I hope that this is not viewed as our usual monthly rant about the rating system. It is what it is, fairer than some, less fair than others. No rating system is perfect and this one does give the community the opportunity to state its opinion. I do not understand however, what the site then does with the ratings. Let me see if I have this right.....

If you DO NOT PAY (not a current subscriber) you get to see only the works which the community has deemed it best through the rating system. In the Wall section, this means a rating of 4 stars (8) or better.

Now, if you DO PAY, , as a subscriber you get to see the works that were deemed to be average or below as well. This logic progresses that if there were an option for an extra subscription payment, well, why then you could also see the work that was rejected!

This makes no sense to me.

The only ones penalized by this use of the rating system are the people who pay and can upload as much of the work will never be seen by the "public". Certainly only subscribers should have the right to vote. But that is a narrow segment of the viewers and it would be interesting to see how the actual downloads would look if all submissions were equally accessible to the public viewer ratings and all.

Now, if the goal is to reduce traffic and bandwidth usage then is policy makes sense. But that is a strange goal for a site that exists to show graphic representation of the uses of its products and to encourage people interested in customizing their desktop to give it a go.