wolgade wrote: Especially I don't want anyone to be discouraged from uploading assets. This could happen easily to new people who fear that they don't fulfill the standards.
That's the least, that should happen. And I didn't want to get crazy with the criteria. I'd use a definition for a good asset, which one might call common sense: is complete (obj-file, some very basic texture, thumbnail), there is no warning/error when loading the asset. After loading the asset on the basic model, the expected shape still can be identified (Just to avoid a lengthy "one fits all" discussion: we could add the distinction good asset on obese, busty, lean, etc model). Maybe evaluate if the asset is completely messed up or not when some sliders are set to extreme (e.g. fat and tall). Of course this definition could discourage beginners, but on the other hand it could also be a guide what to care for. And having some objective criteria for a good asset is still better than just a subjective opinion.
Some observation on the current rating system: A useful evaluation will result after some users have voted for the asset, so perhaps the evaluation shouldn't show up before a minimum number of votes (3-5) have been reached.
@CallHarvey3d: I have a Wacom, but this didn't help. I'm just too stupid for this kind of work ...