Currently the #2 babe has 483 wins, 222 losses, for a 68.5% win ratio. Her rank is 60.8%.

The #4 babe has 211 wins, 25 losses, for a 89.4% win ratio. Her rank is 57.7%.

The #4 babe is clearly doing better, but she’s being punished for not having been involved in as many comparisons. This is not fair. Think about a picture with 100 wins, 0 losses. It should have a perfect score, but won’t; it will even have a worse score than a picture with 300 wins and 100 losses.

I’m not trying to be annoying, I’m just trying to help give fairer results

I suggest that you just go for a win/loss percentage ratio. This is fair to all pictures, regardless of how many comparisons they’ve been involved in. However, it’s prone to unreliable results for pictures with very few comparisons, so don’t give a ranking until a picture has been involved in a certain number of comparisons, eg. 10 or 20 or 50.

Having the rank as a percentage is not good. It makes it seem like it’s a percentage wins figure, or a percentile, when it doesn’t seem to be either, right? If it’s just an arbitrary number, don’t use a percentage. Also, the spread is very small — the most popular shots are in the 50s, the worst ones are in the 40s, that’s not much variation.

Also, a “worst 21″ listing would be great.

Finally, the “x% of people agree with you” figure is frustrating. Most of the time it is 0.0%, presumably because the pair hasn’t been compared by anyone. But it might be that 0 of 3 people disagreed. The two cases aren’t distinguished. Better would be something like “3 out of 4 people agree with you”.

Thanks!