This article describes the criteria I apply to rating content on Fanpop, and was last edited on 17 June 2008.
So, having written my Fanpop User's Guide link (in which I suggest that users should apply consistent criteria for rating content on the site), I figured that I could provide an example in my own ratings criteria. Take it or leave it; I present it as an example of how one could rate content consistently, not necessarily as an argument for how you should rate content.
Ratings vs. Reporting: Before I begin listing my criteria for the four kinds of content that can be rated (links, videos, images, and articles), I want to point out that there are a lot of things that I don't consider when rating. Chief among these are anything that should be reported. This includes any broken or miscategorized content, as well as any copyrighted content that is not identified as belonging to a third party. If content has a problem that requires a report, in almost all cases I will report the content and NOT rate it. For instance, with miscategorized content, I've pointed out such content to users in the past, then if the user doesn't move it within a couple of days (effectively move it, that is, by deleting and reposting), I report it. I don't rate it until it's in an appropriate spot. Miscategorized content can be great content, and I don't think it's fair to rate the content poorly just because the user posting it made a mistake.
Links: As the first kind of content which was available on Fanpop, links will be what I present first. For links, I consider the following (roughly in order of descending importance):
Does the link provide something new to the spot? If yes, then I value it. If not, then I won't be inclined to rate it highly, and if the link is to content that nearly or exactly duplicates the content of another link (effectively duplicating it), my rating will go down.
Do I enjoy the link? I can hardly overstate the importance of entertainment in a spot's content.
Is the link name descriptive of the content? If a link's name is merely the name of the spot, that doesn't tell me anything, and it loses points. A big peeve: abbreviations just don't belong in a title. Another particular horror to me is labeling a Wikipedia link in a particular topic "<spot topic> Wiki" as if Wiki doesn't mean something other than Wikipedia. I get all excited to find a full wiki devoted to the spot's topic, but then, no, it's just a single Wikipedia entry. I have no problems with linking to Wikipedia entries, but call a spade a spade. Big demerits for not doing that, in my book.
Is the link name distinct from other link names in the same spot? You've gotta have an unique name - nothing gets rated low more quickly than multiple links with the exact same name.
Is the link description descriptive of the content? The content name field on Fanpop is pretty short; all content merits a more verbose description of what it is. The more info, the better (it also helps searches).
Does the link point to a site where I have to pay and/or register to see the content? That's a deal-breaker right there.
Do the keywords adequately represent the content of the link? Again, keywords should indicate what the content is fairly specifically. The spot name just isn't sufficient by itself.
Do the keywords represent only the content of the link? It's important to not have keywords that have nothing to do with the actual content of this specific link. Keywords are not metatags, so don't use them as if they were (to boost search catalog site rankings by putting random but heavily searched terms in there).
Is the combination of keywords for this link unique enough that I could find this particular piece of content again with a Fanpop search? If I can't find this specific link on the first page of search results, something is horribly wrong.
Videos: Embedded videos (as distinct from links) were introduced next, so they come next in my list. Here's what I consider when rating videos:
Is the video enjoyable? Again, if I'm entertained, then I feel good about it.
Is the video a duplicate of a video already posted in the same spot? It's very easy to post a duplicate video...almost as easy as checking to see if a video has already been posted. Video quality is not a sufficient reason to post a duplicate video - in those cases where you know of a better version of the same video, send the link to the user who posted the video in the first place. Chances are, that user will thank you and replace the link with the superior one. Duplicate videos are, when all is said and done, clutter for a spot, keeping users from unique content.
Does the video have both good audio and good video? If the sound quality of a video is terrible, it doesn't matter how good the visuals are (and vice versa). Similarly, if a video is just an audio track, it can still be slideshow of images related to the audio, rather than a black screen or text that says "My Vid". Does anyone need to guess how well I'm going to rate a video with nothing to view except for five minutes of the same two words?
Does the video require that I register on a paid site? No way that's gonna get a good rating.
Does the video require that I download and install proprietary software to view it? Forget that crap - if it's not Flash (the minimum you need to be able to use Fanpop at all), then you shouldn't be linking to it, as far as I'm concerned.
Does the video require that I register and/or login to another site? Now, I don't mind having to go to another site to view a video - say if the embedding isn't enabled for a particular video - but if I have to enter my personal information to look at a freakin' video...whoops! There goes any good feeling I had for the video.
Is the video name descriptive of the video's content? Is the video's name distinct from other videos' names? Is the video's description actually descriptive of the content? Do the keywords adequately represent the content of the video? Do the keywords represent only the content of this specific video? Would I find this particular video again with a Fanpop search? Just as with links, so it is with videos.
Articles: Next I will talk about my critera for rating articles. These, along with images, entail a largely different set of criteria than links and videos, as they should involve original material created by the user as opposed to content on some external site.
Is the article original material from the author? If it's lifted from a joke e-mail making the rounds or an official web site, I don't rate it; it gets reported as copyrighted content. But I also don't like it if the user posts content the user wrote and posted elsewhere (cross-posting). Just link to it if it's posted someplace else, don't post it again!
Is the article appropriate to the spot in which it was posted? I don't rate miscategorized content - it gets reported and is subsequently moved to an appropriate spot, or I don't rate it.
Is the article justified to being an article? A few paragraphs is not enough, to my way of thinking, to post a soapbox article rather than a forum thread. Similarly, a long column of pictures with little or no text is a waste of my time, unless they need to be taken sequentially (such as posting an original children's picture book or an original comic). On the other hand, a soapbox article that is justified in having NO images is rare.
Is the article well-written? Stories need to have some continuity, and rants should flow logically from one argument to the next. Are any statements in an article making an argument supported by facts rather than opinion? If an article is in response to another article, does the article address all the points of the previous one? Is the language of a story evocative?
Does the article correct in the spelling and grammar of whichever language in which it was posted?
Is the soapbox distinct from other soapbox articles in the same spot? If I've read essentially the same views previously, I'm not likely to rate the article well, regardless of how well it is written.
Is the soapbox article thorough? If an article claims to tell me why "Show X is the best on TV", there have to be several reasons presented. Otherwise it feels like the author was being lazy.
Is the soapbox entertaining? Did I enjoy the article, and/or did it expand my knowledge of the world? Even poorly-crafted articles that entertain and/or educate deserve credit.
Is the article's name distinct from other articles' names? Is the article's description actually descriptive of the content? Do the keywords adequately represent the content of the article, and only the content of this article? Are the keywords sufficient for the article so that I can find it again on the first page of search results? This is the same with all content: ratings suffer if I can't find it as distinct from other content when I look for it.
Images: Lastly - because it's the most complex - I'll talk about images. Rating images is so complex because there are four types of images, and at least slightly different criteria apply to each. First, here are the criteria I apply to all images, then I'll talk about specific criteria afterward.
Is the image clear? Is any part of the image out of focus? Is the image in focus, but the object of the picture is so far away that detail cannot be seen?
Is the image unique or distinct from other images already posted in the spot? If it's a duplicate of another image already posted, it won't get rated but instead get a comment pointing out the URL of the predecessor. Similarly, if there are ten images of Rainn Wilson taken on the same day at the same location, each differing only in a slight variation in the angle of his glasses, only one is going to get rated.
Does the image have a clear and unique title?
Does the image have a clear and unique description? Does that description adequately describe where and when the picture was taken, and what is depicted in the image? All too often, I see image descriptions that simply name the spot title, for instance "Reese Witherspoon", rather than saying "This is Reese Witherspoon at the New York premiere of Election with Matthew Broderick in 1999." You get one guess which description is going to be rated well, and which poorly.
Does the image have a credit? Every picture belongs to somebody - if there is no credit listed, my assumption is that the picture belongs to the person who posted it. If that's obviously not true, then I will comment negatively, rate poorly, and/or report the image.
Is the image credit really an image credit? If the credit lists the web site where it was found, this is almost always not the actual owner of the image. The actual owner of the image is going to be posted with the information about the picture on any commercial web site.
Is the image related to the spot in which it is posted? If it's not related to the spot topic (for instance, an image of a 70s artist like Carly Simon in the 80s spot or publicity pictures of a musician in the music videos spot), I won't rate it. It gets reported as miscategorized. Once an image is in an appropriate spot, then I'll rate it.
Icons: Icons are what we see most often on the site, because (probably) they're easy to upload, simple to find, and simple to make (relative to other image types). Icons are small images that are used as buttons for clicking, program shortcuts on a desktop, used in picks on Fanpop, as well as in other places where a tiny image is used to convey the idea of a person or thing. Given that, I consider the following when rating icons (in addition to the general criteria):
Is the icon image legible? If there's writing in an icon, it must be large enough and clear enough to read.
Is the icon image really clear in what it depicts? Similarly, an icon for an actor should have a clear picture of the actor's face, not just his chin and cheekbone. Artistic composition is great for most images; for icons only the straightforward, obvious compositions will do.
Does the icon image work even if the size is reduced? Some icon images try to cram as much detail into a 100x100 pixel space as possible. Unfortunately, most applications will not have freakin' huge 100x100 icons. Instead, they'll be shrunk down to a more manageable size. If the image clearly won't work at a smaller size, then the rating suffers.
Wallpapers: Wallpapers are almost the complete opposite of icon images. They're huge images that are meant to be displayed as the backdrop for a computer desktop. In addition to the general image criteria, I consider the following when rating wallpapers:
Is the wallpaper image the correct aspect ratio for use as a wallpaper? If it's a square or close-to-square image, then it really sucks as a wallpaper image. Most operating systems can take a square image as a desktop, but they either distort it (stretching it horizontally) or lay it down as a tile (slapping part of a second identical image down next to it to make up for the blank space). A dopey thing like that - a wallpaper image that can't be properly used as wallpaper - will not be rated well. There's just no way.
Is the wallpaper image a high enough resolution to use as a wallpaper image? Basically with a wallpaper image, you want to have the resolution be as high as you can get it. Some operating systems will easily reduce the resolution of an image to match your current screen resolution, and Fanpop itself takes high resolution images and provides additional, lower resolution images for alternative use. But you can't go the other way. You can't increase the resolution on a low-res picture to make it work as a wallpaper image. 640x480 is the absolute minimum resolution for a wallpaper image, and even then that's really small for any modern computer.
Does the wallpaper have solid color (or at least low-contrast) spaces at one side or the other? Most people have a lot of program icons on their desktop, and these are typically arranged along the left or right sides of the screen. Thus, a good wallpaper image will have either the left or right side of the image effectively blank (a solid color, a neutral pattern) so that the background doesn't interfere with what you're doing on your computer.
Does the wallpaper image have text in it? This is a huge no-no for me. Writing belongs in whatever application I'm using - it can only be distracting in the background image.
Fan art: Fan art refers to pictures that aren't icons or wallpaper images but which were created by the user themselves. As such they are not meant for a specific utile purpose, but rather for enjoyment. Given that, I consider the following as well as the general image criteria:
Is the fan art credited to the user who posted it? Big kudos to people who post their own artwork rather than someone else's.
Is the fan art clear in what it depicts? I like to know what I'm seeing, in most cases.
Does the fan art evoke a positive reaction? Occasionally, a non-representational image will still evoke a strong reaction, and that's interesting, worthy of a higher rating than otherwise.
Does it seem like a fair amount of effort went into the fan art? A 10-second sketch is not going to be rated all that well, unless it's superlative. Most aren't.
Is there some aspect of the craft that went into the fan art that is impressive or noteworthy? If the media used for the image is particularly complicated to use and that's clear in the digital photo, then that's deserving of a good rating. Ten layers of alternating gesso and acrylic is much more challenging to use than image editing software, but even image editing software with 20 layers clearly involves more work than a picture done with MS Paint.
If the image is representational, how well does it portray its subject(s)? In most cases, fan art that looks more real will get a higher rating than fan art where the proportions and/or perspective is wrong.
Photos: Photos, the final category of images available on Fanpop, refers to any kind of picture that isn't fan-made, an icon, or a wallpaper image. This typically includes TV and computer screen-captured images as well as snapshots and publicity photos of all varieties. In addition to the general image criteria I've already mentioned, I also consider these when rating photos:
What is the resolution of the photo? Sure, we're not talking gigantic high resolution images like the wallpaper images, but a picture at 500x700 is going to be rated more highly than an otherwise similar picture at 250x350.
Is the picture composed well? I'm not going to go into a primer on composition here - that could easily be several other articles in themselves - but whether a photo has balanced the subject with the subject's surroundings is going to have a big impact on how I rate.
Does the picture present its subject well? By this I mean not just focus, lighting and the like, but also whether the subject is pictured as well as it could be. If it is a picture of a person, is that person portrayed in a good way? If the picture is not of the full body, then does it focus enough on the face? If the picture is of the person's full body (crown to toes), is the person attired well? Are they in a recognizable or interesting location? There are a lot of red carpet photos of celebrities out there, and also a lot of candid shots of celebrities on the street. Some of these types of photos do justice to their subjects; most are terrible. Many have bad lighting, many others cut people off at the feet or knees, and some candid shots picture people turned away from the camera while scurrying to some place or another. Those pictures inspire sadness, rather than admiration, for the people so pictured.
If it's a portrait of a person, is the portrait in color or monochrome? Most of you who post a lot of images know this: I love high contrast B&W portraiture. You could have the exact same picture in vivid, living color, and I'd likely rate it lower than the same picture in good quality black-and-white.
Does the image convey some fundamental aspect of the subject? Lots of pictures are good, but the really exceptional ones have something that conveys the essence of the person and/or object that is being discussed.
Those are most of the criteria I use; I could probably dredge up some more edge cases, but I think this covers each of the major ones that I apply when rating content on Fanpop. I try to rate the content, not the user, and I try to be consistent across every spot in which I rate, by using these criteria.
How about you? How do you go about rating content?
So, having written my Fanpop User's Guide link (in which I suggest that users should apply consistent criteria for rating content on the site), I figured that I could provide an example in my own ratings criteria. Take it or leave it; I present it as an example of how one could rate content consistently, not necessarily as an argument for how you should rate content.
Ratings vs. Reporting: Before I begin listing my criteria for the four kinds of content that can be rated (links, videos, images, and articles), I want to point out that there are a lot of things that I don't consider when rating. Chief among these are anything that should be reported. This includes any broken or miscategorized content, as well as any copyrighted content that is not identified as belonging to a third party. If content has a problem that requires a report, in almost all cases I will report the content and NOT rate it. For instance, with miscategorized content, I've pointed out such content to users in the past, then if the user doesn't move it within a couple of days (effectively move it, that is, by deleting and reposting), I report it. I don't rate it until it's in an appropriate spot. Miscategorized content can be great content, and I don't think it's fair to rate the content poorly just because the user posting it made a mistake.
Links: As the first kind of content which was available on Fanpop, links will be what I present first. For links, I consider the following (roughly in order of descending importance):
Does the link provide something new to the spot? If yes, then I value it. If not, then I won't be inclined to rate it highly, and if the link is to content that nearly or exactly duplicates the content of another link (effectively duplicating it), my rating will go down.
Do I enjoy the link? I can hardly overstate the importance of entertainment in a spot's content.
Is the link name descriptive of the content? If a link's name is merely the name of the spot, that doesn't tell me anything, and it loses points. A big peeve: abbreviations just don't belong in a title. Another particular horror to me is labeling a Wikipedia link in a particular topic "<spot topic> Wiki" as if Wiki doesn't mean something other than Wikipedia. I get all excited to find a full wiki devoted to the spot's topic, but then, no, it's just a single Wikipedia entry. I have no problems with linking to Wikipedia entries, but call a spade a spade. Big demerits for not doing that, in my book.
Is the link name distinct from other link names in the same spot? You've gotta have an unique name - nothing gets rated low more quickly than multiple links with the exact same name.
Is the link description descriptive of the content? The content name field on Fanpop is pretty short; all content merits a more verbose description of what it is. The more info, the better (it also helps searches).
Does the link point to a site where I have to pay and/or register to see the content? That's a deal-breaker right there.
Do the keywords adequately represent the content of the link? Again, keywords should indicate what the content is fairly specifically. The spot name just isn't sufficient by itself.
Do the keywords represent only the content of the link? It's important to not have keywords that have nothing to do with the actual content of this specific link. Keywords are not metatags, so don't use them as if they were (to boost search catalog site rankings by putting random but heavily searched terms in there).
Is the combination of keywords for this link unique enough that I could find this particular piece of content again with a Fanpop search? If I can't find this specific link on the first page of search results, something is horribly wrong.
Videos: Embedded videos (as distinct from links) were introduced next, so they come next in my list. Here's what I consider when rating videos:
Is the video enjoyable? Again, if I'm entertained, then I feel good about it.
Is the video a duplicate of a video already posted in the same spot? It's very easy to post a duplicate video...almost as easy as checking to see if a video has already been posted. Video quality is not a sufficient reason to post a duplicate video - in those cases where you know of a better version of the same video, send the link to the user who posted the video in the first place. Chances are, that user will thank you and replace the link with the superior one. Duplicate videos are, when all is said and done, clutter for a spot, keeping users from unique content.
Does the video have both good audio and good video? If the sound quality of a video is terrible, it doesn't matter how good the visuals are (and vice versa). Similarly, if a video is just an audio track, it can still be slideshow of images related to the audio, rather than a black screen or text that says "My Vid". Does anyone need to guess how well I'm going to rate a video with nothing to view except for five minutes of the same two words?
Does the video require that I register on a paid site? No way that's gonna get a good rating.
Does the video require that I download and install proprietary software to view it? Forget that crap - if it's not Flash (the minimum you need to be able to use Fanpop at all), then you shouldn't be linking to it, as far as I'm concerned.
Does the video require that I register and/or login to another site? Now, I don't mind having to go to another site to view a video - say if the embedding isn't enabled for a particular video - but if I have to enter my personal information to look at a freakin' video...whoops! There goes any good feeling I had for the video.
Is the video name descriptive of the video's content? Is the video's name distinct from other videos' names? Is the video's description actually descriptive of the content? Do the keywords adequately represent the content of the video? Do the keywords represent only the content of this specific video? Would I find this particular video again with a Fanpop search? Just as with links, so it is with videos.
Articles: Next I will talk about my critera for rating articles. These, along with images, entail a largely different set of criteria than links and videos, as they should involve original material created by the user as opposed to content on some external site.
Is the article original material from the author? If it's lifted from a joke e-mail making the rounds or an official web site, I don't rate it; it gets reported as copyrighted content. But I also don't like it if the user posts content the user wrote and posted elsewhere (cross-posting). Just link to it if it's posted someplace else, don't post it again!
Is the article appropriate to the spot in which it was posted? I don't rate miscategorized content - it gets reported and is subsequently moved to an appropriate spot, or I don't rate it.
Is the article justified to being an article? A few paragraphs is not enough, to my way of thinking, to post a soapbox article rather than a forum thread. Similarly, a long column of pictures with little or no text is a waste of my time, unless they need to be taken sequentially (such as posting an original children's picture book or an original comic). On the other hand, a soapbox article that is justified in having NO images is rare.
Is the article well-written? Stories need to have some continuity, and rants should flow logically from one argument to the next. Are any statements in an article making an argument supported by facts rather than opinion? If an article is in response to another article, does the article address all the points of the previous one? Is the language of a story evocative?
Does the article correct in the spelling and grammar of whichever language in which it was posted?
Is the soapbox distinct from other soapbox articles in the same spot? If I've read essentially the same views previously, I'm not likely to rate the article well, regardless of how well it is written.
Is the soapbox article thorough? If an article claims to tell me why "Show X is the best on TV", there have to be several reasons presented. Otherwise it feels like the author was being lazy.
Is the soapbox entertaining? Did I enjoy the article, and/or did it expand my knowledge of the world? Even poorly-crafted articles that entertain and/or educate deserve credit.
Is the article's name distinct from other articles' names? Is the article's description actually descriptive of the content? Do the keywords adequately represent the content of the article, and only the content of this article? Are the keywords sufficient for the article so that I can find it again on the first page of search results? This is the same with all content: ratings suffer if I can't find it as distinct from other content when I look for it.
Images: Lastly - because it's the most complex - I'll talk about images. Rating images is so complex because there are four types of images, and at least slightly different criteria apply to each. First, here are the criteria I apply to all images, then I'll talk about specific criteria afterward.
Is the image clear? Is any part of the image out of focus? Is the image in focus, but the object of the picture is so far away that detail cannot be seen?
Is the image unique or distinct from other images already posted in the spot? If it's a duplicate of another image already posted, it won't get rated but instead get a comment pointing out the URL of the predecessor. Similarly, if there are ten images of Rainn Wilson taken on the same day at the same location, each differing only in a slight variation in the angle of his glasses, only one is going to get rated.
Does the image have a clear and unique title?
Does the image have a clear and unique description? Does that description adequately describe where and when the picture was taken, and what is depicted in the image? All too often, I see image descriptions that simply name the spot title, for instance "Reese Witherspoon", rather than saying "This is Reese Witherspoon at the New York premiere of Election with Matthew Broderick in 1999." You get one guess which description is going to be rated well, and which poorly.
Does the image have a credit? Every picture belongs to somebody - if there is no credit listed, my assumption is that the picture belongs to the person who posted it. If that's obviously not true, then I will comment negatively, rate poorly, and/or report the image.
Is the image credit really an image credit? If the credit lists the web site where it was found, this is almost always not the actual owner of the image. The actual owner of the image is going to be posted with the information about the picture on any commercial web site.
Is the image related to the spot in which it is posted? If it's not related to the spot topic (for instance, an image of a 70s artist like Carly Simon in the 80s spot or publicity pictures of a musician in the music videos spot), I won't rate it. It gets reported as miscategorized. Once an image is in an appropriate spot, then I'll rate it.
Icons: Icons are what we see most often on the site, because (probably) they're easy to upload, simple to find, and simple to make (relative to other image types). Icons are small images that are used as buttons for clicking, program shortcuts on a desktop, used in picks on Fanpop, as well as in other places where a tiny image is used to convey the idea of a person or thing. Given that, I consider the following when rating icons (in addition to the general criteria):
Is the icon image legible? If there's writing in an icon, it must be large enough and clear enough to read.
Is the icon image really clear in what it depicts? Similarly, an icon for an actor should have a clear picture of the actor's face, not just his chin and cheekbone. Artistic composition is great for most images; for icons only the straightforward, obvious compositions will do.
Does the icon image work even if the size is reduced? Some icon images try to cram as much detail into a 100x100 pixel space as possible. Unfortunately, most applications will not have freakin' huge 100x100 icons. Instead, they'll be shrunk down to a more manageable size. If the image clearly won't work at a smaller size, then the rating suffers.
Wallpapers: Wallpapers are almost the complete opposite of icon images. They're huge images that are meant to be displayed as the backdrop for a computer desktop. In addition to the general image criteria, I consider the following when rating wallpapers:
Is the wallpaper image the correct aspect ratio for use as a wallpaper? If it's a square or close-to-square image, then it really sucks as a wallpaper image. Most operating systems can take a square image as a desktop, but they either distort it (stretching it horizontally) or lay it down as a tile (slapping part of a second identical image down next to it to make up for the blank space). A dopey thing like that - a wallpaper image that can't be properly used as wallpaper - will not be rated well. There's just no way.
Is the wallpaper image a high enough resolution to use as a wallpaper image? Basically with a wallpaper image, you want to have the resolution be as high as you can get it. Some operating systems will easily reduce the resolution of an image to match your current screen resolution, and Fanpop itself takes high resolution images and provides additional, lower resolution images for alternative use. But you can't go the other way. You can't increase the resolution on a low-res picture to make it work as a wallpaper image. 640x480 is the absolute minimum resolution for a wallpaper image, and even then that's really small for any modern computer.
Does the wallpaper have solid color (or at least low-contrast) spaces at one side or the other? Most people have a lot of program icons on their desktop, and these are typically arranged along the left or right sides of the screen. Thus, a good wallpaper image will have either the left or right side of the image effectively blank (a solid color, a neutral pattern) so that the background doesn't interfere with what you're doing on your computer.
Does the wallpaper image have text in it? This is a huge no-no for me. Writing belongs in whatever application I'm using - it can only be distracting in the background image.
Fan art: Fan art refers to pictures that aren't icons or wallpaper images but which were created by the user themselves. As such they are not meant for a specific utile purpose, but rather for enjoyment. Given that, I consider the following as well as the general image criteria:
Is the fan art credited to the user who posted it? Big kudos to people who post their own artwork rather than someone else's.
Is the fan art clear in what it depicts? I like to know what I'm seeing, in most cases.
Does the fan art evoke a positive reaction? Occasionally, a non-representational image will still evoke a strong reaction, and that's interesting, worthy of a higher rating than otherwise.
Does it seem like a fair amount of effort went into the fan art? A 10-second sketch is not going to be rated all that well, unless it's superlative. Most aren't.
Is there some aspect of the craft that went into the fan art that is impressive or noteworthy? If the media used for the image is particularly complicated to use and that's clear in the digital photo, then that's deserving of a good rating. Ten layers of alternating gesso and acrylic is much more challenging to use than image editing software, but even image editing software with 20 layers clearly involves more work than a picture done with MS Paint.
If the image is representational, how well does it portray its subject(s)? In most cases, fan art that looks more real will get a higher rating than fan art where the proportions and/or perspective is wrong.
Photos: Photos, the final category of images available on Fanpop, refers to any kind of picture that isn't fan-made, an icon, or a wallpaper image. This typically includes TV and computer screen-captured images as well as snapshots and publicity photos of all varieties. In addition to the general image criteria I've already mentioned, I also consider these when rating photos:
What is the resolution of the photo? Sure, we're not talking gigantic high resolution images like the wallpaper images, but a picture at 500x700 is going to be rated more highly than an otherwise similar picture at 250x350.
Is the picture composed well? I'm not going to go into a primer on composition here - that could easily be several other articles in themselves - but whether a photo has balanced the subject with the subject's surroundings is going to have a big impact on how I rate.
Does the picture present its subject well? By this I mean not just focus, lighting and the like, but also whether the subject is pictured as well as it could be. If it is a picture of a person, is that person portrayed in a good way? If the picture is not of the full body, then does it focus enough on the face? If the picture is of the person's full body (crown to toes), is the person attired well? Are they in a recognizable or interesting location? There are a lot of red carpet photos of celebrities out there, and also a lot of candid shots of celebrities on the street. Some of these types of photos do justice to their subjects; most are terrible. Many have bad lighting, many others cut people off at the feet or knees, and some candid shots picture people turned away from the camera while scurrying to some place or another. Those pictures inspire sadness, rather than admiration, for the people so pictured.
If it's a portrait of a person, is the portrait in color or monochrome? Most of you who post a lot of images know this: I love high contrast B&W portraiture. You could have the exact same picture in vivid, living color, and I'd likely rate it lower than the same picture in good quality black-and-white.
Does the image convey some fundamental aspect of the subject? Lots of pictures are good, but the really exceptional ones have something that conveys the essence of the person and/or object that is being discussed.
Those are most of the criteria I use; I could probably dredge up some more edge cases, but I think this covers each of the major ones that I apply when rating content on Fanpop. I try to rate the content, not the user, and I try to be consistent across every spot in which I rate, by using these criteria.
How about you? How do you go about rating content?