i know what all this is about, so i won't slam flickr too much (and since i use it a lot, myself)....but it's soooo difficult to measure photographic skill/talent versus popularity on flickr. i'm always befuddled when i see someone who doesn't add to any groups and only had 100 contacts, and every single photo they post appears in explore and every photo has 4,000 views and 200 comments...and it's pictures of oranges on a table and shoes by the door or some such. and others have consistently fantastic photos and they have 50 views at best.
i'm also a little suspicious when every photo someone posts has thousands of views, regardless of quality. tommy o's stream is like that...he takes some fantastic shots. but his mundane/boring shots have the same number of views and comments. i mean, yeah there are lots of great shots on flickr, but so many don't really warrant the attention they receive.
but one of my faves is
michael pastur
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michael-pastur/he deserves some attention.
skorj doesn't like flickr all that much, but he does try to whittle his stream down to his 50 "best". and i like his stuff a lot, as well.