Sea Shells - not natural objects?

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • Not a Problem
I am CLOSING MY ACCOUNT because they allow people to complain when you start getting high scores and recognition. They took the fun right out of it for me. The category description for "Nature Up Close" says it is for photos of flowers, plants, trees and other natural objects. Someone complained that my SEA SHELLS were in the wrong category. Some shells were photographed next to a mirror, others were simply macro shots of shells on the ground or on a table. Yet they decided these shells were not natural objects and belonged in the "Artistic Objects" category which, according to the category description, can include natural objects modified from their natural form. I didn't modify or Photoshop anything...I just took macro photos of natural shells. Funny...no one complained or re-categorized the same type photos with lower scores. But, the higher scores - yep, they moved my photos to another category without even asking me me first - lost my scores and votes. I won't be wasting any more time on THIS site "clicking" and voting.
Photo of Nancy Faillo-Williams

Nancy Faillo-Williams

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • mad

Posted 6 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Martin Dunaway

Martin Dunaway

  • 587 Posts
  • 64 Reply Likes
Nancy you should post the pic here and let others let you know what they think!
Photo of Nancy Faillo-Williams

Nancy Faillo-Williams

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Already deleted them, not sure the upload is working on this forum, but I will try. I was going for an artistic look with the shells next to a mirror, but the Nature Up Close category description doesn't say a word about the keeping objects in their natural environment and or that we shouldn't get creative with reflections. But a shell sitting on a table? Come on ..that is just a shell. And then I read those comments about the abstract spiderweb and ...grrrrr
Photo of Nancy Faillo-Williams

Nancy Faillo-Williams

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Photo of Nancy Faillo-Williams

Nancy Faillo-Williams

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Photo of Nancy Faillo-Williams

Nancy Faillo-Williams

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Photo of Nancy Faillo-Williams

Nancy Faillo-Williams

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Photo of Nancy Faillo-Williams

Nancy Faillo-Williams

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
And this one was okay because it had a low image score?
Photo of Sherry Andreason

Sherry Andreason

  • 4466 Posts
  • 218 Reply Likes
We do not look at the image score when we move images, we do not look to see if they have won awards. It was simply missed.
Photo of Martin Dunaway

Martin Dunaway

  • 587 Posts
  • 64 Reply Likes
these all look like they would do very well to me Nancy! just post them into another category im sure they will do well!!. I posted the photo of the web drops to make a point. the abstract/patterns category is peppered with the wrong images as all cats are! I just want pixoto to try to get the rules straight. And do more to keep things right!.I don't get on here for the prize money! I could care less if they did that. I enjoy the site and will continue to use it. Weather i stay with a pro account or not i'm trying to see the actual benefits of it. Keep your head up! and most of all have fun thats what all this is about(forget the prizes and money)your photos are yours and everyones reward!
Photo of Nancy Faillo-Williams

Nancy Faillo-Williams

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you, Martin. :) I hope they will listen to you. They need clear and consistent rules. Yesterday, Sherry specifically told me that a photo belongs in "Nature Up Close" if the photo is a macro of a sea shell and the environment cannot be seen. One of my photos fit that description didn't get moved into "Artistic Objects" with the others. Today, someone complained about it so they moved it to "Abstract Patterns." I sure someone else will complain and have it moved to "Animals, Sea Creatures".
Photo of Sherry Andreason

Sherry Andreason

  • 4466 Posts
  • 218 Reply Likes
As stated in another thread and in private correspondence. If the images had been taken on the sand, where the shells were naturally found, rather than on a mirror where the background is unnatural, they would not have been moved. The mirror is the reason the images were moved to Artistic Objects, it is not a natural item, but a man made item. All of the pictures included in this thread also include a man made item.
Photo of Nancy Faillo-Williams

Nancy Faillo-Williams

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Actually, you said: "Shells in their natural environment (or macro shots where you can not see their environment) belong in Nature Up Close, but if you take the shell out of it's natural environment it should go into Artistic Objects."

Yet today, a macro shot of a shell, where the environment cannot be seen, was moved to Abstract/Patterns.

My frustration isn't with your repeated explanations about the mirror. My frustration is with the fact that your rules and category descriptions were not clear or consistent to begin with. And the fact that users on this site freak out if they don't agree with where a picture is posted.

I read the category description before I posted the photos. There was nothing saying that the photos could not include man-made items. And after the fact, I've seen several comments from other users with the same type of complaint. I'm sure it would take about 5 minutes to update your website. But, if you don't want clarify the category descriptions, then that's your choice. Just expect to keep alienating your customers, and repeating yourself over and over again.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.