The ratings has not such a big impact on the index.!!!
You can not lower the index by giving a photo 1 or 2 in rating.
The system is more intelligent than that.
For example if you behave bad on the site, like in this case, voting low on pictures that does not deserve it, it will affect your trustworthiness. So what I want to say is that if you in someway behave badly, the site will notice that and your reliability will automatically go down and next time your word will be less worth.

But as I have said earlier the way buyers react is the main variable for the index.

I just noticed a photographer with more than 900 images online that has been blasted to a 1.5 index and 99 % of  his images show a -20 on the little thingy on top. The blaster has 15 images online and seems to hate girls in bikinis because he gave a 1 on comercial and a 1 on artistic to all the models with bikinis. Is a matter of fact the blaster has 49%  of the ratings given at 1 247 one's and counting (maybe I am next but I don't have girls with bikinis). Now how can a person with such low number of images on a web site that does'nt review making easy to dump your whole hard drive into it, have such a voting power over someone that I would say has a decent amount of good images? I still feel that once the image receives an initial rating based on the photographer's index there is no reason why it should drop because another image receives a low score from a lazy blaster that instead of working on his own images wants to play unofficial reviewer and adquire brownie points from HAL (the computer in the movie 2001 Space Odissey)
Just an observation I like the site but I have had to block 4 unofficial reviewers allready. I don't like the up and down numbers based on the blasters. 
By the way all of the images that I have online have been reviewed on other sites and are selling there. I'm not dumping my hard drive into MP.

"He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone..."

MP may not be without faults - but they are trying hard and are open to suggestions. I like the site very much, I think it has potential, I think it may need to re-examine a couple of things...I think I will keep uploading 

MostPhotos has created a very unique community which I think is incredible when compared to all of the similar sites out there.  I do believe there is room for it and that it serves a void in the current marketplace.

One of the things that I like the most about MostPhotos is the fact that I get to be the judge of what I believe well sell. We all know there are photographers that have had a photo rejected for one reason or another only to have another agency pick it up and have it go on to be a best seller. However, along with the ability to upload anything comes with a distinct responsibility which I gladly accept.

I also like the way that MostPhotos has found a way to market a niche of more artistic photos that tend to get rejections at the traditional microstock agencies.

Mark

I agree.  whilst very hesitant I quite like it now, its something different from the normal micros, nice to be able to go a bit more artistic and not face the 'this is not stock' 'type of image' etc etc rejections.  hopefully we'll see sales improve and hopefully marketed towards the more artistic lines that the site seems to be moving towards.

Phil

Mostphotos - huh?
Well I signed up, but haven't started uploading yet. (so even though I dd use you as a refferal, don't expect any euros off my sales - for another year:)  anyway...
 Do you know if there is a way to search images by sales. I've been looking and browsing through the photos tis morning and haven't found one picture that didn't have 0 sales. -I'll keep looking

Also while getting 12EU for a sale and being able to skip any review process ar enice from the photographers views, I wonder how well they're doing in terms of attracting buyers. or what they're doing...

Scorche,

Thank you for the referral. Shoot me an email over on the MP website when you get a chance and I'll be happy to help when your online.

There is no capability to search by number of sales although that may come in the future as the site is growing its sales daily from what we here. They have been attracting buyers who have been making cash deposits for credits from what I have heard and have posted elsewhere here on MSG.

As far as actually seeing a sale ... I have had my first sale there and from what I have heard, without mentioning any names,  several other regular MSG members have sold there as well. There is a post titled "Who has had sales at MP?" which you can check-out at the following link: http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,3620.0.html

We all hope for more sales in the near future

Best of luck to you Scorche !

Mark

I made my first sale my very first day!

The MIZ

Quote from: RT on March 25, 2008, 13:42

Quote from: mwp1969 on March 25, 2008, 13:29

Many of these buyers have commented on the fact that they find photos at MostPhotos that they do not find elsewhere.

They should employ reviewers then !!!!!!

NO... that's the point... reviewers tend to reject images that the buyers WANT... buyers are changing their paradigm to want shots that don't look too highly polished or overprocessed... reviewers are kind of stuck in that plastic-perfect "look" that the microstocks have long chased after.

This is the good thing about MostPhotos! Buyers want to be able to look at images that did not go through that narrow funnel we know as the approval/rejection process at the microstocks.

If buyers want something different to microstock then sites like MostPhotos and PhotoShelter offer these sorts of images.  However, unlike MostPhotos, PhotoShelter check for technical quality etc.

There are some really impressive 'arty' images on MostPhotos that would look great illustrating a technique article in a photography magazine.  It's only when you look at some of these 'arty' images at 100% that you realise that they are technically flawed.  Then there are the ones that have just had a couple of photoshop filters applied to perk up an otherwise poor image.  Of course a lot of them would be still be adequate for web use so it's possible they may have a commercial value.

I just noticed a photographer with more than 900 images online that has been blasted to a 1.5 index and 99 % of  his images show a -20 on the little thingy on top...

By the way all of the images that I have online have been reviewed on other sites and are selling there. I'm not dumping my hard drive into MP.

One of the regular posters here has received some very low votes which are totally undeserved. They are from a gentleman who is obviously very jealous of her style and professionalism.  She has over 1000 images in her portfolio so to find the person giving these low votes and block him before he wreaks havoc on her rating could take sometime.

Like you I'm only uploading images that have been accepted at other stock sites.  It does look like some people have not been able to resist the temptation to upload images that they know would be rejected for technical reasons elsewhere.

Have I missed this discussion on watermarks?

It wasn't in the right forum area:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,3367.0.html

Regards,
Adelaide

The watermark is onley disabeled for buyers that have active credits. That meens that if a buyer have credits he will see all the photos without watermark, but if he dont buy any photos within a month his account will be inactive and the watermarks will be back on all photos.
Arian

The watermark is onley disabeled for buyers that have active credits. That meens that if a buyer have credits he will see all the photos without watermark, but if he dont buy any photos within a month his account will be inactive and the watermarks will be back on all photos.
Arian

I absolutely don't like that buyers can see non-watermarked images and feel that it is the wrong decision to make.

What this essentially means, is that a buyer can download an unlimited supply of blog size images for 25 euro.

What is to prevent a buyer from purchasing one image per month, and then downloading hundreds or thousands of FREE blog size images during that month (hence building their own library of images)?

I can't see any reason why a buyer "needs" a non-watermarked image.  None of the other stock sites do this.  iStockphoto and Shutterstock are the two largest microstock sites and neither of them displays non-watermarked images.  Neither do Dreamstime, Fotolia, StockXpert, or 123RoyaltyFree (the next largest agencies) allow this.

Most people don't understand copyright law and view the Internet as a FREE zone (as far as copyright law is concerned).  Software, music, and artwork are constantly being hacked, downloaded, and passed along as if they are all FREE products.

You are just perpetuating this thought process to your clients by offering a non-watermarked image.

Please reconsider your action and watermark ALL images.

What StockManiac said.  But louder.

How is it good publicity?  One right click and they do whatever they want with it, and I doubt that involves broadcasting where they stole it from or who created it.

PS there is an option on MP NOT to watermark your images.....that is my choice that I have chosen.