One of the discussion topics that is receiving the most attention regards the merit of the "Aesthetic Value" voting option. Some feel that by including this option, people are being encouraged to treat it as a "beauty pageant" and that is counterproductive to the main goal of the ratings. What is the main goal of the rating system? HMF admins feel (If I may sum up some of their statements) that it ought to act as a tool to emphasize the more useful photos; the photograph as "diagnostic" tool, or one which illustrates the honest-to-goodness behavior of the plant, warts and all. Sometimes the prettiest photos happen to be good "diagnostic" photos as well, but not always. Sometimes a casual snapshot of the whole plant, regardless of what other clutter might be in the photo, or how well lit and composed the image is, is the most meaningful to people who are shopping for a rose with certain features as their priority: bush shape/size, for example. We all want to have an idea of how a certain cultivar is going to look in our garden, and the best way of providing people with that information is to upload your photos of the rose in your garden. So the question is whether the photo ratings on HMF facilitate or hinder the process. If HMF wants to have a way to prioritize the most useful photos, then putting a system in place for participants to vote for image merit is a good approach. Voting for an image based on its "art" merit may or may not serve a purpose in achieving that goal. What is your opinion? How can HMF promote the best photos without turning the process into a beauty contest? This is currently an issue for HMF admin because more than one person has stated that they have either removed a photo because it got a "poor" aesthetic rating, or have refrained from including a snapshot of their plant for fear of receiving a "poor" aesthetic rating. Any and all ideas for avoiding perceived problems in this matter are welcome. Feel free to voice your opinion here and/or at HMF in the following discussion: Here is a link that might be useful: Photo ratings discussion on HMF

I've had this one saved in my favorites for while. The width isn't the same but I think if you have the length and the "visual" weight then a more narrow fixture might work. Here is a link that might be useful: Foyer light

Saved to my computer but not in my houzz ideabooks Wondering if anyone can link me to it

Don't know what thread you were reading. But you said you wanted the crust to be less thick and puffy than you are getting. Sounds like you don't want the thick armor of crust that I associate with some "fish and chips" shops. And sounds like the commercial product that was right-texture-but-too-salty was a dry mix in which you dip the moistened shrimp. So you might try making a thin batter of just water or milk plus egg, moistening the shrimp in that, then rolling lightly in your own not-too-salty dry mix of flour, salt, pepper, garlic powder, plus bread or panko crumbs, and deep-frying. I don't think it is necessary to get all mad scientist with baking soda, vodka, nanoparticles and dark matter just to deep fry shrimp - no-one's grandma ever did that!