I agree with hypnagogia, the classification system is unfair and discourages authors we contribute to this site. Hypnagogia is not the only one that this bothers.

Lately, a new member, has been commenting and thanking my models, and then classifying them systematically with 4 stars.

I suppose you think that makes me a compliment when my models really are relegated to very backward positions.

Most of those who download a model nor comments, nor rate.. For some obscure reason most of those who value do with 5 stars. Then there are the trolls that malice and without having contributed even once, without any explanation classified with 1 star. Or the clueless who are wrong to select.

But there are no models classified by 15 users with 1 star. It looks like an all or nothing system. It does not seem the most appropriate valuation calculating an average that takes into account tenths (or hundredths?).

Given this, I also think that the best classification system is given as first criterion the total number of stars. As a second criterion the lowest number of voters (average better) .As third criterion, better punctuation for the latest model.

Although also I find just the following system: First criterion, tolal number of votes.

Second criterion, average better. Third criterion, best latest model.

Actually, I think this rating system already applies. On page portfolio, if the sort is requested by rating, models are grouped by number of votes and then by average.

For example, in my portfolio a model with 15 valuers and an average of 4.7 occupies the position 19 while in position 20 is a model with 14 reviews and an average of 4.96.

It is a system that you have already functioning for each individual portfolio. It would be to extend it to the general classification.

A greeting:

Pedro