total : 829

excellent : 72 (9%)
good : 748 (90%)
ok : 9 (1%)

In a discussion in BigStock forum, I ended up doing some tests.

Quote

Searched for "heart illustration", because I have one image that is "ok".  In the standard search, it returns in 5th position of about 14,163 results.  In the popularity search, it returns in 10th position.

Searched for "dendrobium stardust", the three images are mine, and one is excellent (2dlds), one is good (0dlds) and another is ok (2dlds).  In the standard sorting, they appear sorted by quality.  In the popularity sorting, they appear by dlds, then by quality.

I agree that the quality is considered, but it is not the sole or even main criteria. My heart illustration image is one of my best-sellers in BigStock, so this somehow has a weight too.  All images ahead of it in the popularity sorting are excellent (6) or good (4), but the excellent ones behind mine had less downloads (up to 67 dlds vs 48 of mine). Yet many of the good ones behind mine had more downloads (up to 67 dlds vs 48 of mine). The second most popular ok one appears in 48th position ahead of an excellent one (51st) with more downloads (17 vs 11).

Searched for "cork board", because I have one image that is "ok".  In the standard search, it returns in 4th position of about 1,043 results.  In the popularity search, it returns in 13th position. Still in popularity, of the 12 images ahead of mine, 4 are rated excellent, 7 are rated good and one (the 11th) is rated ok.  The ok one had more downloads than mine (11 vs .  There are two excellents that had more downloads than mine (12 and 9 vs , yet they appear after mine.

So it seems to me that quality is just another part of the equation. So far, nothing to worry about. However, as I said before, I don't see consistency in these ratings.

Regards,
Adelaide

This is a very competitive industry.  Any edge - and I think this one is significant - makes a big difference.  Any edge just granted on the arbitrary tastes - or friendship or payback, etc, -  of some reviewer is completely out of line.

This stinks to high heavan.

fred 

C'mon Fred, etc... do you honestly think that BigStock is the only one who give certain contributors preferential treatment?    Look around and make a note of who gets Editor's Choice,etc...  Friends, partners,etc... do get the white glove EVERYWHERE.
Not just BigStock. Please, don't be naive!

Quote from: Tuilay on January 26, 2009, 09:06

C'mon Fred, etc... do you honestly think that BigStock is the only one who give certain contributors preferential treatment?    Look around and make a note of who gets Editor's Choice,etc...  Friends, partners,etc... do get the white glove EVERYWHERE.
Not just BigStock. Please, don't be naive!

LMAO, i can see Tuilay's list to "HOW TO GET 100% APPROVAL IN STOCK AND BE ON THE FRONT PAGE":
1) use your entertainment expense well.
2) get email addresses of reviewers (better still, the owners)
3) invite reviewer(s)/owner(s) out for bangers and ale
4) propose to reviewer(s)/owner(s) if hot looking
5) make reviewer(s)/owner(s) take oath to secrecy of association

Hmm? Tuilay??? (just kidding, taking a jab for all your previous flippancy).

Hali,
I'm glad your just kidding about Tuilay's post! (Side note: Tuilay gets it right most of the time!) But the fact is, if you want to be favored by reviewers or site owners, you must brown nose them at all times. If you "speak" negatively, even if it is 100% true facts, you get on the "Crap" list and you are treated accordingly.

I know this to be a fact. I'm on the Crap list.

-Larry

I have about 500 images on BS and 20 of them are in the ok catagory.  One of the images that is in the ok catagory has 350 dls on istock is my 11th best selling image there and another one has 250 and is my 15th best selling image. So they really don't get it anywhere near right at BS.

Fred,

Unless there is something wrong in the results that I haven't seen yet, I don't have a problem with the way rating is used. I would bother if before my images I saw irrelevant ones being picked only because of rating.

If rating is consistent, it makes sense to use it in the sorting criteria.  Not rating only, but as one of the factors. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Adelaide, I don't really see any consistency in the ratings.  If someone can tell me how they are done - one reviewer, all reviewers, etc. - perhaps they could be done fairly.   If they are done by reviewers on their own with no oversight  they certainly aren't likely to be consistent and reviewers would have a real incentive to play games with them.  Even if it is some kind of committee decision it is still a subjective measurement and really has no place in determining the order of results.  IS seems to do this right they have a rating system but as far as I can tell the best match ignores it.

c h e e r s
fred

C'mon Fred, etc... do you honestly think that BigStock is the only one who give certain contributors preferential treatment?    Look around and make a note of who gets Editor's Choice,etc...  Friends, partners,etc... do get the white glove EVERYWHERE.
Not just BigStock. Please, don't be naive!

I just call 'em as I see 'em guy.  Cheating doesn't impress me even if everyone does it.  If you don't like the way Editor's choices, etc. are done complain about them but don't get on my case for pointing out the flaws in a site.

c h e e r s
fred

I don't expect my BS sales to be anywhere near my Is sales but my point was that what they consider to be only  OK stock images are actually selling very well elsewhere.

Quote from: fotografer on January 26, 2009, 09:37

I have about 500 images on BS and 20 of them are in the ok catagory.  One of the images that is in the ok catagory has 350 dls on istock is my 11th best selling image there and another one has 250 and is my 15th best selling image. So they really don't get it anywhere near right at BS.

It's hard to get anywhere near IS in BigStock.  Nevertheless, as I showed, one of my best sellers in BigStock is an OK that appears very well placed in the seach page (unless, of course, a buyer chooses a quality level).

I need more tests to be confident on the importance of ratings, but it doesn't seem a huge problem.

Regards,
Adelaide

From Tim in BigStock forum:

Quote

HI all

All good questions. Let me try and help:

The Quality control is a conglomeration of internal rankings. That said, it's not always accurate. We know that. It's not perfect, and perfecting it would be really difficult based on the nearly 3 million live images... and even then, some shooters would be unhappy.

I think upon consideration, that we'll remove it until we figure out if we can make it more meaningful. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. It's this partnership that makes things better.

best regards,
Tim
BigStock Founder

I am not against the use of quality, I only think it needs to be more consistent.  While some of my "excellent" do not deserve this grade, some "ok" also do not deserve their position.

Regards,
Adelaide

-----------------I think upon consideration, that we'll remove it until we figure out if we can make it more meaningful.-------------------
aMEN, HIP HIP HOORAY  Tim !

Well, BigStock has certainly impressed me with their quick action on this.  Thanks Tim.

c h e e r s
fred

This is so open to abuse it is pitiful.  I can just see reviewers giving their friends and other reviewers plenty of excellent ratings.  Don't see how you could control it without some pretty close monitoring.

From the published numbers I can find the overall rating for the entire database is something like:


excellent      89,463    3%
good      2,314,937   85%
ok        336,552   13%

I've got 187 imagese with NO excellent ratings.  If I were average I should have at least 5 on a port that size.  Maybe this is why I have not sold a single image in over 2 months.  Getting close to saying good-bye to these guys.

fred

well I'm well below average   but then neither my best images nor my best sellers are the 'excellent' ones