system works on different architectural principles. It has evolved over 10 years and it's pretty damn good. Certainly the best out there, for astrophotography.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I am one of the submitters, the first line in IOTD process.
The process is far from being perfect, but:
1- it is free
2- it is based on democratic evaluations by a significant number of volunteer submitters, reviewers and judges every image goes through. This makes highly improbable (impossible is not of our world) for a great image to be missed. I suggest people who would like their outcry and idea to weight more to give some minutes of their lifes to the process being personally involved instead of limiting their action to coarse external criticism. That will certainly have a positive impact on IOTD process.
3- it is by far the one with best images around (APOD, AAPOD-2...)
4- anyways, it is constantly moving, looking for improvement
5- because it is AB interest in having a IOTD being the best it can be
At the end of the process, the images who did not make it to TPN, TP, or IOTD are still on AB, published in its opening page, and all the community can enjoy their view.
After all, as far as I know, being nominated TP or IOTD is not associated with any reward, prize or whatever, except personal satisfaction, and I echo what Jan Erik earlier said in the thread: if getting top picks and IOTD's are the driving factor for people then they really should re-consider things.
My 2 cents
CS
Let's be real with people about what you actually do in this role. I've done it myself so I'm not making this up.
You log into the site, you get bombarded with images, and are presented with three slots to cherry pick your favorite images into.
You log off.
That's not the democratic process you just went off about. It's a poorly constructed process in which you are only allowed 3 picks out of a sea of images.
If you could rank them all from top to bottom, that would be far more useful. No?
Bill
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
11.02
11.22
7.56
4.36
9.85
11.91
8.78
11.14
2.11
6.68
