Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Agree. What would AI possibly know about the commercial value of an image?  I don't shoot "pretty". I shoot "useful". I don't see any ratings on my stuff yet, but I guarantee my bestsellers will not s

If I were a  Yorkshire terrier I'd run to Wales (that might take me a long time with my little legs) and bite your ankle really hard with my little mouth and hope that my little teeth sink in a long w

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Pavel Rumlena said:

Changing your language to English may help:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elephant-leans-against-tree-big-tusks-1555122785  Rating: 9/10

At least the first two rows on your portfolio(Top) have ratings (I haven't checked more.)

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/green-rain-barrel-front-ivy-wall-1696736347 Rating 7/10

Now I see it. Thanks. What nonsense.

And that without Kate announcing as a great improvement, which we should be very happy about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Steven, it's not like that.

Why some images get this rating and others don't, I can't explain either. But what I can assure: I have some very old images that have been assessed by the AI. They have not been sold for ages. That can have nothing to do with recent downloads or views from my point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Former_Poster said:

"Predicted quality" with no idea what it means.

And neither do buyers as SS haven't explained it to them either.

This can harm our image a big deal.

Even if there were an explanation, the power of the suggestion of a low quality (say) 6/10 is so powerful that the buyer would search for another image immediately.

This really looks like they want to hurt us, by any means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sue Rae Edmondson said:

Next to the ranking is a question mark and when you hover of it you are given an explanation which states:
 "This score is an AI-based prediction of a rating a group of people would give this image for its visual appeal"

 

I do think using the term "Predicted quality" is misleading, they would have been better using the term "visual appeal" as that is what the explanation states the score is for.  Unless buyers hover over to read the explanation, they might assume its the quality of the actual image and if this is the case no buyers going to buy any images with less than a 10 / 10 score. 

Exactly. Buyers don't waste their time reading explanations but even if they would, since when has SS (or any agency) a mind reader AI?

Everyone (buyers) in his right mind would assume that the score was given on merit. What an arrogant move!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

Yes and for some time now I've noticed some new images seem to be getting an invisible rating. I mean, a photo uploaded two months ago, flew to the front on my collection, and stayed there.

Well, my new one is not getting any love from rating by better placement - it's down where all the newer ones are...

LOL!!

rating.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought about it again. I jokingly wrote that they could offer lower scoring photos cheaper. But that seems to me to be the only logical reason.
Once the system works perfectly in their eyes, they can say that it is fairer to the good photographers that the, for example, 6/10 photos are offered cheaper.
This has the advantage for them:
1 The photographers try to offer higher quality photos.
2 They earn more from the 6/10 photos.
3 Then the bad photos sell better.
Only the system has to be perfected and that seems impossible for many types of photos. (Sharp, but not commercial, etc.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pavel Rumlena said:

Changing your language to English may help:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elephant-leans-against-tree-big-tusks-1555122785  Rating: 9/10

 

My language is already English. But I tried changing it to something else and then back and still can't see the ratings.

Interesting that this pic is scored a 9/10 because it has never sold. But somehow it always stayed on the first few rows of my Top images. Now it makes sense.

I wish I could see the ratings though!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, balajisrinivasan said:

My language is already English. But I tried changing it to something else and then back and still can't see the ratings.

Interesting that this pic is scored a 9/10 because it has never sold. But somehow it always stayed on the first few rows of my Top images. Now it makes sense.

I wish I could see the ratings though!

I can't see these ratings either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When we signed up we agreed to be a research guinea pig from time to time and I am pretty sure this is one of those times.

Although I do think that the rating has nothing to with the quality of the image itself, but more with the salability of the image for the intended market, I am wondering if only the owner of that account/portfolio can see that or if it's public.

Nevertheless, if it's public, I will immediately delete all my pictures minus one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thijs de Graaf said:

Here your mountains. My computer every time change from English to Dutch in Shutter.

bergen.jpg

 

Thanks. I still cannot see it but no matter.

I switched my language into French (I speak French) and, interestingly, my top images changed from what was displayed in English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I retract my previous theory.  In an attempt to figure out the basis for this rating, I looked at the rating of my first 500 portfolio images (yes, I'm retired).  It still doesn't make a lot of sense.

Logically, I guess we should take their explanation of this rating at face value, "It's an AI based prediction of the rating a group of people would give an image for it's visual appeal."   If that's the case their criteria for visual appeal should be exactly what we look for in a good image, one with a balanced uncluttered composition, properly exposed, with good color and contrast. 

Is their AI capable of doing that?  Based upon it's ability to review images, I WOULDN'T think so but given the arrogance SS has shown of recent date, THEY might think so.  While I didn't consistently agree with their rating of my images (in my review}, it did seem to rate my "less professional" images lower than those I was actually "proud of".  

Like what has already been mentioned by others, sales and views probably has little if anything to do with this rating.  While most of the images I reviewed were rated, a number were not.  Why I have no idea, however, my older images seemed to be more often unrated than those recently submitted.  This could be that these images fall below their rating system's "threshold" or they just haven't gotten around to them yet.  Time will tell.

I could be wrong (again) but, I think this is just what THEY say it is, Shutterstock's (AI) estimation of our images' "Visual Appeal".  Right or wrong this is just one more thing we'll have to live with (if we stick around).

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

SS really need to stop treating contributors as an inconvenience and explain to them the additions.

If its going to affect image sales or revenue people need to know how it works and how to adapt to it.

They need to be open about what the thing does and how it works in enough detail to be useful.  And things like ratings, authentic should be trialled privately with contributors long before being exposed to the public to buy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Former_Poster said:

SS really need to stop treating contributors as an inconvenience and explain to them the additions.

 

Ah, but we are an inconvenience, human people who demand money for work, not AI who would produce images on demand without complaining.

And the day is not far before this inconvenience is done away with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a test:  These two images were recently uploaded together, one was rated 10/10 the other unrated. Obviously, the subject matter is not particularly appealing and they still sit together in my portfolio as they have since being uploaded.  While I could be wrong, I assume this means neither has received any attention by potential buyers. 

The question is, "What was so appealing to SS's AI that one image got a 10 while the other is unrated"?  Can you guess (with out looking at the answer below)?  The rating system appears to be on par with the review system, IMO.  

Answer: The first one is highly appealing, while the second images wasn't worthy to be rated.

F S Jello Mushrooms 5.jpg

F S Jello Mushroom 4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect unrated is because it hasn't trawled through all of image catalogue yet to rate them all.

It'll take a fair few server resources for the Artificial Stupidity to work through 300,000,000 images and assign them a completely random AI rating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This lovely new addition to the exciting news new features isn't available to me yet.  I can only guess at the ratings that my images have.  Maybe not knowing is better.

I am giving Sstock a 'predicted quality rating' with regard to their communication with contributors about this new innovation (and the vague possibility that someone might bother to read this thread and actually respond):

0/10

(If anyone can find one of my images with 10/10 please let me know.  I will then spend 300 worth of subscription downloads on a bottle of bubbly to celebrate).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...