What bothers me is that the kinks I'm seeing are correctible. Has anyone else noticed that all the art on Yerf is starting to look exactly alike? Same stylizing, same coloring techniques, same this, same that. They're favoring the people that draw similarly to themselves and really I think that's unfair. For the past few months I've been checking it out and there is a strong inconsistency as far as accepted works goes. Granted, it's their perrogative of who they accept or not, I just wish it wasn't under the guise of 'fair critiquing.' I've noticed that people who draw the cartoon style are less likely to get in. People that draw realistic has to be "As realistic as the ignorance of the judges." Before I get wailed on for saying that, I'll just mention that I don't mean 'ignorance' in a deroggatory sense. But I've seen people give kudos to works for it's 'realistic anatomy' when it is anything but. Recently I saw an application slammed for it's inaccurate anatomy which was much more realistic than someone who was recently accepted with GLARING anatomical errors. But the latter person was praised for their anatomy. This isn't nitpicky "anthro could be anything" errors either. These are "This animal couldn't possibly function" realism errors.
I kinda wish that Yerf would make some judging guidelines, or if they have judging guidelines, to make them public. It would be nice if they judged in a, ironically enough, dog show kind of way. They judge each piece individually based on points for what it -should- be. Does it get the point across? Is it eye pleasing? If it's stylized, does it follow that style? If it's photoshopped, does it use a cheap filter, or does it use a cheap filter like any other tool?
Just my thoughts. If I ever draw anything decent in the next few months I might apply.