I think there may be a problem with the submission process

Hi People
Thanks again for a great plugin and standalone.
to get a good rating you have to have people use the fileter you have created..what if the user looks at you filter and creates there onw based on the one you did. Then the author you loses out. maybe a beter idea would be for downloads... i don't know its swings and roundabouts here.

People can already hinder the rating systems' effectiveness by choosing to not submit any usage data. After downloading, a filter is effectively 'in the wild', and since all filters are openly inspectable (which ultimately is A VERY GOOD THING that should never be touched!!!), they are out of control thereafter. Logically then, the act of downloading a filter should count much more towards determining popularity/usage rank than actually using it, because after downloading the usage data inevitably gets 'polluted' so to say.

The other way would be to force users to always submit usage ratings. To avoid 'polluted' data in this case, you would either have to give up the open-source character of the filters or somehow watermark them in a permanent way that survives editing and re-saving. Of course, no one can prevent reconstruction of a filter from scratch. Not a nice way of solving things, as this system automatically treats all users as ab-users, and plants the wrong seeds if you want a healthy community.

Coming back to the original thought, as somebody that is a potential buyer of this already great product, I was asking myself why in the heavens I would NOT want to have an author of a popular filter reap a well-deserved reward. Interestingly enough, I can't think of a single reason. The more users contribute, the better the product's usability and quality becomes. It just doesn't make sense to sabotage a product that you have invested or potentially want to invest your money in. You would be sabotaging one of the premium tools on your own workbench, which no sane craftsman or artist ever does.