Author Topic: "Quality" rating of accepted images (Read 20917 times)

NYTumbleweeds · « **on:** January 20, 2009, 20:19 »

I just noticed that when you view all of your accepted images here you can search by the "quality" of your images (the quality being either excellent, good or ok). Certain images have been rated probably by the reviewer when they were accepted. Anybody know how this relates to a buyers search results? Considering this potentially is just the individual reviewers opinion I'd hate to think this puts your images back in a search result??

It appears that this is not consistently done on every accepted image

KB · « **Reply #1 on:** January 20, 2009, 22:38 »

I'd noticed this before, but never paid any attention to it.

I just checked and found that 0% of my images are rated as "excellent".

That's a real confidence-booster.

87% are "good", and 13% are "ok".

Here's the most interesting part. 29% of my "good" images have at least 1 DL, but only 13% of my "ok" images have a DL.

Is the lower performance of the "ok" files because of their rating, or is it because the rating is accurate?

Phil · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2009, 05:46 »

i really never looked at it, like you said not much of confidence booster, bit like editors picks at DT

13 excellent

2707 good
304 ok

not one of my 'excellent' stuff would I consider my best stuff, only 1 image in there that I really like. however there is some I really like in 'ok' including one of my best sellers and an image chosen as image of the day at crestock. just goes to show that everyone has different tastes

it doesnt seem to relate to how 'stocky' it is, there is a whole 7 downloads for the 13 images. 44 of my 304 'ok's have downloads although it drops to 1 download each very quick. I would guess it affects search engine but by how much is anyones guess.

Phil

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2009, 06:16 »

12 excellent (I don't agree with 7 of them)
3,061 good
332 ok (some of my best here)

Iriz · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2009, 06:50 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 21, 2009, 06:16

12 excellent (I don't agree with 7 of them)
3,061 good
332 ok (some of my best here)

Sounds suspiciously to me like they're using the same reviewers at Photocase.com

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2009, 07:04 »

Quote from: Iriz on January 21, 2009, 06:50

Quote from: sharpshot on January 21, 2009, 06:16
12 excellent (I don't agree with 7 of them)
3,061 good
332 ok (some of my best here)

Sounds suspiciously to me like they're using the same reviewers at Photocase.com

I don't think I would get 96% acceptance with photocase.com

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2009, 07:31 »

Quality does not mean quality! It means the reviewers oppionion of the image and it does determine its order in the search! Excellent in front and OK to the back.

If you was a buyer would you buy any of the Good or OK images if they were all the same price as the excellent ones? Not me! And they are all the same price. It's like offering fresh eggs or rotten eggs to a buyer and the price is the same! Stupid!

This image was rated "Excellent"

Five or six days later I uploaded 5 more with different wording otherwise exactly the same quality. (Image quality) They were rated "OK"
A little later I uploaded 6 more and they were rated "Good"

So the Quality rating does not mean image quality, it is only the oppinion of the reviewer and in my oppionion hurts BigStock sales. The rating can stay if they want it but it should not be part of the search, so that you or I cannot see it.

Complaints to BigStock fall on deft ears.

2 1/2 years a BigStock member,
-Larry

RT · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2009, 07:35 »

My guess is:

Excellent = I'll put that into my lightbox to copy later

Good = Part of a series, I'll only have to check one of them

OK = I can't believe they took a photo of that, but as I can't find anything technically wrong with it I'll let it through.

NYTumbleweeds · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2009, 10:33 »

Oh well... apparently not too significant! Thanks for the feedback

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2009, 10:50 »

Quote from: NYTumbleweeds on January 21, 2009, 10:33

Oh well... apparently not too significant! Thanks for the feedback

The search order is significant!
-Larry

NYTumbleweeds · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2009, 11:33 »

Quote from: Lcjtripod on January 21, 2009, 10:50

Quote from: NYTumbleweeds on January 21, 2009, 10:33
Oh well... apparently not too significant! Thanks for the feedback

The search order is significant!
-Larry

Of course it is! I hereby declare I want mine at the top!!

Tuilay · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2009, 12:02 »

Just wondering how many of your "excellent" had DLs. Betcha the reason why majority is OK means reviewer(s) thought, "These images are awesome, too much competition for my own and my buddies."
If not, I guess BigStock reviewers much prefer OK quality to Excellent (read as Excellent gets rejected by a certain reviewer).
Yet another reason to not waste time with BigStock.

sharpshot · « **Reply #12 on:** January 21, 2009, 12:17 »

Quote from: Tuilay on January 21, 2009, 12:02

..Yet another reason to not waste time with BigStock.

They are my 6th highest earning site, so I don't care too much about minor issues.

NYTumbleweeds · « **Reply #13 on:** January 21, 2009, 12:55 »

Quote from: Tuilay on January 21, 2009, 12:02

Just wondering how many of your "excellent" had DLs. Betcha the reason why majority is OK means reviewer(s) thought, "These images are awesome, too much competition for my own and my buddies."
If not, I guess BigStock reviewers much prefer OK quality to Excellent (read as Excellent gets rejected by a certain reviewer).
Yet another reason to not waste time with BigStock.

Most of my excellents have downloads but my oks also have downloads.

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2009, 16:55 »

Only 5 or my 395 are excellent. Only one I would consider excellent.

30 are OK. One of them is my bestseller in BigStock. Others are good sellers elsewhere but never sold in BigStock.

Regards,
Adelaide

MikLav · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2009, 17:03 »

I didn't notice that before. Objectionable splitting indeed... Some of my "Excellent" have 0 Dls, some of "Good" have tens of dls... All "OK" have 0-2 dls but some of my best pics are among "ok" - so it seems buyers might be paying attention to that.

Tuilay · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2009, 17:08 »

Quote from: MikLav on January 21, 2009, 17:03

I didn't notice that before. Objectionable splitting indeed... Some of my "Excellent" have 0 Dls, some of "Good" have tens of dls... All "OK" have 0-2 dls but some of my best pics are among "ok" - so it seems buyers might be paying attention to that.

not sure if i understand MikLav. how would it be that buyers are paying attention? you just said your EXCELLENT have ZERO dl. if buyers take the rating seriously, would you not be getting the most DL from the ones rated EXCELLENT?

stormchaser · « **Reply #17 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:48 »

I looked at mine for the heck of it. One of the "excellent" picks was a vector I did n about 5 minutes that I didn't even think would be accepted anywhere. It was sort of a test of the waters for a certain technique. Go figure. The ratings do seem quite arbitrary.

Fred · « **Reply #18 on:** January 22, 2009, 15:04 »

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

tan510jomast · « **Reply #19 on:** January 22, 2009, 15:33 »

Hey cheer up, I don't even have one rated Excellent

I'm mostly OK . I guess I will forget about submitting to BigStock from here on. They don't think too much of my images

Tuilay · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2009, 15:46 »

Quote from: tan510jomast on January 22, 2009, 15:33

Hey cheer up, I don't even have one rated Excellent
I'm mostly OK . I guess I will forget about submitting to BigStock from here on. They don't think too much of my images

from where i see it, you're doing well with DT even for a small portfolio. tan, i would concentrate on DT where the sales are coming for you.

Tim Markley · « **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2009, 16:15 »

1 excellent (less than 1%)
359 good (62.2%)
217 OK (37.6)

The one excellent really surprised me.

KB · « **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2009, 16:25 »

Quote from: Fred on January 22, 2009, 15:04

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

If it makes you feel any better, I have more than 2x as many images as you, and still not a single "excellent" rating. I should have over a dozen based on the "average" stats. I do have the 13% "ok" images, though!

hali · « **Reply #23 on:** January 22, 2009, 16:34 »

IT'S HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE. Don't worry be happy! Reviewer is probably myopic

MikLav · « **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2009, 17:15 »

Quote from: Tuilay on January 21, 2009, 17:08

Quote from: MikLav on January 21, 2009, 17:03
I didn't notice that before. Objectionable splitting indeed... Some of my "Excellent" have 0 Dls, some of "Good" have tens of dls... All "OK" have 0-2 dls but some of my best pics are among "ok" - so it seems buyers might be paying attention to that.

not sure if i understand MikLav. how would it be that buyers are paying attention? you just said your EXCELLENT have ZERO dl. if buyers take the rating seriously, would you not be getting the most DL from the ones rated EXCELLENT?

I don't see a contradiction. What I mean is that (I suppose that) buyers always select "Excellent" or "Good" in their search and simply ignore "ok". What they buy is a different story, that's why even "Excellent" might have 0 dls.

hali · « **Reply #25 on:** January 22, 2009, 17:23 »

Miklav, if that's so, than it's redundant. Good to know !

Perrush · « **Reply #26 on:** January 22, 2009, 17:30 »

total : 829

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

madelaide · « **Reply #27 on:** January 25, 2009, 15:28 »

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

Fred · « **Reply #28 on:** January 26, 2009, 03:56 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 25, 2009, 15:28

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

madelaide · « **Reply #29 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:06 »

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

Tuilay · « **Reply #30 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!

hali · « **Reply #31 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:16 »

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).

(late update: oops forgot this one...
6) prepare to woo reviewer(s)/owner(s) with Valentine.

(it's coming soon, Tuilay !)

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #32 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:28 »

Quote from: hali on January 26, 2009, 09:16

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

Tuilay · « **Reply #33 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:34 »

Quote from: hali on January 26, 2009, 09:16

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).

(late update: oops forgot this one...
6) prepare to woo reviewer(s)/owner(s) with Valentine.
(it's coming soon, Tuilay !)

SHOOT hali, this is the last time I'll ever share a secret with you. You can kiss your Valentine's Day present goodbye . Oh, btw, this weekend? No more bangers for you either

fotografer · « **Reply #34 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.

hali · « **Reply #35 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:43 »

Quote from: Tuilay on January 26, 2009, 09:34

SHOOT hali, this is the last time I'll ever share a secret with you. You can kiss your Valentine's Day present goodbye . Oh, btw, this weekend? No more bangers for you either

Fred · « **Reply #36 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:53 »

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

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

Fred · « **Reply #37 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:54 »

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.

This is similar to my experience. My best sellers elsewhere do nothing on BS and some of my best sellers on BS can't even get accepted elsewhere!!

Fred · « **Reply #38 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:58 »

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!

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

madelaide · « **Reply #39 on:** January 26, 2009, 10:50 »

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

fotografer · « **Reply #40 on:** January 26, 2009, 11:06 »

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: madelaide on January 26, 2009, 10:50

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

madelaide · « **Reply #41 on:** January 28, 2009, 15:22 »

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

Tuilay · « **Reply #42 on:** January 28, 2009, 15:35 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 28, 2009, 15:22

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 !

NYTumbleweeds · « **Reply #43 on:** January 28, 2009, 17:33 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 28, 2009, 15:22

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

woo-hoo! Go Adelaide

Fred · « **Reply #44 on:** January 29, 2009, 15:00 »

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

c h e e r s
fred

lisafx · « **Reply #45 on:** January 29, 2009, 16:27 »

My sales on BigStock took a big jump yesterday. Wonder if this is why? Perhaps the vast majority of my images which are okay got some exposure?

Phil · « **Reply #46 on:** January 30, 2009, 03:17 »

Quote from: Fred on January 22, 2009, 15:04

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

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #47 on:** February 04, 2009, 10:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 29, 2009, 16:27

My sales on BigStock took a big jump yesterday. Wonder if this is why? Perhaps the vast majority of my images which are okay got some exposure?

Just a lucky break for you! The image quality ratings have not been deleted or changed yet. How long does it take to change the programming? I have zero experience in programming so this is a mystery to me.

UPDATE:
Just checked it again and the "Quality Ratings" are gone with the wind. Thanks BigStock!!!!

-Larry