pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DT's approval policy - your thoughts  (Read 13608 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 25, 2012, 08:22 »
0
I think most of us do NOT agree with DT's approval policy (similars, series & whatever they call it).

Let's throw our professional expertise into this discussion to try to figure out what DT is on to following this strange and questionable strategy of approving certain images.

My only logic guess is to create a library that sets itself apart from what all other agencies do accept, trying to become a niche or specialty provider. We often see good sellers rejected by DT whilst others make it through. This will technically lead us to believe that it will hurt us and them.

I can't however accept the thought that DT's management is that stupid. They must aim for something else.

What do you think it is?


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2012, 09:07 »
0
It sucks, their efn dumb a**es and have no idea how much they are costing themselves and how many buyers they are loosing much less what i am loosing!

Wim

« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2012, 09:11 »
0
Another one haha, hey whats with all the cursing today lads! Leaf is probably going mad now.

« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2012, 09:21 »
0
It sucks, their efn dumb a**es and have no idea how much they are costing themselves and how many buyers they are loosing much less what i am loosing!
I think we have established this here on the forums for over the last 12 months of complaining.

I understand that running a company that generates millions of $ every year doesn't have to be run by geniuses. Let's give DT the benefit of the doubt and assume they DO have a bigger (serious) plan. What do you think it is?

It does look like that they try to ship wreck their company into the ground but I just cannot fathom that thought.

« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2012, 09:31 »
0
I think it is ridiculous and that's why I haven't uploaded to DT for over a year. What's the point when they reject many of the best images you've ever produced simply because it is a subject matter that you have shot previously? Someone else can have much worse images of the same subject accepted (provided they haven't shot that subject before). Other contributors can compete against your own images in niche subjects ... but you cannot.

I still think that DT will be selling out to SS once the IPO goes through. Maybe there will eventually be a 'Bridge to DT' too!

Wim

« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2012, 09:32 »
0
Exactly my thoughts btw, some agencies seem to be out there to destroy themselves, underestimating the consequences of their actions.
Of course I haven't been around that long so it might just be their time, they had their share.
DT used to be a lot better right?

My sales are down compared to previous months but they are still regular (daily). I notice some good sellers with big ports reporting lack of sales for days or even a week.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2012, 09:33 »
0
If they have a plan i am a Billionaire!

And i dont think i am.

If i am a buyer looking for a specific shot and i find one similar and think to myself now this is what i want but i want it from a different viewpoint from another angle and a different focal length, what do i do?

Hmmmmmm i ask them why they dont have any other or i just go somewhere else?

Me myself i go somewhere else.

Just like Wally World they think they are doing the best for the buyer yet when they get the most sold items off the shelf to refill them with something else they think is going to sell better then loose both money and customers who now have to go somewhere else to get what they need.

« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2012, 09:48 »
0
... I still think that DT will be selling out to SS once the IPO goes through. Maybe there will eventually be a 'Bridge to DT' too!
OK good thought.

Do you think there is a possibility that DT is eagerly looking for a buyer but everyone who might be interested might be low-balling it since DT has been on a downward trend for a while now?

I'm sure that potential buyers are well aware of that.

So maybe they wait it out to grab DT for scraps once they are about to fold?

« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2012, 10:05 »
0
I can't however accept the thought that DT's management is that stupid. They must aim for something else.

What do you think it is?

I would assume that they want a diverse catalog, and want contributors to fill it with a new and different subject or topic with each file. Unfortunately for them, most professional contributors don't work like that. They work in sets and revisit popular topics, so these rules have the opposite effect. They become overly restrictive.

I think both the similar policy and the payment tiers work as upload deterrents. Why create new files that are just going to undercut your older files?

« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2012, 10:16 »
0
Do you think there is a possibility that DT is eagerly looking for a buyer but everyone who might be interested might be low-balling it since DT has been on a downward trend for a while now?
I doubt that DT themselves have been on a 'downward trend'. I imagine that their sales/turnover has been steadily increasing but the contributors' slice of the pie has been shrinking via commission cuts and spread thinner through an ever-increasing number of images. The commission cuts would have increased their profitability and therefore the value of the business.

I think that the entrepeneurs who started these microstock agencies have always had an eye towards their exit strategy. The only real question is when to sell. DT are still a phenomenally successful business. Running my own sales numbers backwards gives them an annual turnover of over $50M. The business must be worth $100M+. Not bad for 8 years work.

« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2012, 10:20 »
0
I would assume that they want a diverse catalog, and want contributors to fill it with a new and different subject or topic with each file. Unfortunately for them, most professional contributors don't work like that. They work in sets and revisit popular topics, so these rules have the opposite effect. They become overly restrictive.

I think both the similar policy and the payment tiers work as upload deterrents. Why create new files that are just going to undercut your older files?

I also think that from a buyer's perspective having a few similars makes sense. Many times I have though "gee, I wish they would have just turned this way a little, or...". I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same, but having a few choices is a good thing. At the time the contributor uploads, they have no idea which is going to become the better seller, or which will never get any downloads.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2012, 10:29 »
0
I would assume that they want a diverse catalog, and want contributors to fill it with a new and different subject or topic with each file. Unfortunately for them, most professional contributors don't work like that. They work in sets and revisit popular topics, so these rules have the opposite effect. They become overly restrictive.

I think both the similar policy and the payment tiers work as upload deterrents. Why create new files that are just going to undercut your older files?

I also think that from a buyer's perspective having a few similars makes sense. Many times I have though "gee, I wish they would have just turned this way a little, or...". I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same, but having a few choices is a good thing. At the time the contributor uploads, they have no idea which is going to become the better seller, or which will never get any downloads.
+1 That's what i have been saying.

« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2012, 10:33 »
0
I would assume that they want a diverse catalog, and want contributors to fill it with a new and different subject or topic with each file. Unfortunately for them, most professional contributors don't work like that. They work in sets and revisit popular topics, so these rules have the opposite effect. They become overly restrictive.

I think both the similar policy and the payment tiers work as upload deterrents. Why create new files that are just going to undercut your older files?

I also think that from a buyer's perspective having a few similars makes sense. Many times I have though "gee, I wish they would have just turned this way a little, or...". I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same, but having a few choices is a good thing. At the time the contributor uploads, they have no idea which is going to become the better seller, or which will never get any downloads.

+1

« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2012, 10:34 »
0
Do you think there is a possibility that DT is eagerly looking for a buyer but everyone who might be interested might be low-balling it since DT has been on a downward trend for a while now?
I doubt that DT themselves have been on a 'downward trend'. I imagine that their sales/turnover has been steadily increasing but the contributors' slice of the pie has been shrinking via commission cuts and spread thinner through an ever-increasing number of images. The commission cuts would have increased their profitability and therefore the value of the business. ...
I can only speak from my numbers and I had my good times with DT more than 3 years ago. Good for everyone else who still managed to be on an upward trend since then but my sales tanked since then.

I do have have excellent search result placements but receive just "too many" subscription sales.

My first uploads are in the 100.000 file ID range (2005) and I have seen wonderful growth with them but for some reason they are the only one of the bigger agencies that screwed things up for me on an unsurpassed scale.

No doubt that they have to ensure their income stream to pay for their overheads and pay rises but I cannot see how the dilution of images has such a big impact ONLY on DT and nowhere else...  ???

« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2012, 10:45 »
0
Do you think there is a possibility that DT is eagerly looking for a buyer but everyone who might be interested might be low-balling it since DT has been on a downward trend for a while now?
I doubt that DT themselves have been on a 'downward trend'. I imagine that their sales/turnover has been steadily increasing but the contributors' slice of the pie has been shrinking via commission cuts and spread thinner through an ever-increasing number of images. The commission cuts would have increased their profitability and therefore the value of the business. ...
I can only speak from my numbers and I had my good times with DT more than 3 years ago. Good for everyone else who still managed to be on an upward trend since then but my sales tanked since then.

I do have have excellent search result placements but receive just "too many" subscription sales.

My first uploads are in the 100.000 file ID range (2005) and I have seen wonderful growth with them but for some reason they are the only one of the bigger agencies that screwed things up for me on an unsurpassed scale.

No doubt that they have to ensure their income stream to pay for their overheads and pay rises but I cannot see how the dilution of images has such a big impact ONLY on DT and nowhere else...  ???

I am at 1/3 of what i used to earn 3 years ago.
Speaks for itself I guess.

Patrick.

« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2012, 10:50 »
0
I am at 1/3 of what i used to earn 3 years ago.
Speaks for itself I guess.

Patrick.

That's also my situation. I admit I'm not a high volume uploader, however I do select very carefully what I do upload and try to only produce highly commercial content - at the end of the day this is my main income, so I can't fiddle around.

« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2012, 10:52 »
0
I've always thought the similars policy is linked to the image level system.  

The fewer images on a given subject there are, particularly from the same shoot, the more the few uploaded images from that subject/shoot will sell and will climb up through the levels.  This allows DT to get more per sale and justify it by saying "these are the cream of the crop images, just look at how many times they've sold".  It probably works well for buyers who only have an account with DT and nobody else, since they don't really have a choice.  

Personally, I think its a dumb system, kind of like damming half a river since buyers can go to the many other micros for more diversity for a given subject/shoot.  Few big buyers are going to limit themselves to just one company.

« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2012, 11:09 »
0
I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same

there is a contributor that is just over the roof, half his portfolio at SS is on a single subject and we are talking about objects, over 2k pictures of the same object, not concepts just them "on white" (over 10 sessions on the same stuff)

basically all shoots are 50 of the same object and upload! agencies seem to approve them...

123RF and DP over 10k
FT over 7k
SS over 4k
DT less than 500
IS even less

I am exclusively talking about similarity, nothing against "his/her" work, if I am talking about a subject that cannot be talked or I am unpolite please leaf remove it

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2012, 11:15 »
0
I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same

there is a contributor that is just over the roof, half his portfolio at SS is on a single subject and we are talking about objects, over 2k pictures of the same object, not concepts just them "on white" (over 10 sessions on the same stuff)

basically all shoots are 50 of the same object and upload! agencies seem to approve them...

123RF and DP over 10k
FT over 7k
SS over 4k
DT less than 500
IS even less

I am exclusively talking about similarity, nothing against "his/her" work, if I am talking about a subject that cannot be talked or I am unpolite please leaf remove it
And who it may be i wanna go see?

« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2012, 11:26 »
0
I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same

there is a contributor that is just over the roof, half his portfolio at SS is on a single subject and we are talking about objects, over 2k pictures of the same object, not concepts just them "on white" (over 10 sessions on the same stuff)

basically all shoots are 50 of the same object and upload! agencies seem to approve them...

123RF and DP over 10k
FT over 7k
SS over 4k
DT less than 500
IS even less

I am exclusively talking about similarity, nothing against "his/her" work, if I am talking about a subject that cannot be talked or I am unpolite please leaf remove it

So how does this person get over 50 through the queue with no similars rejections? Maybe they were uploaded before the similars policy, or maybe part of the "in crowd" at DT? I know that in several of my searches on DT, in the past year, I have seen many similars that I couldn't tell one from the other and thought they had been double-uploaded. But I have not checked the dates to see when they were uploaded.

« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2012, 11:29 »
0
I think that the DT search engine tends to lump similar files from the same contributor together, so rather than fix the search engine or create some sort of system that stacks similars they thought it would be easier to just stop accepting similar images.

I think they also hope that contributors will combine multiple images together so that we can get .35 for 4 or 9 or more images together instead of .35 each.

I can understand limiting truly similar images, but I think most contributors have had the experience of rejections of not very similar similars.

Lagereek

« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2012, 11:35 »
0
Oh I would welcome that very much! if DT, were to set themselves apart, trying to streamline or nieche itself!  great stuff! I mean whats the stupid point in following everybody else?
As far as similars, well whats the big point in having gazillions of similar images? nothing!.  You will find that ordinary micro is running out, they got less and less to offer and pretty soon the big four will have no option but to streamline, specialize in a few fields.
IS, started with Vetta and more is to come.

The days of ordinary photography are over, there is no room for diletants in todays stock-files and thats really the end of story.

« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2012, 11:36 »
0
123RF and DP over 10k
FT over 7k
SS over 4k
DT less than 500
IS even less

thats portfolio size

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2012, 11:40 »
0
I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same

there is a contributor that is just over the roof, half his portfolio at SS is on a single subject and we are talking about objects, over 2k pictures of the same object, not concepts just them "on white" (over 10 sessions on the same stuff)

basically all shoots are 50 of the same object and upload! agencies seem to approve them...

123RF and DP over 10k
FT over 7k
SS over 4k
DT less than 500
IS even less

I am exclusively talking about similarity, nothing against "his/her" work, if I am talking about a subject that cannot be talked or I am unpolite please leaf remove it
And who it may be i wanna go see?
Ah yes i know that one very well and they sell everyday!

« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2012, 11:45 »
0
I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same

there is a contributor that is just over the roof, half his portfolio at SS is on a single subject and we are talking about objects, over 2k pictures of the same object, not concepts just them "on white" (over 10 sessions on the same stuff)

basically all shoots are 50 of the same object and upload! agencies seem to approve them...

123RF and DP over 10k
FT over 7k
SS over 4k
DT less than 500
IS even less

I am exclusively talking about similarity, nothing against "his/her" work, if I am talking about a subject that cannot be talked or I am unpolite please leaf remove it
And who it may be i wanna go see?
Ah yes i know that one very well and they sell everyday!

all 2400 files sell everyday? yep right..

« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2012, 11:46 »
0
They just want to boost short-term profits by cutting reviewing costs.  

When a reviewer rejects a photo as 'similar' he spends no time looking at quality.   That cuts costs immediately, probably in a big way.  

They don't care if individual contributors find they can no longer make money on a shoot because only 1 out of 3 photos is accepted; they have so many images now, the real limitation to sales is their search functionality, not the supply of new images.  If contributors quit, well that's a problem for the future. Which doesn't exist for these companies.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2012, 11:48 »
0
OK so the first one has been accepted and the second (as well as others) two were rejected for similar this is really a long shot at best??????









« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2012, 12:00 »
0
I would assume that they want a diverse catalog, and want contributors to fill it with a new and different subject or topic with each file. Unfortunately for them, most professional contributors don't work like that. They work in sets and revisit popular topics, so these rules have the opposite effect. They become overly restrictive.

I think both the similar policy and the payment tiers work as upload deterrents. Why create new files that are just going to undercut your older files?

I also think that from a buyer's perspective having a few similars makes sense. Many times I have though "gee, I wish they would have just turned this way a little, or...". I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same, but having a few choices is a good thing. At the time the contributor uploads, they have no idea which is going to become the better seller, or which will never get any downloads.

Yes, totally agree. I have always been a believer that an agency should let the buyers decide what a good selling image is, not the reviewer. Then purge the database of images which don't sell after a few years time online.

« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2012, 13:44 »
0
I remember a year or two back somebody had shot a whole series of different types of fresh herbs and DT accepted the first submission and rejected the rest of the series as too similar.   ::)

« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2012, 14:01 »
0
I remember a year or two back somebody had shot a whole series of different types of fresh herbs and DT accepted the first submission and rejected the rest of the series as too similar.   ::)

Pathetic.   

We're steadily progressing to the point where only SS and Alamy continue to make sense.  But SS has been dialing up the rejection knob, too.  Like I said, this is all about reviewing costs and short term profits.

SS just went public and will be under pressure to deliver immediate 'growth' (meaning higher profits) to pump up the share price.  So I predict SS will soon start to reject more photos without detailed inspection, maybe by announcing a jihad against 'similars'.

Wim

« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2012, 14:24 »
0
Good example ruxpriencdiam. to them a red and green apple is similar, it's an apple, hell even a banana is similar, it's fruit.
Some contributors, especially the ones with the so called niche ports, should get 100% rejections following the above rule, yet they pass reviews, makes one wonder.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 14:32 by Wim »

« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2012, 15:59 »
0
I remember a year or two back somebody had shot a whole series of different types of fresh herbs and DT accepted the first submission and rejected the rest of the series as too similar.   ::)

Pathetic.   

We're steadily progressing to the point where only SS and Alamy continue to make sense.  But SS has been dialing up the rejection knob, too.  Like I said, this is all about reviewing costs and short term profits.

SS just went public and will be under pressure to deliver immediate 'growth' (meaning higher profits) to pump up the share price.  So I predict SS will soon start to reject more photos without detailed inspection, maybe by announcing a jihad against 'similars'.

From what I know of reviewing, it isn't cheaper to reject an image compared to accepting it.  The two sites where I knew how things worked, they paid the same amount to the reviewer whether the image was accepted or rejected. 

« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2012, 16:07 »
0
I would assume that they want a diverse catalog, and want contributors to fill it with a new and different subject or topic with each file. Unfortunately for them, most professional contributors don't work like that. They work in sets and revisit popular topics, so these rules have the opposite effect. They become overly restrictive.

I think both the similar policy and the payment tiers work as upload deterrents. Why create new files that are just going to undercut your older files?

I also think that from a buyer's perspective having a few similars makes sense. Many times I have though "gee, I wish they would have just turned this way a little, or...". I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same, but having a few choices is a good thing. At the time the contributor uploads, they have no idea which is going to become the better seller, or which will never get any downloads.

Yes, totally agree. I have always been a believer that an agency should let the buyers decide what a good selling image is, not the reviewer. Then purge the database of images which don't sell after a few years time online.

I agree with how you how the buyer should decide what is needed.  Alamy and Shutterstock seem to be doing well with this.  But I don't see what the need for removing images after X years is.  The cost of keeping the image on the server is pretty minimal and covering all the 'long tails' should be worthwhile.  There are still several niches areas where there are serious holes (0 or less than 100 images) and removing images will just create more holes.  If an image doesn't ever sell a site can just put it at the back of the search and it won't clutter up the results... and when a buyer finally does need that image it will be there for them.
I feel the free file section is a big reason why Dreamstime is actively removing files from the site.. hoping that people will opt to give the photos away... and hoping that those free photos will lure in new customers.

Mactrunk

« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2012, 16:17 »
0
I don't have any problem with dreamstime. They do accept different images as long as they are realy different and not just someone looking left and another image looking right. They accepted these of the same subject:

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-job-creation-image21075374
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-jobless-will-work-food-image21075453
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-no-jobs-image21075395
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-will-work-food-image21075384

They are easy in accepting images and I think they are very easy to predict. If I am doubting an image they don't accept or I get lucky and they do accept. But for good images I set out to make with a plan I always know they will accept it. I am just starting with Shutterstock and must say I personaly think they are harder than Dreamstime in accepting images.

« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2012, 16:27 »
0
I don't have any problem with dreamstime. They do accept different images as long as they are realy different and not just someone looking left and another image looking right. They accepted these of the same subject:

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-job-creation-image21075374
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-jobless-will-work-food-image21075453
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-no-jobs-image21075395
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-will-work-food-image21075384

They are easy in accepting images and I think they are very easy to predict. If I am doubting an image they don't accept or I get lucky and they do accept. But for good images I set out to make with a plan I always know they will accept it. I am just starting with Shutterstock and must say I personaly think they are harder than Dreamstime in accepting images.


And to me, that's totally where they should accept those two, and not reject as similars. Imagine you are a designer and your photo box is going on the right side of a magazine page on a right hand page, but the image you want to use is of a person facing right. You want to have your person facing into the center, and you can't flop the image because of some reason, like signs in the background that would read backwards, etc. Having another image facing the other way would be great.

Sometimes it's not so much that they are rejecting similars, it's that they are rejecting the wrong similars.

« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2012, 17:12 »
0
I remember a year or two back somebody had shot a whole series of different types of fresh herbs and DT accepted the first submission and rejected the rest of the series as too similar.   ::)

Pathetic.   

We're steadily progressing to the point where only SS and Alamy continue to make sense.  But SS has been dialing up the rejection knob, too.  Like I said, this is all about reviewing costs and short term profits.

SS just went public and will be under pressure to deliver immediate 'growth' (meaning higher profits) to pump up the share price.  So I predict SS will soon start to reject more photos without detailed inspection, maybe by announcing a jihad against 'similars'.

From what I know of reviewing, it isn't cheaper to reject an image compared to accepting it.  The two sites where I knew how things worked, they paid the same amount to the reviewer whether the image was accepted or rejected. 

They were paying completely per-image, and not by the hour?

Rejecting an image immediately - skipping the detailed quality inspection - obviously means a reviewer can process  more images in less time.  That means fewer reviewers.   I would be surprised if inspectors were paid per image because the temptation to rush through inspections would be irresistable.  There would have to be a second tier of inspectors spot-checking the work of the first.

« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2012, 17:18 »
0
Yeah, in the two cases where I knew for a fact how things worked, they both paid on a per image reviewed basis.  I can't say if all agencies are run this way (probably not) and that info is 5-6 years old now so who knows if they are still run like that.

« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2012, 17:39 »
0
They were paying completely per-image, and not by the hour?

Rejecting an image immediately - skipping the detailed quality inspection - obviously means a reviewer can process  more images in less time.  That means fewer reviewers.   I would be surprised if inspectors were paid per image because the temptation to rush through inspections would be irresistable.  There would have to be a second tier of inspectors spot-checking the work of the first.

That's the only way it could work otherwise the inspector's decisions could be based on how much they were being paid. The agencies themselves want a fixed price per image inspected so that costs can be projected accurately. The obvious monitor of the consistency of an individual inspector would be the approval/rejection rate compared to their peers.

« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2012, 18:29 »
0
... They were paying completely per-image, and not by the hour?

Rejecting an image immediately - skipping the detailed quality inspection - obviously means a reviewer can process  more images in less time.  That means fewer reviewers.   I would be surprised if inspectors were paid per image because the temptation to rush through inspections would be irresistable.  There would have to be a second tier of inspectors spot-checking the work of the first.

When I was reviewing for one of the middle tier agencies four years ago I got paid on a per image basis. We were told how much time on average to spend per review.

Inconsistent reviews (due to many complaints by the uploaders/supervisor checks) e.g. rushing/favoritism etc. were punished quickly by getting warned, then fired.

I do not know how all other agencies handle it and I'm sure they have different compensation schemes in place but rushing is not "enforced". Often though, very low quality images are easily spotted and rejected.

« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2012, 20:43 »
0
If reviewers are really still paid per image (and I have to be skeptical) then I wonder if someone is making a first cut of the images before sending them to the reviewers, and rejecting 'similars' at that point.  If so, the agency starts to save money on reviews.  

I just don't really believe DT's statements about 'similars' hurting contributor's sales.  Too many obvious counter-examples have been posted here.  

As these agencies take on new investors and new ownership (SS and IS obvious, I don't know about DT) the pressure to increase short-term profits inevitably increases.  I have to believe that review time is a huge cost-reduction target. The new people will be asking the obvious question - we have 10 million images now, how many more new ones do we really need, versus the cost of reviewing them?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 13:08 by stockastic »

fujiko

« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2012, 03:50 »
0
They should reject even more images!
In a way all images are similar, all made of pixels, taken with cameras pointing at something. Everything is similar, they should reject all new images and remove old ones but one. This one will be the ONE, the unique image to which all others are similar. Then they will become the agency that has that precious unique image.

Wim

« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2012, 04:12 »
0
They should reject even more images!
In a way all images are similar, all made of pixels, taken with cameras pointing at something. Everything is similar, they should reject all new images and remove old ones but one. This one will be the ONE, the unique image to which all others are similar. Then they will become the agency that has that precious unique image.

Well put  ;D

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2012, 10:13 »
0
Here is more of their great rejections.

Quote
Please submit only those images from this series that fit the event better. We consider that 3-5 images per event can tell the full story, and by submitting less you will certainly focus on quality (this is always preferred) while covering up an event.

Now you go to an event of any kind and only take 3-5 images to cover the whole event ???????? what is that all about?????????


Pffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I dont know about anyone else but you can sure take a lot more then 3-5 images of any Editorial Event you are covering!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reviewers at DT are just bending you over greasing you up and giving it to you right up the old dirt road and laughing about it while they ef you royally!

fujiko

« Reply #43 on: July 26, 2012, 12:18 »
0
3-5 images are more than enough to cover any event.

Just imagine the Olympics in THREE pictures!
The story to its fullest!

« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2012, 12:52 »
0
3-5 images are more than enough to cover any event.

Just imagine the Olympics in THREE pictures!
The story to its fullest!

Well obviously: The first, second and third place. Done.

« Reply #45 on: July 26, 2012, 13:09 »
0
They should reject even more images!
In a way all images are similar, all made of pixels, taken with cameras pointing at something. Everything is similar, they should reject all new images and remove old ones but one. This one will be the ONE, the unique image to which all others are similar. Then they will become the agency that has that precious unique image.

The One Image to Rule Them All.

fujiko

« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2012, 03:09 »
0
3-5 images are more than enough to cover any event.

Just imagine the Olympics in THREE pictures!
The story to its fullest!

Well obviously: The first, second and third place. Done.

Sure they would reject one of the three for being too similar.

« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2012, 18:56 »
0
Here is more of their great rejections.

Quote
Please submit only those images from this series that fit the event better. We consider that 3-5 images per event can tell the full story, and by submitting less you will certainly focus on quality (this is always preferred) while covering up an event.

Now you go to an event of any kind and only take 3-5 images to cover the whole event ???????? what is that all about?????????


Pffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I dont know about anyone else but you can sure take a lot more then 3-5 images of any Editorial Event you are covering!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...

even if this were true, the randomness of actual reviewing means we HAVE to submit larger numbers of 'similars', since each reviewer would choose a different set of but they ignore the real world subjectivity of actual reviewing

WarrenPrice

« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2012, 20:41 »
0
They must be kidding.  Sending an editor 3-5 images from ANY event would result in being totally ignored by that editor and any of his friends at other media outlets.
It is a ridiculous policy.

And, I see a response from DT on a thread supporting them but total silence on a subject that really needs a response.   ::)

« Reply #49 on: July 28, 2012, 03:23 »
0
People from DT look here, so they know that lots of us have almost given up on them, mostly because of the bad implementation of this policy.  It's been going on for a long time now and they haven't changed a thing.  So I think they couldn't care less about our opinion.  They also don't seem to mind losing buyers to other sites that give them a bit more choice.  That's what appears to be happening to me.  As they've joined in with the istock and FT policy of cutting commissions, I'm not so concerned about buyers going to the other sites.

It's a shame that DT has gone like this but I really don't see what we can do about it.  The only bargaining power we have is with our portfolios and there's too many people that will just carry on uploading regardless of the detrimental changes that have happened.

« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2012, 07:35 »
0
People from DT look here, so they know that lots of us have almost given up on them, mostly because of the bad implementation of this policy.  It's been going on for a long time now and they haven't changed a thing.  So I think they couldn't care less about our opinion.  They also don't seem to mind losing buyers to other sites that give them a bit more choice.  That's what appears to be happening to me.  As they've joined in with the istock and FT policy of cutting commissions, I'm not so concerned about buyers going to the other sites.

It's a shame that DT has gone like this but I really don't see what we can do about it.  The only bargaining power we have is with our portfolios and there's too many people that will just carry on uploading regardless of the detrimental changes that have happened.

Well said. The similars rejections have simply morphed into something for which it wasn't originally intended.  Serban should read this forum and realize that they are leaving talent on the table.  Remember, a LOT of the similars rejections begin with a technology solution where they first sniff your keywords with software and, regardless of the content of those images, they get AUTOMATICALLY rejected for too similar based SOLELY on keywords.  Those images never see the eyes of an inspector.  They are simply rejected based on keywords to save time and, theoretically, keep their collection "clean".  It's a broken process that may be proving to be a differentiator that isn't working in DT's favor. Remember, this sniffing software is per Serban, it's not something I am speculating on.  He posted it in his own forum.

« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2012, 10:58 »
0
People from DT look here, so they know that lots of us have almost given up on them, mostly because of the bad implementation of this policy.  It's been going on for a long time now and they haven't changed a thing.  So I think they couldn't care less about our opinion.  They also don't seem to mind losing buyers to other sites that give them a bit more choice.  That's what appears to be happening to me.  As they've joined in with the istock and FT policy of cutting commissions, I'm not so concerned about buyers going to the other sites.

It's a shame that DT has gone like this but I really don't see what we can do about it.  The only bargaining power we have is with our portfolios and there's too many people that will just carry on uploading regardless of the detrimental changes that have happened.
+1

« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2012, 17:02 »
0
MS may be moving in the direction of ebay - where their original strength is now considered a weakness - a few years ago, the new CEO of ebay infuriated sellers when he said he wanted to get rid of the impression that ebay was just a gigantic flea market.  despite that uproar, ebay continued to  raise fees and make things harder on small sellers in favor of large corps selling new prodcut -- and he's been rewarded by an article in today's NY times that talks of how ebay has 'come back' and is more profitable than ever [altho in large part to their income from paypal fees]

not quite the same, but in ms, it looks like the enphasis of ms owners is going to be less and less on the health of their contributors


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
New privacy policy

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
2266 Views
Last post July 11, 2007, 17:28
by Istock News
New Alamy QC Policy

Started by RacePhoto Alamy.com

10 Replies
7752 Views
Last post July 09, 2009, 12:39
by Freedom
18 Replies
9346 Views
Last post August 03, 2010, 10:54
by lefty
Stupid policy!

Started by fritz « 1 2  All » Dreamstime.com

25 Replies
16274 Views
Last post March 31, 2011, 01:28
by Xalanx
1 Replies
2654 Views
Last post September 08, 2011, 17:03
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors