MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This one takes the cake  (Read 6673 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« on: February 03, 2015, 03:27 »
+3
http://www.canstockphoto.com/forum_read.php?id=6465

Quote
I have submitted photos of White-breasted and Red-breasted Nuthatches with are sepecies of BIRDS. They have been stuck in the reivew que for as much as 5 months because the name of the bird includes the word "breast" in them.

FYI, species of these birds actually sell very well on other sites because they are popular among people that feed/watch birds.

Is is REALLY such a difficult problem to deal with? I have contacted support several times and I get a response saying that these are apparently very difficult subjects to review and have to be sent up to someone higher on the review chain to determine whether in fact these are photos of birds or naked women.

Is this REALLY such a difficult situation to resolve?

You may not know that the term "Bird" can be a bit degrading to women in some societies. I am considering deleting my entire portfolio of over 4,000 images, most of which are photos of "BIRDS" because I don't want to offend your reviewers or customers. My next payout should come very soon, so please make a decision before then


Must be very frustrating to get such rejections.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2015, 04:09 by Semmick Photo »


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2015, 03:38 »
0
Are the 'normal' reviews there done by machines?

Me


« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2015, 03:57 »
0
Are the 'normal' reviews there done by machines?

Any joking aside, I have always thought it is automated, certainly an initial pass is anyway. Images get rejected for "submitted before" but they haven't, only similar images from same location. I think a programme picks outs matching points in an image and auto rejects if a number is exceeded e.g. if three or more points match then auto reject for "submitted previously".

Semmick Photo

« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2015, 04:06 »
0
Good points both

Semmick Photo

« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2015, 04:08 »
+1
Shady & Martha,

Have you have ever had similar problems as to the OP? That some words/names for birds or wildlife would get you incorrect rejections?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2015, 04:10 »
0
Shady & Martha,

Have you have ever had similar problems as to the OP? That some words/names for birds or wildlife would get you incorrect rejections?
Never, but I'm not on CanStock etc.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2015, 04:13 »
0
Shady & Martha,

Have you have ever had similar problems as to the OP? That some words/names for birds or wildlife would get you incorrect rejections?
Never, but I'm not on CanStock etc.
Yeah,  I was asking in general, you submit to Alamy as well, but they wont get confused like CanStockPhoto. :)

Just wondering if there are more rejections on words like breast etc, because that could indicate automated reviews as you suggested. Any human would make the connections and pass the image.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2015, 04:19 »
+1
Shady & Martha,

Have you have ever had similar problems as to the OP? That some words/names for birds or wildlife would get you incorrect rejections?
Never, but I'm not on CanStock etc.
Yeah,  I was asking in general, you submit to Alamy as well, but they wont get confused like CanStockPhoto. :)

Just wondering if there are more rejections on words like breast etc, because that could indicate automated reviews as you suggested. Any human would make the connections and pass the image.

Indeed; though Alamy keywords are added after acceptance, so it wouldn't apply there.
It was this quote "and have to be sent up to someone higher on the review chain to determine whether in fact these are photos of birds or naked women." which was the giveaway. Either they have blind and/or stupid reviewers or it's machine-driven.

« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2015, 04:39 »
0
 Guys, I think automated reviews are sci-fi :) From my point of view it is nearly impossible to create reliable automated reviewing software. Firstly, approval would be instant and as we know on many sites we wait for review. Secondly, the software would need to deal with legal issues, copyrights, model releases and missing releases not only keywords or quality issue. No software can make judgement if the photo is still ok or no-go. A man must do that. Software can give hints but it is allways up to reviewers to make a judgement. And thirdly, such a software would be very expensive and under a constant need to upgrade and update which would make it not very practical. In the case of problematic keyword: as far as I know Canstock accepts nudes so their system has to accept related keywords. I just think image got lost in the system. Have you tried reuploading? It helped in my case several months ago (but I had no problem with keyword just with some stuck images).
« Last Edit: February 03, 2015, 04:49 by Fyletto »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2015, 04:48 »
0
^^^ So what do you make of CanStock's support response to this issue?

« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2015, 04:53 »
+1
I still think it is a bug of somekind. I tried searching "bird" and "breast" in their system and the result was over 3000 images...

Me


« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2015, 05:09 »
0
Guys, I think automated reviews are sci-fi :) From my point of view it is nearly impossible to create reliable automated reviewing software. Firstly, approval would be instant and as we know on many sites we wait for review. Secondly, the software would need to deal with legal issues, copyrights, model releases and missing releases not only keywords or quality issue. No software can make judgement if the photo is still ok or no-go. A man must do that. Software can give hints but it is allways up to reviewers to make a judgement. And thirdly, such a software would be very expensive and under a constant need to upgrade and update which would make it not very practical. In the case of problematic keyword: as far as I know Canstock accepts nudes so their system has to accept related keywords. I just think image got lost in the system. Have you tried reuploading? It helped in my case several months ago (but I had no problem with keyword just with some stuck images).

Shutterstock have confirmed previously they have some form of proprietary software for reviewing (came out at IPO if I remember corectly) but software to check images meet certain specs would be easy e.g. minimum pixel count, minimum MB size, recognition software, certain banned keywords, etc are all basics which a software programme could reject immediately without processing to a person for a full review. Think of the savings.....
1,000,000 images submitted, reviewers paid $0.05 per image = $50,000 whether image accepted or not
Software cost $25,000 and $5,000 annually updated (pure guesses!) which rejects 25% of all images based on criteria = $12500 saving each year on reviewer payments, only takes a few years to get retrun on investment and then software is saving you money.

If it was my busines I would certainly look very seriously into it as a cost saving option.

« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2015, 05:50 »
+4
I can't believe it  :o

That's why seven images of Red-breasted Geese from me (example of one of these) are stuck in pending since early November.

That's so ridiculous.

Canstock, get real!!! That can't be serious, what a joke  ;D ;D ;D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2015, 06:22 »
0
I still think it is a bug of somekind. I tried searching "bird" and "breast" in their system and the result was over 3000 images...
These may be the ones which a human got round to reviewing, eventually.

« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2015, 08:22 »
+2
unbelievable !

Also, on canstockphoto, submitting .eps illustration takes forever to go to pending for editing ... ! Why not just uploading ourself the jpg preview.

« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2015, 08:38 »
+2
Of course in Britain nuthatches are called tits - I wonder how they deal with that keyword?  For example, what about an image of the great tit (Parus major)?

« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2015, 08:41 »
0
For example, what about an image of the great tit (Parus major)?

Or a pair of them? In breeding plumage, no less...  :o ;D

« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2015, 09:01 »
+6
Yes, how about this for a caption, "Two great tits ready for breeding"?

BTW, I just did a search there for "great tit" and got 1220 results, all of them (at least on the first page - I didn't look further) of the bird.  So there is no reason for the OP's images to be delayed. 

« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2015, 09:52 »
+7
Of course in Britain nuthatches are called tits - I wonder how they deal with that keyword?  For example, what about an image of the great tit (Parus major)?

Well, originally it was titmouse, wasn't it? Not that you ever hear them called that. Uploadting a pair of blue tits pecking at nuts on a cold morning would probably throw them into a complete tizzy!

Semmick Photo

« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2015, 10:13 »
0
LOL !

Too funny guys

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2015, 11:02 »
+1
Of course in Britain nuthatches are called tits - I wonder how they deal with that keyword?  For example, what about an image of the great tit (Parus major)?

<pedantic mode> Actually, nuthatches are called nuthatches in the UK; Tits are related to chickadees in the US - but Titmouses (or are they titmice?) in the US are different, just to keep us divided by a common language.
I'm certain that most of my Flickr hits on avian tits are by people looking for the other kind.

Just got this related link (Blue Tits)https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153548510847306] [url]https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153548510847306[/url]
« Last Edit: February 03, 2015, 11:52 by ShadySue »

« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2015, 12:45 »
+2
Sorry, yes of course you are right - I meant to say chickadee.  With all this talk about great tits I wasn't thinking clearly.

OK, back to work.

« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2015, 13:40 »
+1
Everyone wants a business that runs itself with no employees.  The guy at FAA is very close. But of course, he never reviews anything. 

objowl

« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2015, 16:43 »
+1
Guys, I think automated reviews are sci-fi :) From my point of view it is nearly impossible to create reliable automated reviewing software. Firstly, approval would be instant and as we know on many sites we wait for review. Secondly, the software would need to deal with legal issues, copyrights, model releases and missing releases not only keywords or quality issue. No software can make judgement if the photo is still ok or no-go. A man must do that. Software can give hints but it is allways up to reviewers to make a judgement. And thirdly, such a software would be very expensive and under a constant need to upgrade and update which would make it not very practical. In the case of problematic keyword: as far as I know Canstock accepts nudes so their system has to accept related keywords. I just think image got lost in the system. Have you tried reuploading? It helped in my case several months ago (but I had no problem with keyword just with some stuck images).

Who said it was reliable?
As to sci-fi just take a look at your camera, if only a tenth of the imaging software in that was used for reviewing it would be enough for some agencies.  If that is not enough then they just have to compare the exif data from  proven sellers, tens of thousands of them, with uploaded images and if they don't tally they don't get in.  I'm sure that by now they have enough data to build up an ever improving algorithm, just like they do with their search software, and as they will tell you resubmitting images helps them to improve their systems. 

« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2015, 23:53 »
0
Shady & Martha,

Have you have ever had similar problems as to the OP? That some words/names for birds or wildlife would get you incorrect rejections?
Never, but I'm not on CanStock etc.

Hi Ron,

I'm coming late to this conversation. And the answer from me is YES!!! But I've never been on Canstock, so it wasn't there.

Can't remember if it was SS or DT or FT or (long ago) IS, but I do recall having some really nice images of a Tufted Titmouse rejected for "indecent description" or some such.  Tit-mouse. Get it?

And also, sometime in the past, when I included the keyword "peep," which is a common birder's term for a sandpiper ("Hey, look, there's a whole flock of peeps over on that sandbar!"), especially when you're not sure what kind of sandpiper it is ('cause they can be verrrry confusing), that image got rejected too.

Those had to be robotic reviewers, because the subjects in question were clearly not pornographic unless the delicate viewer can't bear the sight of unclothed birds. :-)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2015, 00:40 by marthamarks »

« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2015, 01:35 »
+6
Well, this site does automatic rejections, too, and produces some strange results. I can't write * without it being deleted.... errr - that is c.h.u.c.k.i.n.g.  I was trying to write. To the best of my knowledge the verb to chuck (do I have to write "to c.h.u.c.k") has no obscene meaning (the worst meaning I know for it is to vomit), but an automated review automatically rejects it (while allowing tits, which does have a dodgy meaning in some contexts... so I can write "I was * some rubbish out when I saw some lovely tits on a girl across the road" and the wrong word will get deleted).
Automation is wonderful, isn't it. Now, about auto-correct on ipads....

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2015, 09:26 »
0
And also, sometime in the past, when I included the keyword "peep," which is a common birder's term for a sandpiper ("Hey, look, there's a whole flock of peeps over on that sandbar!"), especially when you're not sure what kind of sandpiper it is ('cause they can be verrrry confusing), that image got rejected too.
Those had to be robotic reviewers, because the subjects in question were clearly not pornographic unless the delicate viewer can't bear the sight of unclothed birds. :-)
The rejection of 'peep' was probably iS, back in the day. There still is no DA of peep to sandpiper, only 'looking'.
IIRC, the original Getty CV was UK English, and 'peep' isn't used here for Sandpipers. I know the use from having birded in the US; we call them all (not just sandpipers) 'waders' (not the high wellies! [Where wellies/Wellingtons/Welington Boots = gumboots in the US, I think]).

« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2015, 10:13 »
0
"Peeps" is quite standard here in birder-ese.

I just Googled "peeps birds" and the first entry that came up was this from Birding magazine:

https://www.aba.org/birding/v40n4p32.pdf

See the left column on the 1st page. The first words are: "The peeps, common slang for the five smallest North American sandpipers..." 

And the 2nd page headline reads: "American Peeps: Approach to an old problem."

Clearly, my robotic reviewer was not a birder. :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2015, 10:43 »
0
"Peeps" is quite standard here in birder-ese.
Clearly, my robotic reviewer was not a birder. :)
Maybe not an American birder. Like I said, it's not a universally used term.
But on iStock, even if they were personally familiar with this birding slang, they would still have to reject it, as it's not in the CV.
It could only map to 'looking', which would probably be wrong unless your sandpipers were clearly 'looking' at something in your images. It's how the CV works. And if someone searched on 'peep' or 'peeps', they're going to get a lot of pictures with the keyword 'looking'. You could ask for peeps to be added to DA to sandpipers, if you were still there, but as you're not, it's moot.
Nowadays, despite claims to the contrary, it seems any old keywords get in, unless Keywordzilla is on the prowl rejecting even relevant words.

To be fair, I just searched on Peeps on SS, and clearly I'd be far better to search on Sandpipers. Even peeps birds wasn't all that great without excluding vectors etc. as there were lots of birds (misc) peeping out from behind things.

« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2015, 13:18 »
0
I always thought Peeps were those little marshmallow chicks you see at Easter - I'm surprised those aren't in the iS DA, because a Google search on "peeps" gets you marshmallow candies

« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2015, 13:20 »
0
I always thought Peeps were those little marshmallow chicks you see at Easter - I'm surprised those aren't in the iS DA, because a Google search on "peeps" gets you marshmallow candies
It is.

« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2015, 13:53 »
0
I always thought Peeps were those little marshmallow chicks you see at Easter - I'm surprised those aren't in the iS DA, because a Google search on "peeps" gets you marshmallow candies

Peeps is a brand name for those marshmallow candies, isn't it?

Well, as we all know, the English language is rich and varied. And like every other major language in the world, there are wide disparities between countries, and even within countries.

For example, here in the US, a flavored carbonated beverage is variously known as a "soda", a "pop", a "soft drink" or (in some very regional areas) as a "Coke" (for the original brand). And I bet there's an equally diverse name for that product in the UK, Canada, and Australia.

« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2015, 15:49 »
0
I still think it is a bug of somekind. I tried searching "bird" and "breast" in their system and the result was over 3000 images...

you wouldn't also search for cock , chicmen , and balls , did you?
cock , chicmen , according to wiki a male gallinaceous bird, usually male chicken (Gallus gallus).
balls, as in those things that tennis players love to grab four in one hand  ;D

« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2015, 16:02 »
0
I still think it is a bug of somekind. I tried searching "bird" and "breast" in their system and the result was over 3000 images...

you wouldn't also search for cock , chicmen , and balls , did you?
cock , chicmen , according to wiki a male gallinaceous bird, usually male chicken (Gallus gallus).
balls, as in those things that tennis players love to grab four in one hand  ;D

Personally, no. I wouldn't search for any of those terms.

However, an avid North American birder looking for general information on the five species of small sandpipers, rather than search for each individual type of bird, might well Google "peep" or (more likely) "peeps."  It never occurred to me when I attached that keyword to an image of exactly that kind of little critter, that anybody would see anything dirty or inappropriate in it.

Guess I'm just too innocent of mind.  :o

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2015, 16:16 »
0
I always thought Peeps were those little marshmallow chicks you see at Easter - I'm surprised those aren't in the iS DA, because a Google search on "peeps" gets you marshmallow candies
It is.
I had never heard of the brand named Peeps until I saw them earlier on SS in my search.
Peep on iS only maps to 'looking'; Peeps only maps to the marshmallow, when uploading, but searching on Peeps offers you a DA between looking and the marshmallow brand.

BTW, why does Peeps (the brand) not need to be sold as editorial on SS?

« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2015, 16:46 »
0
TW, why does Peeps (the brand) not need to be sold as editorial on SS?

I thought it did need to be editorial - very definitely a brand name

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2015, 17:08 »
0
TW, why does Peeps (the brand) not need to be sold as editorial on SS?

I thought it did need to be editorial - very definitely a brand name

How can you tell that an SS image is editorial only? Maybe I just didn't notice!

« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2015, 17:26 »
0
It's very clearly marked and has an editorial caption - you will know it if you see one.

I just did a search for "peeps" on SS and some images of the marshmallow kind came up that are not editorial - presumably submitted a while ago - and others submitted last year are editorial.  No birds on the first page of results out of almost 10,000 photo hits.  A search of "peeps marshmallow" returned only 26 photos, most submitted by the same person.  With only 26 hits it's an unsaturated subject, although I doubt there's much demand.

« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2015, 18:12 »
+1
...
It was this quote "and have to be sent up to someone higher on the review chain to determine whether in fact these are photos of birds or naked women." which was the giveaway. Either they have blind and/or stupid reviewers or it's machine-driven.
Maybe they could look at the photo as well as the keywords? LOL I'm not with them but you gave me a good giggle for the day.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2015, 18:15 by wordplanet »

« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2015, 14:35 »
0
...
It was this quote "and have to be sent up to someone higher on the review chain to determine whether in fact these are photos of birds or naked women." which was the giveaway. Either they have blind and/or stupid reviewers or it's machine-driven.
Maybe they could look at the photo as well as the keywords? LOL I'm not with them but you gave me a good giggle for the day.

or they have real 20 20 vision reviewers who are flagging for naked women so they can cloud their morning coffee  ;D ;D ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1649 Views
Last post February 26, 2009, 23:46
by Lizard
15 Replies
7103 Views
Last post March 25, 2011, 23:01
by gostwyck
8 Replies
2948 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 12:21
by cathyslife
46 Replies
7682 Views
Last post September 12, 2011, 13:37
by leaf
6 Replies
981 Views
Last post September 18, 2013, 10:39
by Snap Vectors

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors