there are some criteria that can be used: - photo is clearly visible, not dark, not overburned, etc - composition is ok, no cut-off's, there is space around the main object(s) - any other common-sense criteria for visual appealing image (?)
it's hard to come up with something like that since it could be part of the idea (to overburn the photo or to decompose a composition). I'd say quality of the idea is much more important than photo-skills.
low quality means that it was done in a hurry w/o putting much effort i.e. the time for the taking a potorok was not planned, thus it's highly unlikely that it's important for the friend
Another explanation could be that a player just sucks and despite planning and importance he shows poor results. A better criteria should be defined e.g. "was a player capable in the past and quality went down recently?" That would be a better sign of lost interest.
While it's true, it's irrelevant for photos being good, since there is no evidence that "good looking" photo correlates with win-rate. And win rate is what we need to stay away from cleaning.
restuta
when you actually try hard (like tucha did, for example) and see that someone else is not trying hard, you stop trying hard and - ultimately - skip the game
Too many assumptions, since it's hard to measure "trying hard" and it can be subjective and also "that trying hard and others are not" would lead to skipping the game requires some evidence.
restuta
but not always. I can think of case when too great photo posted can discourage others from participation. Take recent example when Tanaha said "I won't post, since my ideas are worse than ones already posted"
cotoha
