Quote from: wut on March 27, 2012, 13:31

You only seem to see the direct implications of that. What about all the buyers that leave and never come back, because they can't find what they're looking for, they're annoyed with so many similars, sick and tired of wading through tens of pages to get to the picture they were looking for. I think that's a bigger problem and I wish more agencies would have similar restrictions than DT and even better if they'd delete the old non-sellers. If a photo doesn't sell for a year, it should be deleted. If it doesn't meet today's criteria, it should be deleted. Of course no agency will use their resources to get rid of substandard content, but an automated system deleting files that didn't sell for a year would be easy to incorporate

Huh? Ever heard of an agency called 'Shutterstock' perchance? They started a few months after DT, they don't do any of what you suggest (which DT does) and SS are currently generating about 4-5x more income for me than DT is. SS have a decent search engine to sort the results appropriately and that's all that is needed. Evidently customers have been voting with their $'s for the last few years so I think we know which system they prefer.

Then I guess they found another way of putting good content in front of the buyers (I highlighted that point in my previous post and in yours, so you can see we really are on the same page). BTW SS is bringing me almost 20x more. And I also always say they are the top agency and they know what they're are doing and it shows in our earnings. Mid/bottom tier agencies are not able to do that, that's why they're failing miserably and our earnings, in most cases, are pathetic. That was also the reason for IS's falling sales (best match shifts) as we all know. Though things look a lot better this year at IS, at least to me.

^^Why do you even bother then? I don't anymore and I had sales that were actually decent for a mid tier agency (meaning pathetic really)

I guess one way of assessing inspection process of an agency overall would be looking at the latest accepted images. Just search anything, sort by acceptance date - here go. Take the number of bad images divide by total number.

To me (I am beginner, and am looking mainly for consistence) FT rejects almost everything, but that's fine as long as they are consistent with others.  CanStock accepts almost everything, this is also ok with me as they follow their interests. And SS and 123 seem to me most inconsistent (it looks like 123 is improving though, so I voted SS)

Quote from: lagereek on April 02, 2012, 11:49

. I know quite a lot of buyers, from ordinary buyers up to Ad-agency people, ADs, etc, and I tell you, they are terrible in complaining, I have seen them in action and boy!  if they come accross similars, etc, after only 3 to 4, pages they move on to another outlet.

best.

i've never understood why no one has ever come up with a search engine that deals with similars in a realistic way - there's no excuse for 3 or 4 pages of similars - they should present results the way google does - show varipous rdesults, but only show a few similar images, with a link if someone wants to dig deeper -

this would help both types of buyers [and would also eliminate the need for so many LCV rejections by reviewers who really have no clue what the actual value of any image is].  the argument that it would take up too much space is long gone

Great Idea....although personally I am not bothered by similars, the results could be presented in a "tree like" structure. Only one image of a series on top and visible on the search results page with the option to go deeper into. Nevertheless this would undermine my personal search behaviour and I think I would lose some images since too many clicks are involved for me

I voted iStock because their submission process is ridiculous and their "not suitable for stock" guidelines are rarely followed consistently. I know submission process is not part of your poll, but rejections really burn when you go through a submission obstacle course like the one at iStock (they really need to take heed to FeaturePics or 123RF's process). Istock accepts some of the most "unsuitable" things from me and then reject "suitable" things. The worst is after being corrected once or twice, they decide it's "not suitable for stock." Scout is restrictive and also a waste of time (just resubmit the image instead of arguing). They are very, very inconsistent and I've given up trying to understand and create work that I thought they would accept in that silly "Vector Do's and Don'ts". Simply put: They just reject things to reject or have some kind of conspiracy against non-exclusives. I programmed my mail software to send their notices directly to the trash (I think that contributed to reducing my stress factor).

I'd give GraphicRiver 2nd place worst. Their submission process is worse than iStock and their rejection reasons are beyond comprehension and inappropriate (inappropriate in that they should pay us a heckofalot more to fit their model and processes). If iStock didn't exist�which might happen one day if they keep up the fumbles�and I had a 38% acceptance rate at GraphicRiver, GraphicRiver would take 1st place. They seem sincere, but their "standards" allow no room for obtuse and imperfect hand-drawn work such as mine.

Dreamstime would be 3rd because they accept more than they reject. But their rejections are quite "istockian." They often make no sense. Those rejections they make for "similar" images are excessive. Their vector submission process needs to be improved.

Veer and Crestock ties at 4th worst for silly rejection reasons. They obviously are understaffed and probably want to err on the side of caution. So maybe they reject more than accept to reduce chances of getting stuck with possible technical problems in the files.

Fotolia, Canstock, Bigstock, GraphicLeftovers, FeaturePics, Panthermedia, Alamy, Stockfuel, 123RF and the others reject very few things. When they do reject it, it's understandable or simply because I put in the wrong info or matching JPG.

Shutterstock would not be on my list (so far). They predictably reject many of my abstract seamless patterns or admittedly boring flowers. There is one reviewer there that rejects all of my work when he/she gets it. That person obviously hates my work (cites Low Commercial Value). So I just double check the files, resubmit and enjoy watching the subsequent sales.  

As a disclaimer, I am a "newbie" to the field (July 2010). So don't hold that too much against me  . I do however, work with a very popular microstock photographer in the microstock services side of my business and he agrees almost entirely with my vote.

Quote from: cascoly on April 02, 2012, 18:59

Quote from: lagereek on April 02, 2012, 11:49

. I know quite a lot of buyers, from ordinary buyers up to Ad-agency people, ADs, etc, and I tell you, they are terrible in complaining, I have seen them in action and boy!  if they come accross similars, etc, after only 3 to 4, pages they move on to another outlet.

best.

i've never understood why no one has ever come up with a search engine that deals with similars in a realistic way - there's no excuse for 3 or 4 pages of similars - they should present results the way google does - show varipous rdesults, but only show a few similar images, with a link if someone wants to dig deeper -

this would help both types of buyers [and would also eliminate the need for so many LCV rejections by reviewers who really have no clue what the actual value of any image is].  the argument that it would take up too much space is long gone

Great Idea....although personally I am not bothered by similars, the results could be presented in a "tree like" structure. Only one image of a series on top and visible on the search results page with the option to go deeper into. Nevertheless this would undermine my personal search behaviour and I think I would lose some images since too many clicks are involved for me

they could also include an option to continue to present results the way you currently prefer

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on April 03, 2012, 10:38

I voted iStock because their submission process is ridiculous and their "not suitable for stock" guidelines are rarely followed consistently. I know submission process is not part of your poll, but rejections really burn when you go through a submission obstacle course like the one at iStock (they really need to take heed to FeaturePics or 123RF's process). Istock accepts some of the most "unsuitable" things from me and then reject "suitable" things. The worst is after being corrected once or twice, they decide it's "not suitable for stock." Scout is restrictive and also a waste of time (just resubmit the image instead of arguing). They are very, very inconsistent and I've given up trying to understand and create work that I thought they would accept in that silly "Vector Do's and Don'ts". Simply put: They just reject things to reject or have some kind of conspiracy against non-exclusives. I programmed my mail software to send their notices directly to the trash (I think that contributed to reducing my stress factor).

I'd give GraphicRiver 2nd place worst. Their submission process is worse than iStock and their rejection reasons are beyond comprehension and inappropriate (inappropriate in that they should pay us a heckofalot more to fit their model and processes). If iStock didn't exist�which might happen one day if they keep up the fumbles�and I had a 38% acceptance rate at GraphicRiver, GraphicRiver would take 1st place. They seem sincere, but their "standards" allow no room for obtuse and imperfect hand-drawn work such as mine.

Dreamstime would be 3rd because they accept more than they reject. But their rejections are quite "istockian." They often make no sense. Those rejections they make for "similar" images are excessive. Their vector submission process needs to be improved.

Veer and Crestock ties at 4th worst for silly rejection reasons. They obviously are understaffed and probably want to err on the side of caution. So maybe they reject more than accept to reduce chances of getting stuck with possible technical problems in the files.

Fotolia, Canstock, Bigstock, GraphicLeftovers, FeaturePics, Panthermedia, Alamy, Stockfuel, 123RF and the others reject very few things. When they do reject it, it's understandable or simply because I put in the wrong info or matching JPG.

Shutterstock would not be on my list (so far). They predictably reject many of my abstract seamless patterns or admittedly boring flowers. There is one reviewer there that rejects all of my work when he/she gets it. That person obviously hates my work (cites Low Commercial Value). So I just double check the files, resubmit and enjoy watching the subsequent sales.  

As a disclaimer, I am a "newbie" to the field (July 2010). So don't hold that too much against me  . I do however, work with a very popular microstock photographer in the microstock services side of my business and he agrees almost entirely with my vote.

Pugh!  long read!  the submission process at IS,  is something else, antique, stoneage, you name it. This was about inspectors? right?  and I still maintaine, at IS,  its enough if youre images are technically sound, never mind composition, creativity or whatever. As long as your image does not contain, noise of haze, at IS,  youre accepted.
Cant really be easier then that, can it?

It's so easy to spit at people from behind a monitor isn't it!  I'm trying to give a thoughtful response. If it's too much to read, then don't bother. Obviously you didn't because I did preface that submission process was different from the poll question. But I gave a supporting argument for the criticism. There's no haze or noise in my drawings. And no, your defense of "technically sound" is not what I've experienced nor many others. No, I disagree. It's not easier than that. So be it. It's their loss. Not ours.

Funny.  I just had a rejection at Istock :
1. Overfiltered
2. keywords rejected
3. Model release rejected (signed before the shoot date, which is IMHO something that is not forbidden)

and then, the inspector added a "personal touch" :   "nice image, please resubmit"

  No way!    If he/she wanted it in the istock collection, he could've deleted a few keywords and accepted the photo.
As TheBlackRhino said :  it's their loss.

But he can't do anything about overfiltering . But of course, you're completely right, they should try a bit harder if they get their hands on a good image (they're rare)

Quote from: lagereek on April 03, 2012, 10:52

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on April 03, 2012, 10:38

I voted iStock because their submission process is ridiculous and their "not suitable for stock" guidelines are rarely followed consistently. I know submission process is not part of your poll, but rejections really burn when you go through a submission obstacle course like the one at iStock (they really need to take heed to FeaturePics or 123RF's process). Istock accepts some of the most "unsuitable" things from me and then reject "suitable" things. The worst is after being corrected once or twice, they decide it's "not suitable for stock." Scout is restrictive and also a waste of time (just resubmit the image instead of arguing). They are very, very inconsistent and I've given up trying to understand and create work that I thought they would accept in that silly "Vector Do's and Don'ts". Simply put: They just reject things to reject or have some kind of conspiracy against non-exclusives. I programmed my mail software to send their notices directly to the trash (I think that contributed to reducing my stress factor).

I'd give GraphicRiver 2nd place worst. Their submission process is worse than iStock and their rejection reasons are beyond comprehension and inappropriate (inappropriate in that they should pay us a heckofalot more to fit their model and processes). If iStock didn't exist�which might happen one day if they keep up the fumbles�and I had a 38% acceptance rate at GraphicRiver, GraphicRiver would take 1st place. They seem sincere, but their "standards" allow no room for obtuse and imperfect hand-drawn work such as mine.

Dreamstime would be 3rd because they accept more than they reject. But their rejections are quite "istockian." They often make no sense. Those rejections they make for "similar" images are excessive. Their vector submission process needs to be improved.

Veer and Crestock ties at 4th worst for silly rejection reasons. They obviously are understaffed and probably want to err on the side of caution. So maybe they reject more than accept to reduce chances of getting stuck with possible technical problems in the files.

Fotolia, Canstock, Bigstock, GraphicLeftovers, FeaturePics, Panthermedia, Alamy, Stockfuel, 123RF and the others reject very few things. When they do reject it, it's understandable or simply because I put in the wrong info or matching JPG.

Shutterstock would not be on my list (so far). They predictably reject many of my abstract seamless patterns or admittedly boring flowers. There is one reviewer there that rejects all of my work when he/she gets it. That person obviously hates my work (cites Low Commercial Value). So I just double check the files, resubmit and enjoy watching the subsequent sales.  

As a disclaimer, I am a "newbie" to the field (July 2010). So don't hold that too much against me  . I do however, work with a very popular microstock photographer in the microstock services side of my business and he agrees almost entirely with my vote.

Pugh!  long read!  the submission process at IS,  is something else, antique, stoneage, you name it. This was about inspectors? right?  and I still maintaine, at IS,  its enough if youre images are technically sound, never mind composition, creativity or whatever. As long as your image does not contain, noise of haze, at IS,  youre accepted.
Cant really be easier then that, can it?

It's so easy to spit at people from behind a monitor isn't it!  I'm trying to give a thoughtful response. If it's too much to read, then don't bother. Obviously you didn't because I did preface that submission process was different from the poll question. But I gave a supporting argument for the criticism. There's no haze or noise in my drawings. And no, your defense of "technically sound" is not what I've experienced nor many others. No, I disagree. It's not easier than that. So be it. It's their loss. Not ours.

You havent been long in this came, nor have you got many files in your port. Nobody is spitting behind a monitor, nor in front. Lower your tone a bit and you might get heard.

This poll's results indicate that Dreamstime Inspectors/Process is the worst; does the reverse stand true -- Big Stock inspectors are the best?   

For me BS reviewers are really the best. If they reject exceptionally my image, usually they are right. At least they give me exact reason of rejection. No "we don't need this image",  "We have reviewed your file and this is not quite what we're looking for" or "We are not interested in this image."

^^Why do you even bother then? I don't anymore and I had sales that were actually decent for a mid tier agency (meaning pathetic really)

honestly, I don't bother anymore, cos now I'd run into the situation that if I did make a sale how long would it take to get to the minimum payout?

i agree!  interface, uploading process, etc, is totally ancient, boring and time consuming. A well respected,  x-employee of Getty, told me. The IS/Getty. have had it their own way for such a long time, theyve become blind to changes, progress, etc,  they havent seen or rather understood, that they are more or less playing second fiddle nowdays.
Its a shock to the entire system and as we know, you cant teach an old dog to sit. The reviewing process and (only sometimes) the incompetance is fightening.

A reviewer, can not see that behind a "cut-out" there is another outline, belonging to another subject, but instead calls it " rough cut-out".

A week back and after a 5 months absence, I actually resumed uploading to IS,  15, shots, 11, were accepted but the other 4, came back with the same incompetant glib. Who do they think theyre fooling?  Ive done digital work since, 92, drumscanning, the lot.

Bottom line is: Its become an amateur site, no matter what cr#p, is uploaded, its accepted as long as the reviewer finds his way to the computer and this is probably the way Getty wants it. Suits them fine, I suppose.

I vote for iStock.
I hate their conception of "noise"
It is absurd that they reject any image with a minimum of noise in the darkest shadows, but accept anything over-denoised (like plastic)�