If you don't comprehend signals, it's quite possible that everyone else is signalling (and thus signalling can be determined from their pictures) but you are not (and thus it can't be determined from yours). So looking at your own pictures isn't going to demonstrate anything useful.

I would prefer not to.

There is quite a bit of information.

There is the earring; there is the facial expression, the pose, the bright, harsh artificial lighting, the flower in the hair.

Let me consider the earring. The earring suggests both a pierced ear and sufficient disposable income to spend on the earring (and on the original piercing itself). The earring is large enough that it is designed to be noticed, to be seen; which implies that it is there to carry a message. It would be troublesome worn near live animals, small babies, or certain types of industrial machinery (or anything else that is likely to grab and pull); implying that she considers it unlikely that she is going to run into any of those in the near future. It also implies that she expects it to be seen; that is, she expects there to be enough people (probably strangers) around to see it. This requirement is, of course, fulfilled by the fact that the photo is going on a dating website; however, few people will purchase an earring for merely a single occasion. It is likely that the earring was purchased with the anticipation that it would be worn on multiple occasions, which in turn implies that the wearer of the earring would be seen by many strangers on multiple occasions. This implies an urban, rather than a rural, earring-wearer, as urban people are seen by strangers more regularly. (It doesn't prove urbanity, but it's enough evidence to update in the direction of urbanity).

It's probable that someone else can tell more from the earring, but that's what I see in it. (I haven't mentioned what else I see in that picture, because I am deliberately concentrating on a single signal for demonstrative purposes).

Do you believe that the print on a graphic T-shirt carries information? Or, say, smiling? Because that's what we're dealing with here: a set of generally understood markers that you can wear or signify through your behavior or its context. Just because you don't see or, presumably, participate in it doesn't mean that it can't be a viable channel for others.

I'm not especially keen on taking you up on your earlier offer, because it would be too easy to select unrepresentative photos. But imagine that some third party dug up... oh, let's say a hundred photos like these, of men of similar age and ethnicity. I'll bet at almost any odds that observers with typical neurology and relevant cultural experience could look at those photos and use them to gauge the subjects' social class, place of residence, musical taste, hobbies, and dozens of other things at rates better than chance. Much better, if they're good at it.

THERE. ARE. NO. SIGNALS.

That doesn't matter. Raters only have to think there are signals, and this subthread is an existence proof of such belief.

That said, the preponderance of "1" ratings AND the excessively high number of messages received suggests to me that there is in fact something weird going on. Dishonest rating would be one reasonable hypothesis, among several.

It looks like a signal to me. Maybe we're misinterpreting, but if so, we have multiple people making the same mistake.