Single feature ranking

[artcol]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzran

That's it.

Political strategist now certainly planted the artist.

Sooner zloradstvuete.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Pavel, you just need to invite to a public defender experienced and seasoned political consultant of the Volga.

[Ольга Озолина]

Artcol, to accuse EXP in misleading advertising, we must first prove that he was advertising. And it is not advertising, and point of view, review and much more of what makes the media. Otherwise generally any publication in the media that the X hit by a car, may be considered advertising and X, and the machine
Artists paint pictures and put them on the market. This is an episode for the appearance of any Content, including rating.

Now, about your (or your only) Council "wipe" with "fraud." I am a Christian, and happy to forgive it. But prevents the tone in the first place those who advise. You sound - "more careful with it, and then they themselves finger in the pie, you had better not meddle" ... But it is not. Can you imagine what - 13 years to conduct rating, which is now 54,000 names? Amount in words - Fifty-four thousand. How many claims as lawyers behind these claims? And just - what is work? Yes, if there were any loophole us 13 years ago would be crushed! So we are not afraid of anything, and you know.
So the tone may be just another: sorry man, he said, without thinking, and now sincerely repents. (Although he could write it myself, and not to remain silent.)
A scare us do not, we Frightening

[Pavel]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

But I wonder by what criteria do artists (creators in general) are in EXP? Whom there take and why? From what sources of information? Where is the "starting point"? In general, this rating WHAT? Who decides, and on what? "(Why?" Already, this question: "for what?")

 Some more questions:
How often revised EXP? (Update), and then again, from what sources of information?
Who is behind this personally monitors?

But in the issues, and the point. Artists like me, no one asks and puts in any category. As the artist (s) they do not know all categories sucked from the finger, and do not change. In assessing the work in the gallery or auction clerks look at the category and set the price, but without a rating they would be looking for work. This material damage. I had an incident with Gelos, where the rating table book.
It's a question of who and why falls into the "rating". Now why? "Rating"-commercial publication and published solely in order to sell it and make profit from draw. Artist names are used for purely commercial purposes. Artists have not and can not be rated. Today, the artist no one knows, and tomorrow he is famous. The difference between these two conditions, the price of the picture. These prices can rise and fall, and the glory of the artist, then ignites it goes off, and "rating" how-to preserves the position of the artist on some imaginary line or whatever they have.
"Rating" gives the appearance of evaluating work of the artist, but as a fake and score the goal of the rating income from circulation, but harm it brings nothing. To me it does only the material and moral damages.
Inform the media about the facts. What informs the "rating". You are all included in the rating of the show asked, or at least permit included? It's like something you have drawn? Who gave you the right to evaluate the artists that you do not know and of which you have not seen?

[artcol]

Сообщение от Olga Ozolina

Artcol, to accuse EXP in misleading advertising, we must first prove that he was advertising. And it is not advertising, and point of view, review and much more of what makes the media. Otherwise generally any publication in the media that the X hit by a car, may be considered advertising and X, and the machine
Artists paint pictures and put them on the market. This is an episode for the appearance of any Content, including rating.

Now, about your (or your only) Council "wipe" with "fraud." I am a Christian, and happy to forgive it. But prevents the tone in the first place those who advise. You sound - "more careful with it, and then they themselves finger in the pie, you had better not meddle" ... But it is not. Can you imagine what - 13 years to conduct rating, which is now 54,000 names? Amount in words - Fifty-four thousand. How many claims as lawyers behind these claims? And just - what is work? Yes, if there were any loophole us 13 years ago would be crushed! So we are not afraid of anything, and you know.
So the tone may be just another: sorry man, he said, without thinking, and now sincerely repents. (Although he could write it myself, and not to remain silent.)
A scare us do not, we Frightening

I'm not trying to scare you, and the answer in itself. You could have told him about some claims cases, there is a wonder. I still see as outlines:
in order to establish any ratings issprosit a must have permission to do this ranking sites. Or not? ozvuchte pliz your position on this issue.

I've not heard that such athletes as notag and I guess why (there is serious money, millions of dollars, not hundreds of thousands of rubles). Is the price of the contract, it publicly, but the "complicated", "demanded" - does not. Although the case is almost identical.

Again, about the position and the sound - my, your and P.Tyryshkina.

Here is Paul, in fact you are using it as a material, but he would not give his consent to use. He is outraged by this. Did you threaten him, rather than to understand - why he was so shocked. He has called you, and you give him a claim Syzran troll rubbing hands - started ...

That's it.

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzran ; 2315451"

it is necessary to buy

 

Сообщение от Olga Ozolina ; 2315471"

There is an electronic version:
http://artunion.ru/rating/electronic.htm

Annual subscription - 2970 rubles
.....
 Key words: " money" and " buy ", which highlights the version of Paul as a " personal opinion" ... (which will be one ). That's all.
"Someone ," "sell " and get the "money" and someone thinks it's cheating. "Someone" is not like a "Who's that , " not like that " someone" makes a fact of the existence of " Who -ies ."


 ... " something like that " ...

PS When someone on someone zarabatybaet , the insult that someone expresses their opinion on the ( calendar), earning one looks insolvent (IMHO)

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

"Someone" "sell" and get the "money" and someone thinks it's fraud.

Someone sells bread and gets money.
Do not like it?
Well, do not buy it.

[Pavel]

Сообщение от Olga Ozolina ; 2315441"

You are there more careful with claims to Taryshkinu "- first, it Tiryshkina , and secondly, I have explained , what are the claims to Tiryshkina , and his view of EXP here at what. Is socially accepted norms of behavior, and they have to follow any man , let alone cultural figure .

Wrong! It is a " rating" and you as the representative of his accomplice and my claim. About the adopted rules , you would do well to follow them and close your feeder. I hope you're not the art .
You have so much time on the site, but the majority did not understand the purpose and cause of your event called rating.

[artcol]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzran

Why?

Chess players, athletes, musicians, ...
artists is worse?

Come on, tell us, to teach us to live right out of Syzran

What is there for ratings?

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzran

Someone is selling bread and gets the money.
Do not like it?
Well, do not buy it.

So I say: Zaim productive activity, not Mayan ..