Category enforcement

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 7 years ago
Does Pixoto really care about maintaining category integrity?

I've just completed a jaunt through the duels and find insects in the animal category, images that to me appear to be sunrises and sunsets in weather and the list goes on ad infinitum.

Really folks, as photographers its obvious what the subject matter is....take a look at weather right now and you'll see a nice shot of a gentleman throwing a net as the top image......is this weather, REALLY????

If this place was being judged by PPA standards it would be a laughing stock.
Photo of Henry Shaw

Henry Shaw

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 7 years ago

  • 3
Photo of Jason Kiefer

Jason Kiefer, Official Rep

  • 2228 Posts
  • 359 Reply Likes
Henry - We definitely care about maintaining category integrity and we review every image that is reported. We also have somebody take a look through the top images (over 500 ImageScore) each day to see if any are grossly miss-categorized.

That said - we care quite a bit less about subcategories because they can be changed and any time with out penalty to the photographer. Subcategories are really there to try to give people who are searching for a particular type of photography the ability of find it. So if we have a few images out of place it shouldn't spoil the experience.

Also - weather seems to be one of the subcategories that most people get the most confused about.
Photo of Di Elderton

Di Elderton

  • 99 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Also transportation!
Photo of Trey Larson

Trey Larson

  • 158 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Insects ARE a subcategory of Animals, and, therefore, according to Pixoto, belong there.
Photo of EBR

EBR

  • 181 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Weather according to Webster: the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness. Other definition: Hour to hour, day to day variation of atmospheric conditions such as cloud cover, fog, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, temperature, visibility, and wind direction and speed.

IMO, the weather sub-category is just too broad
Photo of JoAnn Palmer

JoAnn Palmer

  • 457 Posts
  • 92 Reply Likes
yesterday my spider web dueled against a fish net.. hmmmm can't imagine a fish net was in the nature/web category.. in the furthest stretch. I guess you could call a fishing net a web. (fishing web maybe ) .. saying this with tongue in cheek...!
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
Regarding the fishing net dueling against the spider's web, it is fascinating isn't it? There is also a dragonfly doing rather well in the same category... There are also several photos of spiders without any apparent webs (not even a single strand) - as well as a number of photos of clouds, a picture of a little girl, a caterpillar, a couple of web-deficient butterflies, fern leaves with a drop of water, other leaves, a valley (sure there are millions of webs in the landscape somewhere), a lake, a web-free ladybird, a beach, and YUP - three pictures - remarkably similar of fishing nets.

Two photos of mine - of spiders' webs - WITH the spider still on the web - were recently (November) tossed OUT of "Nature - webs" by pixoto and placed in "Insects and spiders" - on the basis that someone had reported them as being in the wrong category. HUH?? So I queried this with pixoto and they let me know in no uncertain terms that this was the rule - even stopped responding to my emails (I only sent three). Probably think I'm a trouble-maker (oh well!) - so I gave up.

In the meantime, in the top ten of all time, are pics of spiders in webs... So - mine simply were the wrong species? Now, would I get a warning if I posted them back in Webs - since so many others appear to be allowed to do so?
Photo of Tony Wadham

Tony Wadham

  • 21 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Pixoto does not care about Catergory Integrity.

Nudes in Boudoir, Etc.,Etc.,Etc.,

They don't respond to emails and ignore reports of watermarks and wrong catergory.

Once they have your money, they don't care.
Photo of Jason Kiefer

Jason Kiefer, Official Rep

  • 3044 Posts
  • 414 Reply Likes
Tony - I'm sorry you feel that way. I do try to respond to as many comments as I can in this forum and I read every one. We also have 2 full time people reviewing category reports and they read every report and make the appropriate action (if warranted). That said we do rely on user reports so if it doesn't get reported it will go unchanged...

We do not move subcategories (i.e. nudes to Boudior). Subcategories are just for informational purposes and only have a moderate impact on voting. Also the photographer can change the category any time they wish with no penalty.

I hope this helps.
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
Pixoto Rocks Jason!

Tony - from my experience the Pixoto team most certainly DO respond promptly to emails (even if it is not necessarily what one wants to hear - LOL) and certainly DO address comments regarding watermarks, spam photos, etc.

But, Jason, PLEASE could the issue of webs be completely clarified then? To me it seems inane and insane that a photograph of a web should not contain a spider.

Clearly to many other photographers it also would seem to make sense that a spider web might conceivably hold a spider, since a significant percentage of the photos in the "Nature - webs" category contain one or more spiders in the photo - sometimes low level detail, sometimes close-up.

It is a bit like stating that photos of nests, or hives, should not contain any trace of the birds, bees, wasps, etc. which make and inhabit them, and if they do then they should be in the animals category? Crazy to me.
Photo of Jason Kiefer

Jason Kiefer, Official Rep

  • 3044 Posts
  • 414 Reply Likes
We are trying to make our categories have as little overlap as possible. So we generally base our categorization decisions on the main subject of the image. So if the subject of the image is the spider it needs to be in the animal category.

If the spider is only incidental to the shot then it can stay in webs. Obviously there is going to be a gray line in the middle.

I hope this helps.
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
Nope Jason - it does not help at all I am afraid. That "gray line" is an extremely artificial one - based on a premise which does not really take the relative aspects of 1) spider photography and 2) web photography into account.

Photographs of spiders - are taken to show the spider's features - eyes, pedipalps, even the thoracic or abdominal colors, etc. - but NOT necessarily to show the web - which in most instances are incidental to the photograph of the spider. Web photos which include a spider, on the other hand, are very seldom able to demonstrate detailed spider's features - leaving them less suited to a category such as insects.

So, despite the rule (with a gray line) there are photographs of spiders - where webs are implied, or completely absent in the subcategory nature - webs...

e.g.
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra... (currently at no 30 and within all time top 3% of nature - webs)
and
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra... (currently at no 93 all time)

Now - I would agree that these two above definitely could be rightfully moved to the animals category - where at least one would probably do rather well.

However, there are photos of webs - very clear, proper webs, which also have spiders in them...
e.g.
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra... (currently no. 7 all time in nature - webs)
and
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra... (currently no 43 all time in nature - webs)

It would be a TERRIBLE mistake to move these second two photos to insects - because the real photography was ensuring the plane of focus remained on the web, not on the details of the arachnid.
Photo of Mark Zouroudis

Mark Zouroudis

  • 908 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
Sorry Jason, I also have a issue with pics in wrong categories.

Here is the definition you show for backgrounds

"Backgrounds – Photos to be used as backgrounds for webpages, desktops, advertisements etc. Backgrounds should not have prominent subjects and leave room for other material to be added. Subcategories: Abstract; Business; Industrial; Nature; Templates; Holiday"

Have a look what is being posted there, everything from pics of flowers that belong in the nature up close to waterscapes that belong in landscape and even hoses.

The staff that are responsible to ensure category integrity may need to have a look and get onto the misplaced pics quickly before they win awards and take the rewards that other pics more rightfully deserve.
Photo of EBR

EBR

  • 181 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
One sub category of Background is Nature and according to Webster dictionary one of its definition says: natural scenery; the external world in its entirety...therefore, landscapes, flowers, waterscapes are just part of nature.
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
Thank you Edson!
Photo of Mark Zouroudis

Mark Zouroudis

  • 908 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
I see you have a pics in the background category Edson.
We are going by what the sites definition of background is and not Webster's definition of nature. The site definition of background is "no prominent subjects" and a pic of a flower in my eyes is a pic pominently of a flower and under definition would not belong in the background category but belong in the "nature up close - flower" category like a lot of the other pics of flowers that you have posted.
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
So would this one then surely Mark?

http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

although if you "cleaned" up the background to the reversed sunflower then it might also work as a background pic.
Photo of Mark Zouroudis

Mark Zouroudis

  • 908 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
Thanks for pointing it out gaiafrique, it must have been one I missed when I found out the correct definition of background. It is now moved to its rightful category.

BTW if I "cleaned up" the background, wouldn't that make the Sunflower even more prominent? Wouldn't that make it even less a candidate for background or do we have a different interpretation of what "prominent" means?
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
No problem - but I do think that some of the photos in background which DO have a dominant subject are still good candidates for background pics. Particularly those with a relatively monotone dominant subject, and flowers can provide that. Generally the voting sorts out the chaff - although some do slip through. Hope you've had a great Saturday - mine is just starting ;)
Photo of Mark Zouroudis

Mark Zouroudis

  • 908 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
So your thought is that it's OK to have a prominent subject in a background pic even though the category description says it shouldn't? I think that's the problem. A flower is much more interesting to view and stands out and is likely to attract more votes and awards. Awards have been won by pics that don't fit within the category description at the expense of other rightfully categorized pics.
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
Hadn't really thought of it in that way - i.e. getting more votes simply because a flower might be more eye-catching. Most of the good backgrounds DO have some or other focal point, a sunrise, tree, bird, etc. but I guess you make a good point about the vote catching.

Off to go and examine my background contributions! Thanks for keeping the debate going.

Before I go though - what are YOUR thoughts about spiders on webs? LOL!
Photo of Mark Zouroudis

Mark Zouroudis

  • 908 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
This pic is currently number one for the week in all categories. It's been submitted and has been competing in the Background category. How is this a Background pic under the site definition of what a background pic should be?

http://www.pixoto.com/albertbasco#ima...

It is a great pic though and probably would have done well in Landscapes -waterscapes or even boats
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
Albert's photo is excellent - and in my (very humble) opinion is completely acceptable as a BG submission. Many of the best photos in a number of categories (but especially backgrounds) would do perfectly well in other categories too, except that often the dominant focus is mostly not a single item in BGs.

Maybe what we should be asking Pixoto for is more sub-categories in the BG category though?
Photo of Abet Basco

Abet Basco

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you Gaiafrique, I am humbled by your kind words. though I could probably have submitted this in the landscape category, I see no reason why I could not have submitted this in the background category instead as it is completely acceptable as BG submission (in your humble opinion and mine too). I did submit other photos I have taken in this place in the landscape
category and did fairly well. In fact, just about 2 days ago, I have deleted one I submitted in landscapes about a month ago due to the " almost " similarity with the one I submitted in background. I lost 8,000+ points.

I totally agree with what you said that a lot of the best photos in a number of categories would do perfectly well in other categories and I totally believe that most of the best landscapes would do well if they were in background category except that they wont get as much points as they would probably get in the landscape category considering there are more submissions in that category than in the background. One would probably need ten #1 for the day in background just to get the same points as a single #1 in landscapes.

And though my image is currently #1 in all categories for the week, it does not get any award for being so, only on the category that I have submitted it into. It is only the distinction of being one of the top images for the week (most of them a lot better than mine). Though, to be honest, it would be great if there were an award.

I dont know why Mark is trying to single out my image or any images in the background category. Is it because it is currently #1 for the week in all category. Again, it does not get award for being so, only in the category it was submitted.

Thanks again for your kind words Gaiafrique. I appreciate it.
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
not kind Abet, simply honest - that pic is stunning and deservedly in the top places for last week.
Photo of Mark Zouroudis

Mark Zouroudis

  • 908 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
This is not a personal attack Abet. It is my assumption and pixoto (Jason) can clarify it for me and all of us, that the background category is there for people to be able purchase from Stock and use as a background for their text etc. This by definition would have to be a pic that does not stand out too much and would not overpower the intended overlay (be it text or other pics).

Your pic is a great pic but in my reading of the category definition is that yours and probably more than half the pics in background have been miss-catergorized.

I know you don't get a prize for being first overall but you do get a prize for coming first in the category for the week, in my opinion that has been achieved by dueling against pics that have been less spectacular (as they have kept within the category guidelines).

I don't participate in pixoto for the prizemoney or even the awards but I do like to play on a level playing field.

I guess if pixoto agree that your pic falls into the category guidelines expect many others to do what many others seem to be doing in this category and start submitting Landscapes, Animals and Flowers and pixoto will have no comeback because they have allowed pics like yours and many others to win awards by doing just that in this category.
Photo of Abet Basco

Abet Basco

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I definitely dont agree just because one have kept within the category guidelines would mean his/her image is less spectacular because I have seen so many spectacular images in this site. And that would be saying that my image is winning because most of the images that are being duelled with arent that spectacular?

Guys like Porsteinn and Peter Luxem have one of the best amazing shots Ive seen in that category, probably in all categories. and you are saying more than half of the background have been miscategorized. The category even rarely receives more than 80 images submissions in a day and gets their duel with the past images. Sometimes my image against my past submissions.

I do like to play on a level playing field. If the admin decided it to be miscategorized, so be it. I did not vote for my own image. I believe the image I submitted, though it could also be submitted in the landscape category, could be used as a background for desktops, webpages thus the reason I submitted it in the background category not because I intended to get more favorable points against less spectacualr images (as you mentioned). Actually a lot of images in this category are spectacular. Like Porsteinn images as Ive mentioned. Now that it is mentioned, do you mean landscapes could never be used as backgrounds for desktops. People dont just purchase an image from the Stock because it is the #1 image, they choose it because it is what they want and what they need, though I would admit a #1 image would have an advantage. If you really have an issue regarding miscategorization, dont just focus on one particular image or category especially on a category where you have just submitted. Let the admin recategorize my image if need be. I had one image recategorized before and accepted it gladly without any YAPPING.
Photo of Lady Gogou Reyes

Lady Gogou Reyes

  • 14 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Mr. Mark Zouroudis, What actually do you want us to submit in "Backgrounds category" (nature)? so you mean to say, the windows background that the windows are using which is taken by Mr. Charles O’Rear doesn't belong to the background category? and should be on the other category? if not, what exactly do you want us to post in that category? the photos you submitted in backgrounds category,
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra... and http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra... could also be classified and categorized as nature up close . so what exactly does backgrounds category (nature) means? in my own uderstanding, every living thing is a part of nature... Just asking..
Photo of Mark Zouroudis

Mark Zouroudis

  • 908 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
Yes my pics probably could have been submitted in Nature up close and yes they are nature but they are pretty unintrusive and would make a pretty neutral background and not interfere with what was being overlaid onto them. That is the difference in my eyes.
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
They certainly could have been submitted in Nature, however they are totally appropriate in BG Mark - I would very cheerfully use either as a desktop BG, or for a powerpoint presentation.
Photo of Mark Zouroudis

Mark Zouroudis

  • 908 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
I really don't want to get into a slanging match with anyone here. My opinion was and still is that the Background category was there for fairly non-descript pics without prominent subjects (as per the guidelines) that could be used as backgrounds.

"Backgrounds – Photos to be used as backgrounds for webpages, desktops, advertisements etc. Backgrounds should not have prominent subjects and leave room for other material to be added. Subcategories: Abstract; Business; Industrial; Nature; Templates; Holiday"

I don't believe a lot of pics in the category abide by these guidlines and contain prominent subjects.

Lets leave it up to Justin/Jason to make a decision.
Photo of gaiafrique

gaiafrique

  • 727 Posts
  • 129 Reply Likes
Lady Gougou makes the point very clearly for me - there are backgrounds - i.e. template type backgrounds for emails, cards, powerpoint presentations, etc. - which need at least 80% clear space - and then there are backgrounds - for windows desktop, etc., which need around 60% clear space - although since desktop icons can be placed almost anywhere - this "clear" space might be on top of flower petals, yacht sails, butterfly wings...

This (below) is a picture which, for almost ten years was my desktop background (pardon the dreadful quality - I am only a point and shoot photograph taker and this was taken with a 3.1 MP camera - which I still use occasionally)

http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

There was plenty of space on the photo for placing everything from my overly busy desktop, and I actually enjoyed the "compartmentalisation" because it provided clear separations for my work apps (GIS, Databases, etc.) - my picture things - etc.

Maybe the opening up of the "background - template" category for stock might help those who wish to place their 80-90% clear photos?

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.