Archived and Closed
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: Solved
I spent all that time earning credits
I submitted Good images not crap that might just about reach the top 100
I spent all that time watching and boosting my images
I was voted to be in the top 50 of just under 400 images
And i get....... 87 points total ! thats for three awards 1 x 10% and 2 x 20%
Pixotos reason as far as i can make out is, they want to stop people getting to the top of the leaderboard on mass submission of images that only get 10 & 20% !
I worked hard to get where i am, i submit good images every week since i joined last year ! i am not always in the top 1% so yes i get several 10 & 20% awards !
I submit on average 6 images a day that costs me on average 420 points per day for the daily awards, for the weekly awards i need to boost them as well as all the images submitted for the previous up to 11 days and if i am not in the top 1/2% i get a whole load more... well actually less points would be a better description. as for the monthly awards forget it, an average of 41 days of aditional boosting from day 1 of the month is out of the question !!!!!
What is it you actually want Pixoto because all you have achieved with your "tweeking" is spoilt what you say is supposed to be fun ? or should that be fun for your selected 1/2% !
The Pixoto community has seen your work and they love it!! So much so that you have won some bling for your profile. Check out your awards:"
Your message to me today, all i can say is
"Woopy Do,!! Why Did I Bother ?"
Or is your point just to insult ?
Honestly- I don't want to be awarded for being in the top 20% in a category. That's like rubbing in my face that I wasn't good enough. What I do want is to be awarded for being 1st in a sub category.
While there is now a much better fish photographer entering photos I can't compete with- I did manage to be #1 in pet fish -every day- for at least 5 weeks. That's a big deal that not one knows. I have nothing to show for my accomplishment. Fish is an under scored subcategory that never reaches high enough to compete in the main category. Now it got way worse. Only one photo in the sub category even reached 600. And his photos are as good as a fish photo can possibly get! Why don't fish ever reach 750 like others photos? Its not fair at all. Whats the point of entering if its impossible to ever win? Fair play is important. I'm tired of struggling to reach over 500 with photo's like this
510 points. Really? Just how much more perfect a shot is there(other than close ups) This is a great picture of a Butterfly Koi. Maybe not a 700... but 510 is an insult
This one has 67/51 win ratio for a whole 558 score. In any other category- the same win loss ratio hits over 600.
I can honestly say- regardless of what I submit- in the last 2-3 weeks- nothing has reached 600. In my portfolio I eliminate all that score under 500 so you can't really tell how many I've submitted. It's starting to be a total waste of time. How was my work good enough before and isn't now. My submissions didn't change- the point system did. Why do some photos get dualed with high point images- boosting their score high- while others get dualed with low scoring photos- which keep your score low. Photos that are same quality as mine (not the Food guy) get dualed with a totally different set of photos then mine do. Only my dual line up is different. Do they designate what certain photographers are dualed with? seems like it.
Can you help me understand?
I am up there at the moment but when i get 80 od points and first is 2-6000 again depending on day or week i will be dropping places very quickly, places i fought hard to earn legitimatelly, !
I may be in the 10 & 20% bracket but that is not by choice i try to submit my best work and occassionally i get in the top 10 but thats actually very hard to do ! if i dont succeed i am downgraded to one of the ones we dont really want so we will humour them wiith silly points !
As for the monthly awards if the same logic is applied as has been on the day and week awards 2 or 3 wildlife photographers will end up with so many points they will be almost unstopable a couple more will leapfrog several of us and i along with many more will drop like a stone !
In order to be in the top 10 places it is top 2% for daily awards, top 1/2% for weekly and top 1/16 % percent for monthly awards in wildlife and there are now over 9000 players in that category so how many players will be having "fun" ?
As I have said in the past, competition will bring out the worst in people. When their is nothing to win or lose people will always say how wonderful your work is so as not to hurt your feeling but now you have thousands of strangers from all over the world comparing your work to others and voting on what they like better. Not which one is better according to the rules of art but according to the individuals eyes and the mind. The best way to keep up with the top players is to upload top photos that are popular as well as artistic. Take the time to learn what people like rather than trying to convince everyone to like what you have. IMHO
Andrew, thank you for your defence above, and as to the comments i have no problem accepting i am often out done by better photographers, there are some great images that i would aspire to achieve, my problem is the constant "tweeking" of the rules that the only reason is to elevate some photographers quickly into a position that took some of us nearly a year to achieve.
This dose affect me but is not all about me like i said the only people who will win from this latest of many Tweeks, is the top 1/16th - 2% of photographers as i mentioned above thats at best 98% of photographers who will lose out because the site is being manipulated to suit Pixotos needs, probably to do with getting the best to the top quickly ready for the stock photography coming in to play.
If that is the case it is not a fair competition any more is it ?
I may be wrong but if you think it through it makes sense ?
With the updated system you could submit a single, quality image a week (and spend all of 50 points submitting and boosting it) and get further than someone who submits 40+ mediocre images a week (and has to spend loads of time harvesting hundreds of points to submit all those images and boost them). Why would anyone be against this revision? It's encouraging photographers to spend more time editing their work and being more selective.
Am I missing something?
Yes the new points system is better for the top 10 images, but say there are 40 great images and 10 that are there just to get the points, the 10 should not be there just to elevate themselfs up the leaderboard, but 30 of the other 40 are also penalised because the top 10 beat them by a few votes.
the top 1% on average will get up whilst a large percentage of other great photos are penalised for submitting great shots that are not quite good enough ?
As for the "tweeking" 1st it was the duplicate significantly different rule, then the points were removed from last year because "it was unfair that some people weere elevated to the top on end of year points, now we are only awarding decent points to the to 10 even if 11 - 25 are great shots thats just tuff. and in several threads mention has been made as to how the algorythms are being tweeked to help this or eliminate that element.
Like i say i have no problem being beaten by 10 great shots but penalising me because i may be 11 - 25 0ut of 2000 in a week is daft, and when the monthlyawards come and we are talking about 8000 images but 10 get the points there is no way you can suggest that is fair to anyone but the top 10 (1/16th%)
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.