I really think that some
members worry far too much about the
gallery rating of their own coins. There's essentially three possible reasons for a coin scoring lower than a member might like
- an accident, where someone's thumb slips on their iPad. In which case it's a random event that might affect any
gallery coin equally and
members should accept it's going to happen sometimes
- an honest evaluation of a coin in which case
members should accept it's going to happen sometimes
- a deliberately low score, that might even be bot-driven, in other words randomly electronically programmed to click on things that are clickable. Shrug one's shoulders and forget about it, it's also as random as a thumb-slip or a bad coin strike. If on the other hand one imagines for some bizarre reason that a low
gallery vote is targeted at you specifically, then commenting on dissatisfaction with the ratings isn't likely to discourage it happening.
Over the last three or four years I've subjected countless of my own coins to another
type of rating: I've sold them at
auction. Then one occasionally feels the harsh sense of rejection when a beloved coin gets no bids or even worse, sells at minimum. But I've learnt to respect, over time, the curious votes of those who use pounds, dollars and euros rather than stars, and mentally congratulate low-bidding winners, accepting the random accidents of
fate and the honest judgement of my peers, i.e other collectors. In other cases, coins I got rid of because I thought them ugly (i.e. I'd probably have given them one-star if they were in the
Forum gallery) fetched absurdly (to me) high prices. That's playing the coin-rating game for real. Here where we use stars it's a
bit of fun and should be regarded as such.