MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Sites that no longer exist => LuckyOliver.com => Topic started by: Seren on March 06, 2008, 09:09
-
Got a rejection from LO last week. It was just some bog standard shots of some eggs on a white background, feathered shadow underneath to ground them (as per my usual style). They were a little noisy I guess, because I shot them on my old 350D on ISO200, but that wasn't why they were refused.
They were refused basically because they were bad isolations. Stray pixels was the reason.
But then I looked at the portfolio of the "bouncer" who reviewed my photos, and found that they have a portfolio that has absolutely shocking isolations in! We're talking obvious on camera flash, focus on the wrong parts sometimes, white balance issues and worst of all... they had clearly been cut out using the pen tool, but they have left a tiny bit of shadow under the object! But not a nice feathered shadow just to ground the object, a horrid, horrid black line basically that abruptly stops!
My shots, although not perfect, were a thousand times better than that, and yet they were rejected! Double standards is not a good trait in a stock agency!
NB: I'm not adding which reviewer it was, or what shots they were, that's not fair at all. But suffice to say, between the patronizing note and the double standards, I'm not impressed!
-
I am not surprised that reviewers get preferrential treatment in their own place of work.
Many stock photo agencies are perhaps not big and organized enough to make the reviewers to stick to a strict code of conducts.
-
They are a (relatively) new agency, and I get the impression that they have recently upped their quality control. There was a time that they took anything and everything, I haven't sent in much this year, so I was quite surprised to get a couple rejections from LO - for example on photos accepted by DT, StockXpert and SS - so when you say "double standards" I believe that anything you may not think does not meet today's quality was submitted in the first couple years and would definitely not get in today.
LO wants to mark its territory as a mid-stock agency, so you would really expect the highest quality standards. You always hear the photographers say "if it's technically fine, accept it and let the buyers decide". It must be hard to draw their line. They certainly have photos that the other agencies DO NOT have, which means they can perhaps steal customers from a place like Istock, but also a customer from Istock is used to perfect isolations and may never return if they download those that you mentioned.
-
They certainly have photos that the other agencies DO NOT have, which means they can perhaps steal customers from a place like Istock, but also a customer from Istock is used to perfect isolations and may never return if they download those that you mentioned.
I would hope they wouldn't even download them. Even from a tiny thumbnail you can see all the above mentioned problems.
But hey ho. Just find it strange that they are the first to reject images when they have a pretty small library and small buyer base.
They're not really mid-stock either - the price for a large image is only $4, which is less than others! Mid-stock I would count as $50-$100 an image.
-
They are mid stock for those that have over 100 downloads and can set their own prices. I have a few there at higher prices.
-
As I pointed out in another thread, for reviewers, who are also contributors, to judge the images of their competitors, the issue of conflict of interest is inevitable.
Stock photo agencies should hire non-contributors to review the images of the regular contributors. LO is not the only one having this problem.
-
They are mid stock for those that have over 100 downloads and can set their own prices. I have a few there at higher prices.
Why does everything I read put me off the site?
That surely is just confusing to buyers?
-
As I pointed out in another thread, for reviewers, who are also contributors, to judge the images of their competitors, the issue of conflict of interest is inevitable.
Stock photo agencies should hire non-contributors to review the images of the regular contributors. LO is not the only one having this problem.
Totally agree, but it would be difficult to find people whit photography knowledge who aren't already contributors.
Even if they find some, many of the professional photographers who have not worked in the stock photography business doesn't have the same standards as even micros have I think. They rarely put the same amount of time to photoshop a picture. However, my studio teacher was not having it. :)
The better option would be to pay some contributers about the same amount as they earn whit their portfolio and whit their agreement, disable their portfolio. But that will also push the administrators to pay their reviewers much more. I know that reviewers are small paid so I don't think that will be the case for now
-
I am sorry, I simply cannot understand why some of our photographers cannot stand up for ourselves and are willing to find every excuses for stock photo agencies.
If your local government is running a deficit, can you, as a taxpayer, accept to have the same police officer who laid the charge against you to be the judge at your trial for your traffic offence?
Stock photo agencies should not hire the same person as reviewer and contributor. There are plenty of people and agencies around. If a person works for LO as a reviewer, this person can still contribute to other agencies. Reviewers get paid. If the reviewer's pay is small and unfair, you have the option not to be a reviewer but as a contributor. To have your cake and eat it is not ethical.
But this is not the reviewer's problem. Stock photo agencies should understand that a biased reviewer will deny the agency's opportunity to have the best photos online and make the most profit. This is common business sense too.
-
'You want to have your cake and eat it'
Well thats what I do with cake, I eat it. I've never bought a cake and then thrown it away.
-
my comments were removed by me as in the final analysis, they did nothing to advance the cause of this good forum or to maintain a good relationship with others here, with whom I have developed friendship. -
-tom
-
d
-
If you think it's an invalid rejection, you should write support. If a reviewer is doing something wrong according to their standards, they will (hopefully) instruct that person.
Although it may be a conflict to be both a contributor and an inspector, I think it's unfair to assume he/she will act unethically. If this is the case here, it is probably not an isolated event and reporting to the site will only make such behaviour clear.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Just out of curiosity the first question that comes to mind is:
How does one go about obtaining information about the reviewer who just rejected my images?
I can hardly expect with my experience to be able to perform such accurate detective work.
I have always been an advocate of stepping up the requirements for a reviewer.
Some reviewers lack the experience, know how, and the maturity required to perform those duties.
After all is said and done, I rest easy knowing that my images are in the loving hands of a mother of 3 children,
who is a stay at home mom, and earns extra money as a side line reviewer.
It might be of some curiosity for those who care that LO pays a premium to those reviewers who "Reject" rather than approve an image.
-
Are you sure about it ??? ? ?
-
In LO, you receive a msg with their name/nick, or you can see in the site (View old submissions).
Zymm also shows the reviewer's name (you are even oriented to write the reviewer, not the admin, if you have an issue).
Regards,
Adelaide
-
On the other hand... Just to clarify that I'm not some whinning babyhead.....
It's all part of the biz. Part of the game. To stop uploading because you may think there might be some bias... would not do you any good. It would only be your loss.
I have had rejections of every sort and kind from every one of the 12 agencies that are selling my stuff... and some of them I thought were bogus too.......
and yet.... I'm still uploading to all of them. It just goes with the territory fair or not. As long as those checks keep coming... I don't really care.
Seren... my philosophy is... "If one won't take it.... another one will and... they'll sell the heck out of it!" Keep the faith, Seren!! Don't let this get you down... just say to yourself, 'it ain't no biggie'. peace 8)=tom
Amen to that. The way that I look at it, if I myself don't like what a site is doing I close my account and move on. that's it
-
Just out of curiosity the first question that comes to mind is:
How does one go about obtaining information about the reviewer who just rejected my images?
I can hardly expect with my experience to be able to perform such accurate detective work.
I have always been an advocate of stepping up the requirements for a reviewer.
Some reviewers lack the experience, know how, and the maturity required to perform those duties.
Because they send you a cutesy message with each batch with slightly patronizing comments, with their NAME at the end of the message!
The thing that REALLY concerns me about this particular reviewer, is that they have a few photos, but almost their entire portfolio is fractals. No recent photos to speak of. And the ones that are there are not always technically good (see above comments).
So my images are in the hands of someone who mostly sells fractals. Makes me wonder if they don't sell as many photos there because they're either too good, or not good enough.
-
If you think it's an invalid rejection, you should write support. If a reviewer is doing something wrong according to their standards, they will (hopefully) instruct that person.
I never said it was an invalid rejection, it was fairly borderline with noise problems in my eyes. But they rejected it for "stray pixels". Well, there weren't any stray pixels because I shot it on a white background and didn't do anything to it in photoshop... so there was nothing to be stray! They didn't reject it for the obvious problem, which I thought was strange. Although saying that, it wasn't a problem on iStock and ShutterStock where they are anal about noise (I think I just see noise in all my old shots now, getting too used to the 5D!).
Was just pointing out, that the reviewer in question had extremely dubious pictures in their portfolio that frankly look worse than my mother can take.
-
Actually, LO should be given credit in having the reviewers sign the reports. That is fair, transparent and accountable.
I also understand why the reviewers get paid more for rejections. Because, if you reject, you have to give reason(s). If you approve, you only need to send a standard message.
I don't have any problems to have stay-at-home mom to review my photos. Her marital and parental status has nothing to do with her ability to judge the merits of the images.
Regardless if there are any actual biases, stock photo agencies should avoid the conflict of interest in a situation when a reviewer is also a contributor. That has nothing to do with whether or not a reviewer is actually fair or ethical, it is the simple principle of fairness and justice, if you want to run a serious and credible business.
-
If you think it's an invalid rejection, you should write support. If a reviewer is doing something wrong according to their standards, they will (hopefully) instruct that person.
Although it may be a conflict to be both a contributor and an inspector, I think it's unfair to assume he/she will act unethically. If this is the case here, it is probably not an isolated event and reporting to the site will only make such behaviour clear.
Regards,
Adelaide
+ 1 for this post!
The first thing to do would have been to write either write support at LO or to even take it to Bryan if you feel it is that serious of an issue. Complaining in such negative tones about a specific individual should not be done on a public forum like this. And to specifically slam the reviewer's art/talent in this forum in the manner in which you have is totally inappropriate if you ask me. This person has feelings too!
One of the great things about LO is that you do indeed know who the reviewer is - which is very rare in the industry. This makes the whole point of "biased reviewers" almost moot since you can go see their work. The other sites are hiding their reviewers so you can't even know if there's some bias or not!
Another unique thing about LO is the fact that you could have just written the reviewer back and asked for more explanation about the rejection - you can't get that with other sites since their reviewers are anonymous. All of the reviewers at LO are very open about giving you help and explaining why they rejected an image.
And, sometimes they do make mistakes - it isn't always just because their trying to put you down and supress your images. And maybe there indeed are "stray pixels" that you haven't seen. Often reviewers have found things in my images that i didn't see myself. That's why they're there.
It just seems the best course would have been for you to write either the reviewer or Bryan or support to find out more before coming here and dissing LO.
Mitch
Disclaimer: yes, i am the forum moderator for LO but i've also learned over the years that it is better to try to resolve an issue and get all the information before publicly making accusations. I'm not perfect, i've done that in the past too, but i'm saying that i've learned from my mistakes. It is far to easy to be negative on the internet since we aren't facing the person we're righting about as if we were talking face to face. I try to always post as if it were talking to that individual directly - makes things less confrontational.
-
my comments were removed by me as in the final analysis, they did nothing to advance the cause of this good forum or to maintain a good relationship with others here, with whom I have developed friendship. -
-tom
-
And maybe there indeed are "stray pixels" that you haven't seen. Often reviewers have found things in my images that i didn't see myself. That's why they're there.
You can't have stray pixels in an image that was shot on white and not isolated after the fact...
Perhaps the reviewer meant to say something else. I guess that's the flaw of letting reviewers write personal comments, and why I prefer iStock etc because you always get a clear rejection, rather than someone using terms that perhaps are ambiguous (that's not to say the iStock reviews aren't ambiguous, but you always know what what the terminology means because it's standardized).
The thing is, on iStock you can see all the reviewers portfolios and they're all extremely fine photographers. Why is lucky oliver using someone to review who doesn't appears to have a distinctly average grasp on photography? I've had a few over there that have made me think "hmmm, that's a little bit weird", but not questioned it until I've dug a little deeper now.
-
However, knowing the the world is filled with people of dubious integrity, I have no problem with a 'member' here giving a heads-up warning to fellow members of a possible problem. None of us is a strong and wise as all of us together. With the investigative power of our MSG family at work, we can make determination of such subjects. If we all find the possiblity to be invalid... then we can fix matters, apologize and, move on.
One incident of a photo being rejected doesn't indicate possible "dubious integrity" to me - especially without any followup investigation! If there were a series of incidents that would be something to report.
This week, I had one photo rejected at Dreamstime for being out of focus - yet 4 other agencies accepted the image... Does that mean i can come on here and claim that Dreamstimes inspectors have something against me or are doing something wrong?
This member should have asked the site itself to investigate the situation first before sounding a warning! We've all had incidents where we've had images rejected and blowing the horn first isn't usually the best choice. As we have all learned - rejections happen and 95% of the time, the inspector is right. But we don't come complaining of every rejection.
We have a responsibility as individuals to the companies that we supply to - we are expecting them to act professionally, yet we don't give them the same respect and should them the chance to investigate the situation BEFORE blowing the warning flag here is the professional choice to make.
How many people could possibly construe that LO is doing something inappropriate from Seren's post - when there's more likelihood that there's nothing suspicious going on at all? In my opinion, it isn't responsible to make accusations without more proof than one image being rejected (and again, yes, i've done it in the past and i've learned from that mistake).
-
I didn't find Seren's comments slanderous. 8)=tom
hmmm...
Was just pointing out, that the reviewer in question had extremely dubious pictures in their portfolio that frankly look worse than my mother can take.
Not exactly a nice thing to say. Maybe not "slanderous" but i would hope that it isn't something she'd say to the reviewers face - and by my way of thinking, then it shouldn't be stated here in this thread.
Edited to clarify
-
Not exactly a nice thing to say. Maybe not "slanderous" but certainly not something she'd say to the reviewers face.
Oh believe me, I would!
-
This week, I had one photo rejected at Dreamstime for being out of focus - yet 4 other agencies accepted the image... Does that mean i can come on here and claim that Dreamstimes inspectors have something against me or are doing something wrong?
Sure you can...that's what an open forum is for. Doesn't mean it will do anything positive OR negative, but it is surely your right to come in and vent. You certainly know that if Seren's comment were made on the LO forum that it would quickly be squelched....and her comment would only have been "slanderous" (maybe), if she had given the reviewer' name.
ah the freedom of speech! ;D
-
One incident of a photo being rejected doesn't indicate possible "dubious integrity" to me - especially without any followup investigation! If there were a series of incidents that would be something to report.
I was just using my photo as an example, I wasn't saying that I was peed off because that particular photo had been rejected. Hell, I don't really care, I'll just shoot it again because it'll only take a few seconds.
I was pointing out, that although they seem to be applying high standards, there are some extremely bad pictures in the reviewers portfolios, that combined with the fact that one in particular does not appear to be a photographer, is making me question their qualification and credentials. What gives them the right to inspect and reject my photographs (and other peoples) if they themselves do not appear to be able to take them?
After all, you would not want a photographer to inspect vectors or a videographer to inspect photographs, etc.
-
This week, I had one photo rejected at Dreamstime for being out of focus - yet 4 other agencies accepted the image... Does that mean i can come on here and claim that Dreamstimes inspectors have something against me or are doing something wrong?
Sure you can...that's what an open forum is for. Doesn't mean it will do anything positive OR negative, but it is surely your right to come in and vent. You certainly know that if Seren's comment were made on the LO forum that it would quickly be squelched....and her comment would only have been "slanderous" (maybe), if she had given the reviewer' name.
ah the freedom of speech! ;D
Dear anonymous, there's no history of squelching any discussion on LO's forums. I've read every post and moderated the Forum there since day one.
-
my comments were removed by me as in the final analysis, they did nothing to advance the cause of this good forum or to maintain a good relationship with others here, with whom I have developed friendship. - tom
-
Maunger... do you just have a thing about making something out of nothing? Not the first time you've done that and I'm sure it won't be the last.
I've reread my statement. It doesn't say the reviewer at LO has dubious integrity. It says that the world is filled with such people. And its implication is that this forum is a good place to make a heads-up. It was not implying or giving lead to this reviewer being one of evil character...... geezzzzzzzzzz. Lighten up, man....
Tom - i apologize for confusing you and not being clear - my comment was in intended to be about the comments Seren made - i wasn't intending to point at you. I'm sorry.
Seren - i apologize to you for not understanding that your first post wasn't about a specific rejection but more about the inspector. Your tone is what set me off the most... most people who are getting reviews from LO are applauding the inspectors for their detailed and helpful comments - yet you perceive them as "patronizing". I'm sorry that you feel that way. LO is always looking for feedback, why don't you send Bryan a note and talk to him about it?
Tom, i didn't say Seren's post was "slanderous" - you were the first to use that word in this thread. (I will apologize for my "hmmm..." post - i shouldn't have made that one). There are several comments in this thread that imply that both LO and this particular reviewer are doing something inappropriate and there are comments specifically targeting the reputation and abilities of a reviewer - yes, I do take offense to those statements. As i said before - i have learned thru moderating a lot of different forums (and from just flat out getting older) that personal attacks are rarely appropriate and do little good for anyone. Therefore, i have a policy of trying to be kind to each person i respond to as if i were talking to them face to face. I don't really believe that most people are willing to say hurtful things when talking to someone face to face. It is much easier to do when typing almost anonymous posts on the internet.
Yes, in the past I have just "vented" (and i have admitted that already) - but I've learned that much harm can be done by venting in such a public manner so i no longer do it.
Again, i believe the appropriate course of action would have been to contact LO management if there is some concern about an inspector's ability to inspect. It should NOT have been done here as the very first course of action. You said "I have no problem with a 'member' here giving a heads-up warning to fellow members of a possible problem. " - well i differ with that opinion. I will agree that it is good to work together to solve a problem - but the beginning of this thread and the title of this thread are bold statements that are (in my opinion) over stated. If the poster had discussed the situation with LO first, then maybe the situation could have been resolved without publicly making an issue. If it wasn't resolved with direct discussion, THEN this forum should be informed and could get involved in resolving the situation (again, that's my opinion).
I'm also sorry that you feel i'm making something out of nothing. When the reputation of a company I work for has been unfairly attacked (in my estimation), then I put up my defense mechanism. I won't "lighten up" when there are lots of people reading these threads and i just don't feel it is appropriate to imply that something is going wrong at LO and that a specific reviewer isn't doing their job correctly without contacting them first to try to resolve the question.
It is more difficult to undo the harm to a reputation later (you said "If we all find the possiblity to be invalid... then we can fix matters, apologize and, move on.").
Mitch
-
Mitch
Mitch... Your points well taken. I make all attempts to be a peaceable person. My experiences as a young man in the 1968 era American military and all that entailed, left me a person that has had quite his fill of anything but peace.
I hereby take back my remarks to you. Apologize to you and any that have read my comments and were offended.
I will remove my comments from this thread for the sake of maintaining peace and normalcy. I have no desire to be unwanted by the members of MSG.
On the point of LO.... I am a contributor and I continue to upload there. I have no cross to bear with Bryan or LO. I am not an LO basher. It is my hope that my work will eventually sell there as it does elsewhere.
Peace, tom
-
Seren - i apologize to you for not understanding that your first post wasn't about a specific rejection but more about the inspector.
I also understood that from her post, hence my own reply to her.
One single case of rejection would not condemn a reviewer, but Seren makes an interesting point about the reviewer's portfolio. How good photographers must reviewers be? I'm not sure they must be good photographers, but they must understand about photography.
I still believe that rejections we don't agree with should be reported. If a reviewer is not working well (even if he is seriously doing his job), the site management can correct him.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Seems I was the bad reviewer, for me an isolation has to follow the following standard: "When key wording/ describing an image as "isolated" and/ or "isolation" it has to be on a pure white (#FFFFFF) or other uniform background without any stray pixel and with well defined edges, so that a buyer can just cut&paste it with a few clicks." If the image in question doesn't comply with this standard I will reject it. If you don't agree with ANY review at Lucky Oliver then you are always free, and will get a response, by emailing Bryan at [email protected] BTW, I don't do isolated shoots myself for the simple reason that it is not the kind of image I like to take, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize a good or bad isolation when Is see it. I can assure you that I spend far more time with each image I reject then with the ones I accept. Regards, SY
-
Regards, SY
SY, the point I was making was not really about that particular isolation, or about the rejection notice you gave, but was actually pointing out the standards of reviewers photography.
It would appear that LO has an inherent flaw in that it allows it's reviewers to review ALL the submissions, rather than breaking them down into groups such as IS does (eg, digital, film scans, illustrations etc). It would appear that on LO you do not need the same credentials to be a reviewer as on places like SS or IS which concerns me slightly.
I understand now that perhaps LO used to have a far, far lower standard of acceptance than it does now, but those old and sub-par files should be deleted. I can't imaging how it looks to a buyer to see such shocking files to be frank.
[And actually, the rejection reason was "isolation needs more work, stray pixel", just the cute comment at the top said about FFFFFF and pure whites - I thought FFFFFF was a web term too, not a photography one]
EDIT - BTW, why when I submit a batch does it appear that random picture get reviewed? For instance, there were three (I think) in the middle of my last batch that are still waiting for review, when the rest of the batch were done a while ago?
-
Regardless of the merits of the OP's complaint, she has the right to discuss any of her concerns because this is a public forum. She is entitled to her freedom of speech as much as the reviewer's to defend the rejection. This discussion should not be moderated or silenced by anyone other than the owner of this website or the Big Brother (even the Big Brother has to be under the oversight of the congress, courts and people).
I do not have any personal problems with LO. My position is a matter of principle. However, it does not look good if LO employees can't stay cool about criticism in an independent forum.
Just want to add another perspective when I happen to see a post by the Content Development Director at IS, talking when he started as a newbie inspector:
"After having been spanked pretty badly (it still hurts late at night at times), I got into a conversation with Bruce and here is the magic phrase that he served me back then: ''When in doubt in deciding on a borderline file, look for a major reason to approve… not a minor one to reject.'' http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=413
Perhaps it's something to think about. By the way, I am not IS exclusive and still hate some of their rejections.
-
I don't understand why the agencies use photographers as reviewers at all. They will always be biased, even if they are not contributors. Designers would be more qualified as reviewers, since they generally know more about the usage of images, but strictly speaking: with proper training, most people would be able to do the job.
-
I don't understand why the agencies use photographers as reviewers at all.
Because they're probably the only ones that want to do it for a lousy 10cent per image. After all, microstock photogs are willing to sell 10MP perfect shots for just 25c, so they must be a special breed of masochists. ;D
-
Seems I was the bad reviewer, for me an isolation has to follow the following standard: "When key wording/ describing an image as "isolated" and/ or "isolation" it has to be on a pure white (#FFFFFF) or other uniform background without any stray pixel and with well defined edges, so that a buyer can just cut&paste it with a few clicks." If the image in question doesn't comply with this standard I will reject it.
Agreed 200%. But the OP has a point. I bought two images once on LO (with my free credits) that were "isolated" and when I tried the 1-click, it showed squares with near-white all over. I had to redo the isolation myself. I placed a comment on those shots at LO but they were still there when I looked last. Not even an apology of the contributors.
Two years ago I bought some isolated stuff from Andresr on CanStockPhoto and those shots were perfectly isolated. If I were a full-time designer, I would bear in mind that LO isn't good for buying isolations, and CanStockPhoto is. LO should clean out those early shots.
-
Speak to any successful designer and they'll all agree that the most important thing is that the subject is well lit, if it's a good isolation then that's a bonus, if not they might have a bit of work to do.
I work with two very successful design companies here in the UK, both have the same approach to buying stock, they are more concerned about the subject than whether it's isolated or not.
The benefit to doing good isolations as a photographer is that it highlights the subject better in search results thumbnails, a few stray pixels is no big deal to any capable designer if you know what you're doing.
-
Again, it wasn't a complaint about a specific rejection. I could just have easily used several other files as examples.
However, perhaps I should not have tagged it "isolated on white" and just had the tag "white background". I add the former because it helps it to sell on other sites. Will remember that for the future.
It had provoked interesting thoughts to me though about how I percieve sites to be run, and perhaps if they are coming across as a professional place to sell work. After all, the goal is to become professional - am I shooting myself in the foot by using a site that projects itself with a less than professional attitude, both in design and by informality and choice of staff.
-
Just want to add another perspective when I happen to see a post by the Content Development Director at IS, talking when he started as a newbie inspector:
"After having been spanked pretty badly (it still hurts late at night at times), I got into a conversation with Bruce and here is the magic phrase that he served me back then: ''When in doubt in deciding on a borderline file, look for a major reason to approve… not a minor one to reject.'' [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=413[/url]
This is exactly what our supervisors at LO tell us Bouncers to do. Best advice ever!
-
I don't understand why the agencies use photographers as reviewers at all. They will always be biased, even if they are not contributors. Designers would be more qualified as reviewers, since they generally know more about the usage of images, but strictly speaking: with proper training, most people would be able to do the job.
That's kind of a solution and a very good idea. Making designers as reviewers. If some was interested to do the job, on what I know it would be great.
-
When it comes to isolations... I seriously don't know why the agencies don't have an "isolated" category, and when a submission just happens to be a perfect isolation, the reviewers can add it to that category to. Apart for the stray areas of non-white, a true isolation should be free of a shadow as well, even though I prefer to see a shadow myself.