As a lifetime photographer since age 5, I can tell you it is of extremely low significance in the grand scheme of things. It is more likely to be grossly misinterpreted by people who don't understand what they're reading, than it is to be helpful to someone who understands it.

Exposure FORMULAS don't matter. PRINCIPLES matter. If you learn the principles behind the formulas others use, you can create your own formulas from intuition to suit the many situations you encounter. Seeing "f/8 at 1/125 second at ISO 200" doesn't tell me jack crap. What film or sensor format was used? What lens was used? What sort of lighting was used? Was any ND filter or polarizer or other filtration placed over the lens? Those are just a few of the hundreds of questions that would be possible to ask about those exposure triangle statistics.

Every now and then, some noob asks why UHH doesn't require exposure data be listed with submissions. They get insulted when you tell them it's mostly useless drivel without adding half a page of additional information.

Noob: "What settings did you use to make that picture?"

Experienced photographer: "If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand the answer. You would just use my settings in the wrong situation and think I'm an idiot or a liar trying to keep secrets. Go learn the principles of photography and you'll know what to do. The settings I used worked at that instant for that scene, because I applied the principles. Your situations will vary."

Good photographers are like good jazz musicians. They know how to improvise, based on the moment.

Do you mean to say that I need to spend more time here??

Tell me if I am understanding the point people are making about this issue. If the settings used for taking an image are included with an image, people who are new to photography will copy those settings and they will do that rather than learning the basics of photography.

Is that the only problem people have with camera settings being published along with an image?

I know I'll regret it, but I'll step in.

I can recall reviewing several lovely images of a photographer whose name I cannot recall, all of which were shot at f/22. I can recall being taught that, at f/22, one runs the risk of diffraction ruining the result, so I avoided it. Having reviewed this photographer's examples, I decided to give f/22 ... and, yes, even f/32 ... a try. The results have often been quite satisfying. I, of course, have no idea why that photographer chose f/22, and I don't give a rat's refuse. Still, I learned a lesson I have found useful, though I am nearly 150% certain others here will say I have erred.

UHH Photo Gallery guidelines follow the same curious logic:

"Try to include the specifications of your gear and settings in the post accompanying the pictures. Stating aperture, shutter speed, ISO would be great. Even better would be to also include your body and lens specs. This really helps others learn what settings work in various scenarios."

In the periodic main photography discussion topics about inclusion of exif in comments, there are many who want and who feel there's value. I am not one of those