Iceberg from Upsala glaciar 07's by doltra

Calafate - Argentina, Santa Cruz Iceberg

Uploaded: Dec, 08 2005 | Taken: Feb, 13 2005| Viewed: 36 times  | 6 votes

horourke - Dec, 26 2006 03:12pm I believe this picture warants a lot more than two stars but the software pops up a possible fraud message. I think the software does not truly serve the purpose for which it was modified rangutan - Dec, 27 2006 08:12am Hugh, I agree about 3.8 but also compare this with Daniel's other amazing 36 pictures in the series, most of them better at 4* or even 5* at www.globosapiens.net/doltra/pictures_argentina_31.html rangutan - Dec, 27 2006 09:12am ... the "limiting bot" is a great success but it's shown text is to be improved. You can go back & rate one *lower. A little note like you have done here will encourage others to put in an extra *-) rangutan - Dec, 27 2006 09:12am ... how do you then rate Daniel's other best pictures, 6* & 7* are not allowed? I reserve my few 5*s for BEST travel pictures of magazine-cover quality & printable as a poster, personal nirvana! You? horourke - Dec, 27 2006 02:12pm I do not consider the ranking to depend on comparison within the pictures of a particular member. The point i make is that the limitation does not do the job for which it was designed horourke - Dec, 27 2006 02:12pm The people who wish to abuse the system have found other ways to achieve their ends. I think the answer is to simply make the voting quite transparent as in the case of reports. Name the voters. rangutan - Dec, 27 2006 03:12pm TRANSPARENCY yes! The current limitation is only 20%, why 1* or 5* and works! I agree, there should really be no limit on rating BUT then the member name must then be shown. I am 100% behind this... rangutan - Dec, 27 2006 03:12pm ... the "other means" are limited & always under observation (IP-sources), possible international fraud, specially in Europe is very easy to bring to court! The jokers should travel rather than trick! rangutan - Dec, 27 2006 03:12pm .. I rated the picture 2* low because there were so many others in the series far far better. Here where the photographer can't steer the boat, the composition is a RANDOM snap !!! horourke - Dec, 27 2006 04:12pm I have always been in favour of freedom and the voter being allowed to give any rating for any reason. Some bright spark has now managed to give 3* to a picture averaging 4.67 without comment!!! horourke - Dec, 27 2006 04:12pm My point was that i should be allowed to express a different point of view without the software calling it fraud. I had no idea it was Rudi who gave 2*. Had i known i would have done as i have! rangutan - Dec, 27 2006 04:12pm ... this picture's true rating and those of ALL others will mature after time as members come and go, eventually over many many many years! :-) Generations eventually! horourke - Dec, 27 2006 05:12pm Only if the ratings are honest and not coloured by political considerations to which you have already drawn attention. Again i suggest - Name the voters. Ho, Ho, Ho happy new year!!!! :-) eirekay - Dec, 28 2006 07:12pm I gave it **** - I find the colors quite attractive.