Are you sure you/they are not talking about the "normal" rating. Quite often inspectors give an "initial rating" which logically would be taken into consideration of the best match. For example they see something that they think is exceptional and give it an initial rating of 5 which then in turn gives it a boost in the best match. Rating by fellow contributors though it has been stated has no bearing on the best match.

Quote from: aeonf on January 08, 2012, 11:53
Can't state the source but it came from a friend of a few inspectors.
They have a rating of 1 to 5 and this rating is another paramater which gets taken into account (out of many others) in the best match.
Believe it or not is your choice but it does seem logical to me.

It's no more logical than a 'person' boost, but it might help explain why I've seen wrongly-titled/described/keyworded files at the top of the best match (not counted last year's ingestion waves).

I've posted before that I felt an inspector ranking system was a possibility. I wondered about this because some of my new images start off really high in the search while others seem to immediately get dumped to the back.

To me this would make sense since IS doesn't seem to be overly critical on aesthetic value so they let a lot of stuff in to see how it does. So I can see where a nothing-special image gets a low ranking while a nicely executed image gets a higher ranking.  Or... maybe even an inspector's buddy get's a favorable ranking where someone who is constantly bashing inspectors gets a poor ranking. Hmmmm.

From my personal experience, inspector's initial rating does not have anything to do with sales.

Quote from: rubyroo on January 08, 2012, 10:15
Surely this must be a precursor to dividing up the library by taking images considered 'low quality' out of the main collection and selling them only via the PP (or the dollar bin, if they still have it).

Oddly enough, this image which was included: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2847026-best-friends.php, is titled "onePrac1Dollar": http://usability.gettyimages.com/onePrac1Dollar.jpg

Quote from: Freedom on January 08, 2012, 12:34
From my personal experience, inspector's initial rating does not have anything to do with sales.

I've found it to be a kiss of death, in general     similarly with sales straight out of the newly accepted queue, i.e. before it even gets into my port.
I haven't noticed any of my few IR pics getting a preferential best match boost.
But this wasn't whant aeonf was talking about.

But again, IF they are going to start rating photos based on a person who works at istock's values and judgment, they are assuming THEY know what a buyer wants. If the purpose is to cull the low qualities to PPs, THEY are once again making choices for buyers. Why don't they give it a rest and stop trying to manipulate everything? The good photos will rise to the top because of sales. THOSE are the ones the buyers want, and the buyers will make the choices.

I don't see how buyers can make choices from a small, random number of images in a survey, and then istock follow through with those choices on millions of other images. Each photo might find a purpose (and therefore a sale) depending on each individual project. If they are weeding out technically bad quality photos, weren't they supposed to do that when they initially inspected them?

Maybe it's just a facade of pretending to care about what buyers want to get them back? After all, nothing has really changed in years regarding istock listening to what anyone (buyers OR contributors) suggests.

Quote from: cclapper on January 08, 2012, 13:56
But again, IF they are going to start rating photos based on a person who works at istock's values and judgment, they are assuming THEY know what a buyer wants.

Isn't that the purpose of an inspector?

What about the other sites where the inspectors more frequently weed out stuff for Low Commercial Value? Isn't that deciding what a buyer wants? In this case, instead of rejecting it they're allowing it in and just giving it a different weight in search results.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 08, 2012, 14:09

Quote from: cclapper on January 08, 2012, 13:56
But again, IF they are going to start rating photos based on a person who works at istock's values and judgment, they are assuming THEY know what a buyer wants.

Isn't that the purpose of an inspector?

What about the other sites where the inspectors more frequently weed out stuff for Low Commercial Value? Isn't that deciding what a buyer wants? In this case, instead of rejecting it they're allowing it in and just giving it a different weight in search results.

There's at least one iStock inspector who has an even lower dl/ul ratio than my pretty poor rate, despite his pics being studio/model/commercial stuff, so I'm suspecting he had a near-100% acceptance rate and what they're interested in in technical pixel-peeping ability.
Mind you, I've had some weird 'technical' rejections, including one for 'hot or dead pixel', which was a spark from the bonfire visible in the photo.

Reading others' comments and thinking a little further...

Perhaps what they're doing is re-assessing the inspectors' rating criteria by comparing it to a sample of buyers' ratings.

@ Sean.  Strange about that image with a '1dollar' name!  I wonder if they've ever renamed images at Getty according to their own categories?

Quote from: sjlocke on January 08, 2012, 12:46

Quote from: rubyroo on January 08, 2012, 10:15
Surely this must be a precursor to dividing up the library by taking images considered 'low quality' out of the main collection and selling them only via the PP (or the dollar bin, if they still have it).

Oddly enough, this image which was included: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2847026-best-friends.php, is titled "onePrac1Dollar": http://usability.gettyimages.com/onePrac1Dollar.jpg

That's quite a big unwatermarked image. 

.

Quote from: cobalt on January 08, 2012, 15:08
.

I agree totally. 

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 08, 2012, 15:16

Quote from: cobalt on January 08, 2012, 15:08
.

I agree totally. 

Why do you do that, are you afraid of Lobo? Now I'm really curious what you 2 agreed on

Quote from: aeonf on January 08, 2012, 11:53
Can't state the source but it came from a friend of a few inspectors.
They have a rating of 1 to 5 and this rating is another paramater which gets taken into account (out of many others) in the best match.
Believe it or not is your choice but it does seem logical to me.

In 2004 (when I started) those initial ratings were explicit - you saw them. The default on a file was 3. You might get a 4 with a comment (here's an example of that). Another example here. I also once had an initial rating of 1 on a raster illustration that I guess the inspector didn't like - I can't link to that as I deactivated it, furious at the 1 rating. It was a temper tantrum but for a while that file was my best seller at SS, so that made me feel better. I do have a file with an embarrassingly not-white background that got an initial 2. And in this initial 2 on an uninspired shot they noted the focus could be better - something BigStock also used to do.

I don't remember when they stopped the initial ratings on all files, but it may have been when the ratings were being used to game search position. After that you'd only see it if they gave it an initial 5.

jsnover has the correct answer. intial ratings are only given if the inspector really likes the file, but it has no effect on best match.

Quote from: cobalt on January 08, 2012, 17:58
jsnover has the correct answer. intial ratings are only given if the inspector really likes the file, but it has no effect on best match.

Interesting.  I wondered why some files had ratings and who the people were rating them.  I thought that perhaps it was a holdover from the previously mentioned system gaming.  I can see names of people who rated the images.  Are those the reviewers?

Many people in your creative network rate your files even today. But it was a lot easier, when we could see the fresh uploads from our network on a seperate page.

If the rating is from in inspector it will just say "initial rating".

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 08, 2012, 18:06

Quote from: cobalt on January 08, 2012, 17:58
jsnover has the correct answer. intial ratings are only given if the inspector really likes the file, but it has no effect on best match.

Interesting.  I wondered why some files had ratings and who the people were rating them.  I thought that perhaps it was a holdover from the previously mentioned system gaming.  I can see names of people who rated the images.  Are those the reviewers?

No, that's if someone sees your file coming through the new files system. There seem to be some people who hang out there rating files they like - you might notice the same names come up again and again.
If you get an initial rating, that's exactly that it says: "initial rating". You don't get a name.

I don't think the inspector initial rating system is new news. It's been around for years, years ago you used to received ratings from 1-5 - but now it seems it's only used for 5s.

Surely you're not suggesting they have initial ratings and then another internal invisible rating system, that would be rather redundant and superfluous.

Boy oh boy - I am much too slow... Go JSnover!

^^ I was not talking about the user ratings of 1-5, these are useless in the best match.
I was talking about an INTERNAL inspector rating hidden from users. A way for them to help better photos "stand out" and worse ones to get buried.

Well, I guess 'being a pal of an inspector' might explain why this contributor's photos, including this one
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18651402-african-elephant-in-green.php?st=8e9dc86
have been dominating the best match for 'African Elephant' for weeks now. (This one's at position 37, there are several above it, though they've descended a bit since last week.)
And maybe why a Meerkat, by an indy serial spammer, is BM1 on a search for 'lemur'.  

Quote from: ShadySue on January 09, 2012, 13:40
Well, I guess 'being a pal of an inspector' might explain why this contributor's photos, including this one
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18651402-african-elephant-in-green.php?st=8e9dc86
have been dominating the best match for 'African Elephant' for weeks now. (This one's at position 37, there are several above it, though they've descended a bit since last week.)
And maybe why a Meerkat, by an indy serial spammer, is BM1 on a search for 'lemur'.  

He might have a pal but "African Elephant in green" is a poor image, has only 15 views and no downloads, and probably never will have any. But I take your point.

Quote from: aeonf on January 09, 2012, 08:55
^^ I was not talking about the user ratings of 1-5, these are useless in the best match.
I was talking about an INTERNAL inspector rating hidden from users. A way for them to help better photos "stand out" and worse ones to get buried.

^^^ Yet another absurd conspiracy theory entirely without foundation. Or maybe there's even a third rating that Lobo uses to hit people he doesn't like on the forums? Maybe aliens are really controlling things from the Planet Zogg?

Quote from: gostwyck on January 09, 2012, 15:51

Quote from: aeonf on January 09, 2012, 08:55
^^ I was not talking about the user ratings of 1-5, these are useless in the best match.
I was talking about an INTERNAL inspector rating hidden from users. A way for them to help better photos "stand out" and worse ones to get buried.

^^^ Yet another absurd conspiracy theory entirely without foundation. Or maybe there's even a third rating that Lobo uses to hit people he doesn't like on the forums? Maybe aliens are really controlling things from the Planet Zogg?

Well, I know it sounds ridiculous but it really wouldnt surprise me the slightest,  if members like yourself, me, Lisa, Baldrick, etc, etc, are so much in their bad books that we are recieving the special treatment of:  as few sales as possible.
This is easy to orchestrate. Would be an interesting thing to see what the, fair trading dept would say about this. I would not put anything past these guys. Rock bottom.