I've tried a search of this with no luck. . .so, I thought I'd ask.

I have noticed that scopes mounted with three rings there seems to be a divide. Some have two in the front of the dials and others rear of the dials. . .is there any reason for one over the other? If so, could you please explain why. Thank you.

The good folks at Weigand recommend two rings in the front -- where the scope takes the brunt of the force.

I think it depends somewhat on the scope and where they will fit.

If there is room, just stick 4 on there and and be done with it ;-)

If I can get them all on, I prefer four. If I use three, I put the two in front of the adjustment turrets.

When using 3 rings I always put 2 in the front to support the scope with the scope turret pressed tightly forward against the middle ring. The reason for this is that the upward force of recoil is like a rotating fulcrum with the pivot point being your wrist. The farther from the pivot point the more force so the front of the scope is subject to the most stress. Also the rearward force of the recoil combined with the rotating upward force will cause the scope to creep forward. The mid ring tight against the front of the turret will prevent that. This also makes the case for a rearward mounted scope as it imparts less stress on the scope than a more forward mounted one.
I also agree that if 4 fit go 2 and 2. The 4th ring is cheap insurance.