Exactly! This is what I was trying to say in my initial reply. The OP, as I understood the original post, isn't talking about adding another category in the sense of selves of books in a library as much as adding a category of photos that just don't quite "cut the mustard" in terms of "quality".

Does my photo of Uncle Bubba's 12 year old Blue Tick hold the same "WOW!" factor as someone elses photo of 37 images of a sunset over the Himalayas stacked and Post Processed in 22 different editing programs? Probably not. But does that make it a "Lesser" photograph? Absolutely not.

Photography is many things and, among them, is "Art". Art is subjective. I've been a professional Musician since I was 13 years old (34 years and counting) and the single biggest lesson I've learned in those years is that, when it comes to artistic expression, rules are merely opinions. Your "rules" are no more valid than mine.

Whether is was intended or not, what we're talking about is elitism and an accepted alternate spelling for elitism is E-G-O. Put simply, your photos aren't as good as mine so they have to be posted elsewhere. There not worthy to share space with mine. Whatever the "Mission" of this site may be, I can't believe that that is the "Spirit" of the site.

If the lesser quality photos are pigeonholed into their own sub-forum all I can see happening is that the "good" photographers now have a forum they don't have to lower themselves to visit. Where are the lesser skilled people going to get help? The only people who will see their efforts are those deemed as poor as they are. See how that works? It doesn't.

There's already snobbery enough here and, while I sincerely feel that that's not what Brent is shooting for, that's what we're going to end up with, IMHO.