MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Who has the most incompetent Inspectors / Inspection process?

istockphoto.com
44 (20.5%)
shutterstock.com
19 (8.8%)
dreamstime.com
68 (31.6%)
veer.com
7 (3.3%)
fotolia.com
41 (19.1%)
deposithotos.com
1 (0.5%)
canstockphoto.com
2 (0.9%)
bigstockphoto.com
2 (0.9%)
123rf.com
7 (3.3%)
panthermedia.net
8 (3.7%)
Photodune.com
16 (7.4%)

Total Members Voted: 197

Author Topic: Poll: Who has the most incompetent Inspectors / Inspection process?  (Read 9108 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cascoly

  • Photography, travel & online games at cascoly.com

« Reply #50 on: March 23, 2012, 18:41 »
0

Not exactly what I meant though. Just the fact alone, DT and FT, is among the top four, proves they are doing something right, doesnt it? no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.

One has to separate tough inspection from bad inspection and I have a feeling many here dont do that. Sure Ive been the victim myself of very weird inspectors and your right I pulled my port from, 123, but for two reasons, inspectors there couldnt even separate WB, from purposely toning an image, now thats ludicrous, also they love generic stuff, because its easy to handle, easy to review.

you just contradicted yourself - citing bad reviewers at 123   -- others have cited similar problems with bulk rejects at the other agencies


>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.

unsupported assertion.

the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process. 


« Reply #51 on: March 23, 2012, 19:05 »
0
>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.

unsupported assertion.

the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process. 

Possible but extremely improbable - any retailer that doesn't select the right stock is not going to be very successful

« Reply #52 on: March 23, 2012, 19:11 »
0
>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.

unsupported assertion.

the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process. 

Possible but extremely improbable - any retailer that doesn't select the right stock is not going to be very successful

Very good post

« Reply #53 on: March 23, 2012, 19:12 »
0
I didn't vote out of sour grapes - I have almost 4000 images at every agency except istock.  I have about a 90-95% review rate on every site, including DT.  My vote and comment was based on the fact that I get more images rejected at DT that Fotolia, SS and iStock take than anything else.  I know some people get rejects at Fotolia but I do about 99% with them.  Same with SS.  I am able to produce images and I know what's going to get rejected and sometimes do push my limits with agencies.  Dreamstime, however, doesn't get all of my photos anymore.  I know what they won't accept so I have a high enough accept rate still but it's because I keep a lot of shots away from them.  

Crestock and Panther would be lower on the list than Dreamstime for me but their terrible reviews made me give up on them long ago plus they're small potatoes so honestly who cares?  I don't care if 123RF rejects a few of my images.  For the payments I get, it's not worth caring.

The fact that my Dreamstime sales took a major dive almost the same time they decided to crush similars means to me that it's hurting my business.  I don't like that - and that's not sour grapes, that's business.

« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2012, 19:16 »
0
Possible but extremely improbable - any retailer that doesn't select the right stock is not going to be very successful

Alamy accepts 99% of everything I've ever subbed and they are in my top 3 best sellers over the last year.  Maybe #2.  WAY ahead of DT.  Long tail stuff does sell.  I have $150 sales on Alamy that were rejected on DT for lighting.  Really? lol  Some buyer thought it was worth $150 but no buyer would find it useful at a buck?

M

« Reply #55 on: March 23, 2012, 19:54 »
0
Because it's rejected doesn't mean it's not good - the only real reason for rejection is what the site interprets as LCV.  I gather Alamy is a different market so probably have a different interpretation.

« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2012, 20:57 »
+1
dreamstime by a landslide pretty much...
these numbers have got to mean something to someone at DT, but the question is will they look at this and perhaps do something about it or just ignore the voice of contributors and keep sticking it to them?

« Reply #57 on: March 24, 2012, 01:42 »
0
I accidentally voted for IS in that I read this thread to be the exact opposite to what it actually is, so subtract one from the tally. There really needs to be the option for Crestock which would have got the vote for many, including me.

Behind Crestock is FT which for me just rejects anything that's travel related regardless of quality, and accepts anything isolated on white or with a MR person in it.

I know a lot of people whine about DT, and their reviews aren't exactly perfect, but theres also many microstockers that don't know the difference between what's similar and what's not.

lagereek

« Reply #58 on: March 24, 2012, 02:50 »
0

Not exactly what I meant though. Just the fact alone, DT and FT, is among the top four, proves they are doing something right, doesnt it? no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.

One has to separate tough inspection from bad inspection and I have a feeling many here dont do that. Sure Ive been the victim myself of very weird inspectors and your right I pulled my port from, 123, but for two reasons, inspectors there couldnt even separate WB, from purposely toning an image, now thats ludicrous, also they love generic stuff, because its easy to handle, easy to review.

you just contradicted yourself - citing bad reviewers at 123   -- others have cited similar problems with bulk rejects at the other agencies


>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.

unsupported assertion.

the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process.  


Youre missing the entie point. Editing/reviewing, SHOULD, be a human process. Automated-editing with calibrated softwares, singles out acepted/rejected, images, based only on technical merits.

After all the years, I can easily tell, some of the smaller nd middle-tier work like this.  Big differance!

However, with your type of photography, bit of travel and scenics, there is not much that can go wrong, is it? I mean as long as your shots are technically sound, etc, you wont suffer rejects.

best.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 04:58 by lagereek »

cascoly

  • Photography, travel & online games at cascoly.com

« Reply #59 on: March 24, 2012, 14:10 »
0
>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.

unsupported assertion.

the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process. 

Possible but extremely improbable - any retailer that doesn't select the right stock is not going to be very successful

only mildly appropriate in the case of stock photography - when there are MILLIONS of items to host, even a bad reviewing policy will still produce a decent collection.

cascoly

  • Photography, travel & online games at cascoly.com

« Reply #60 on: March 24, 2012, 14:21 »
0


Youre missing the entie point. Editing/reviewing, SHOULD, be a human process. Automated-editing with calibrated softwares, singles out acepted/rejected, images, based only on technical merits.

After all the years, I can easily tell, some of the smaller nd middle-tier work like this.  Big differance!

However, with your type of photography, bit of travel and scenics, there is not much that can go wrong, is it? I mean as long as your shots are technically sound, etc, you wont suffer rejects.

best.
i totally agree that "Editing/reviewing, SHOULD, be a human process."

as far as nothing going wrong - the seemingly random decisions of many  reviewers does result in many rejections (personally, I just keep submitting and dont let it affect my uploads or shooting)  - my point was just that business success and profitability are one thing, and not necessarily correlated with good reviewing practices, much less either being a CAUSE of the other. 

velocicarpo

« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2012, 12:02 »
+1
...and the winner iiiiis ... dreamstime! Why is this not a surprise to me?

rubyroo

« Reply #62 on: March 25, 2012, 12:15 »
0
I'm surprised.  I don't have any problems with Dreamstime reviews.  I don't produce lots of 'similars' though.  Maybe that's why.

wut

« Reply #63 on: March 25, 2012, 12:46 »
0
I'm surprised.  I don't have any problems with Dreamstime reviews.  I don't produce lots of 'similars' though.  Maybe that's why.

+1, 100% AR most months, but always above 90%

lisafx

« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2012, 16:33 »
0
On the Dreamstime issue, I think there's a difference between incompetent reviewers, and a policy that rejects similar images.  

Seems like most of the complaints about DT here are about the similars policy, not actually about the competency of the reviewers.  

FWIW, I feel like DT reviewers are perfectly competent and can tell a good image from a bad one as well as anybody.  

wut

« Reply #65 on: March 26, 2012, 16:53 »
0
On the Dreamstime issue, I think there's a difference between incompetent reviewers, and a policy that rejects similar images.  

Seems like most of the complaints about DT here are about the similars policy, not actually about the competency of the reviewers.  

FWIW, I feel like DT reviewers are perfectly competent and can tell a good image from a bad one as well as anybody.  

Exactly!

« Reply #66 on: March 26, 2012, 18:49 »
0
On the Dreamstime issue, I think there's a difference between incompetent reviewers, and a policy that rejects similar images.  

Seems like most of the complaints about DT here are about the similars policy, not actually about the competency of the reviewers.  

FWIW, I feel like DT reviewers are perfectly competent and can tell a good image from a bad one as well as anybody.  

Exactly!

like I previously said, 100% on that


lagereek

« Reply #67 on: March 27, 2012, 01:32 »
0
On the Dreamstime issue, I think there's a difference between incompetent reviewers, and a policy that rejects similar images.  

Seems like most of the complaints about DT here are about the similars policy, not actually about the competency of the reviewers.  

FWIW, I feel like DT reviewers are perfectly competent and can tell a good image from a bad one as well as anybody.  

Totally agree!  very competent indeed!  and to prevent clogging up the files they reject similars, which is fully understandable.

« Reply #68 on: March 27, 2012, 01:37 »
0
No 1. equality DT, FT with the rest... no problems.

fotorob

  • I am a professional stock photographer

« Reply #69 on: March 27, 2012, 06:27 »
0
Hm, the survey is a nice idea, but somehow useless, because I cannot compare agencies that I do not deliver to. So probably one of the agencies where most people upload to will be on top of the list.

Paulo M. F. Pires

  • "No Gods No Masters"

« Reply #70 on: March 27, 2012, 11:49 »
0
I agree with lisafx about "DT issue". Even I learned how avoid such rejections ( choosing the "best ones" or go to series ). So basically, poll results are screwed up...

I've seen many topics about "rejections" over top tier agencies, but they still on top, which probably means that, what they accept, is what they sell best.

What good is an agency which accepts everything and then does not sell? ( Like some low earners? )

And as said above by many: isn't more about agency own policy?

BTW, my vote gone to PM ( Rejections and Images deleted because PR needed for Editorial images inside "track" LOL ), but it appears to be more agency policy than competency of the reviewers.





 


 

cascoly

  • Photography, travel & online games at cascoly.com

« Reply #71 on: March 27, 2012, 13:13 »
0

I've seen many topics about "rejections" over top tier agencies, but they still on top, which probably means that, what they accept, is what they sell best.  

  

you can't draw that conclusion since no one knows which of the images they rejected would sell - each site has millions of images, and they probably only sell a small % of those in any quantity.  they also reject millions of images, and undoubtedly many of those would sell BETTER than what they have online.  that's a big reason why arbitrary rejects like LCV are so frustrating

wut

« Reply #72 on: March 27, 2012, 13:31 »
0

I've seen many topics about "rejections" over top tier agencies, but they still on top, which probably means that, what they accept, is what they sell best.  

  

you can't draw that conclusion since no one knows which of the images they rejected would sell - each site has millions of images, and they probably only sell a small % of those in any quantity.  they also reject millions of images, and undoubtedly many of those would sell BETTER than what they have online.  that's a big reason why arbitrary rejects like LCV are so frustrating

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

velocicarpo

« Reply #73 on: March 27, 2012, 13:58 »
0
Speaking as a Buyer, I never had Problems with "wading through similars". I think it is a myth. It takes me about 1 second to overlook a PAGE of search results and to see if there is what I`m looking for. Much more often it happens that I NEED similars to find the right angle, framing etc. which is oftenly not easy.

« Reply #74 on: March 27, 2012, 14:23 »
0
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.

PhotoDuneMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
2773 Views
Last post October 22, 2007, 14:07
by Dr Bouz
9 Replies
2611 Views
Last post April 14, 2008, 01:54
by Graffoto
18 Replies
3667 Views
Last post February 26, 2011, 23:55
by sobm
2 Replies
1527 Views
Last post April 19, 2011, 02:02
by oxman
71 Replies
5609 Views
Last post October 10, 2011, 07:54
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors