MicrostockGroup

Hi everybody

I've sent a lot of different images (persons, backgrounds, textures, signals, buildings, animals, nature...) and all of them were refused with ther same problem:

"This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

what about it?
they have enough images of everything?
I'm not original I guess...

I had few rejected files with the same reason lately. But my friend had this rejection for the image that had only 2 slightly similar images in DT database. I guess it's some new reviewer, and I hope this will change soon. I don't want my approval rate to drop too much.

As An example I searched for soft boiled eggs result =318 images my photo was approved.
If I would have uploaded textures the result would be 30,290 images  result = "This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

Always search for the photo Idea before uploading
My 2cents

Interesting to speculate on where this leads.  At the rate images are being accepted by these sites, how long will it be until every distinguishable object on the face of the earth has been shot? At that point there will be nothing left to photograph but newly created things.  Stock photographers will be standing in line outside stores where new products are about to be put on the shelves.  We'll elbow past each other to buy them, race home to photograph and submit.

Somewhat more seriously, it is clear to me that the micros are trying to be more selective - rather suddenly, and in a big way.  They've taken in way,way too much junk and buyers are no longer impressed by 8 million vs. 5 million images.  If they want to compete on quality, that's fine but what should their strategy be to achieve that? Just dropping photos that haven't sold in 2 years while dialing up the standards for new photos  is too simple.  If you're rejecting new photos that are actually better than what you already have - and not deleting old photos that wouldn't meet the new criteria  - how fast are things really improving?  

Sunflower seed texture 204 images  would work well over food which has 453,992 images

I think it's mostly a matter of labor costs.  If a micro really wants to improve the quality of their existing archives , they'd have to hire, train and supervise competent people to look at millions of images and make decisions. 

Microsotock started out as a get-rich-quick dot-com concept.  Set up a web site and a database, and submitters will climb over each other to give you plenty of product for nothing in advance.  Then sell it dirt-cheap. Conitnue until the market is saturated.  After that - um, well no plan I guess.  Other than search engines, they add no value to the product and as the effectiveness of their search engines declines, even that value is lost.

I don't want the microstocks to fail, I want them to re-invest some profits and make the business sustainable.