Can, and do other agencies modify your image descriptions? I would think a quick note to the contributor would be in place. I have several that have been "added to" following a **NOTE:  after the description.

RE:  http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-3597842/

It's not a big deal, it's just that I'm not crazy about them suggesting the buyer purchase a smaller size...."of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Thanks Warren, I guess I never notice it before...

I haven't seen those types of notes before. Most of the sites would reject the photo if there were any graininess at all, so on the bright side, at least it has a shot at selling. But I do know what you mean. Some buyers may not even notice the graininess, depending on how it is used. I see why you wouldn't be crazy about them adding it.

I thought most sites offered refunds to buyers if they purchase an image they aren't happy with. So I don't understand why they would take the chance of losing a sale and pointing out something that may not matter. ??

I haven't seen any of those notes on my pictures yet, but BS does some other, very subtle but completely mysterious changes to the titles of my pictures.

Lots of my photos are wildlife, and usually the title is the name of the animal - common name and scientific name in parenthesis. As is common with scientific names, they usually have two words, first one starting with a capital letter, second one not.

What happens to me at BS (seems to be some kind of software problem, because it happens every time) is that the capitalization (<- is that how it is called  ) is changed for the scientific names - first word without capital letter in front, second with. Only in the Title, not in the description...

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-4876181/stock-photo-african-fish-eagle-haliaeetus-vocifer

Not that it matters, but this certainly the weirdest bug in IPTC processing I have ever come across...

I need to mention too that the specific image to which I refer is the picture of a white tail buck and fawn touching noses.  Big Stock suggested it should be used only in smaller sizes.  Dreamstime, Shutterstock and 123rf have all sold that same image for EL licenses.  Big Stock's loss?   

I need to mention too that the specific image to which I refer is the picture of a white tail buck and fawn touching noses.  Big Stock suggested it should be used only in smaller sizes.  Dreamstime, Shutterstock and 123rf have all sold that same image for EL licenses.  Big Stock's loss?   

This is just down right eerie:  that picture sold twice today on 123rf.  One is XL and the other is XXL. 

So there, Big Stock.  LOL