Let see it the other way... The ranting of a reviewer

[lisafx]

I feel nothing but sorry for these reviewers.  
ETA:  These folks deserve some gratitude for slogging through all the dross.  I think I would be forced to shoot myself in the head after 10 hours of that!

Lisa, I love your work and their rants are not aimed at you, however, they get paid for a job they applied for. Just like microstock photogs complaining about rejections, nobody's holding the checkbook to their heads.

Thanks for the compliment

Believe me, I get my fair share of rejections too (especially at Fotolia, which seems to think my work is complete crap).  But I really don't think these reveiwers get paid enough to make it worth their while. 

I don't know what they are making now, but a couple of years ago I was approached about reviewing for a well known site and at that time they were paying .35 per image reviewed. 

Seems like a pretty tough way to get a paycheck IMHO.  I decided to stick with shooting and uploading, thanks all the same

[PeterChigmaroff]

I don't know what they are making now, but a couple of years ago I was approached about reviewing for a well known site and at that time they were paying .35 per image reviewed. 

Seems like a pretty tough way to get a paycheck IMHO.  I decided to stick with shooting and uploading, thanks all the same
[/quote]

Certainly if you were paid that for reviewing on StockXpert you'd be making a decent living.

[epantha]

I would think that it is the natural progression of things for a new photographer to practice by shooting everything around her/him. That's what I did and that's how I learned. Gotta start somewhere, eh?

[Karimala]

I've read that thread plenty of times.  For whatever reason it continues to resurface at SS every few months.  The reviewer is jaded, and should not be reviewing anymore.  I would like to see his/her completely original submissions.  I'm sure everything the reviewer shoots has never been done before.  Please.

Both reviewers happen to be friends of mine, and neither one is reviewing anymore.  Why?  It's simple.  Burnout. 

[bvburnes]

Well, now I'm totally self-conscious about uploading anything now! 

-BB

[mollypix]

Does anybody know how much a reviewer gets paid to sort through the mess?

[vonkara]

I don't know what they are making now, but a couple of years ago I was approached about reviewing for a well known site and at that time they were paying .35 per image reviewed. 

[lisafx]

I don't know what they are making now, but a couple of years ago I was approached about reviewing for a well known site and at that time they were paying .35 per image reviewed. 

A couple of years ago. Now it can be different

So if your information is more current, care to share it?  What are they making?

[vonkara]

No, I don't have a more recent answer, I quoted you to show what you've said. I only added "it can be different" to summary. But it was useless, sorry. Fixed now

[Karimala]

Does anybody know how much a reviewer gets paid to sort through the mess?

If they are paying by the image, the most current earnings are between 3 and 7 cents per image.  I don't know about the sites that pay by the hour, but a couple of years ago SS was paying $8 an hour.  It's definitely not a lot of money.   

[Aetherial]

not a lot of money? depends on how you look at. 8$ per hour times 8 hours = 64$ a day. 64$ times 23 days a month = 1472$ a month. it is equivalent to 956 EUR which is waaaaaay over average monthly salary in my country. furthermore 900 EUR a month is considered a very very good salary.

[sharply_done]

not a lot of money? depends on how you look at. 8$ per hour times 8 hours = 64$ a day. 64$ times 23 days a month = 1472$ a month. it is equivalent to 956 EUR which is waaaaaay over average monthly salary in my country. furthermore 900 EUR a month is considered a very very good salary.

On the flip side, $1472 per month just begins to cover my expenses. You'd be living below the poverty line if you made only that much here (Vancouver, Canada).

[michealo]

Legal minimum wage in Ireland is �8.65....

[leaf]

Legal minimum wage in Ireland is �8.65....

and �12 in norway

[CvanDijk]

� 7.83 per hour in Holland

[Joyce]

About $13.50 in Australia.

Edit:

Make that $14.31 as of October 1st

[DiscreetDuck]

8.71 � ($12.70) before taxes,
7.20� ($10.52) after taxes.

[vonkara]

Wow, it's kind of different between each countries. I never thought it was like this. Here in Canada (Quebec) it's 8.50$. It's like 6.50 euros, but I may be wrong with the conversion

[Roadrunner]

This thread kind of gives me pause.  It seem just about every subject has been photographed by someone, and probably duplicated by copycats.

I had some experience reviewing images, and I lasted about one hour, and I never looked back. There isn't enough money in it for me - especially at the wages cited here. 

Most errors I noticed had to do with focus, noise and lacking contrast.  Everytime I submit, I wonder how it will work out.  For every two hundred shots I take, I may submit 20.  I really hesitate submitting tow of the swame subject, and I try to vary my subject matter.  I must admit deciding what to shoot can be a challenge for me.  I often try to figure ow many photogs already covered the subject I have chosen.

I canfault the reviewer too much, because I wouldn't want their job.  Dealing with someones art or photography is like dealing with their inflated ego.

Have a good day and keep shooting!

[Karimala]

In the US, $8 an hour is barely above minimum wage.  A kid in high school flipping burgers makes the same amount of money.  Reviewers also must be fluent in English, and provide their own computer equipment, unlike a burger flipper.

One of the reviewers I know in the US barely made $5-6 an hour reviewing on a per image basis.  The most she made was $800 in a month reviewing about 10 hours per day.  No wonder she burned out. 

[mollypix]

So from our point of view, the old addage, Pay peanuts you get monkeys". Therefore our images just might be reviewed by monkeys.

I still believe that most reviewers are good at what they do.

To me the fairest way to ensure the reviewers are being fed the best images, is that the sites rank the upload reviewing order to "highest current approval rate first"

I will wait for the yells and screams....

[melastmohican]

Random order of pictures would be most beneficial for photographers but most boring for reviewers. Now that can entertain themselves by sending whole batches to void.

[dnavarrojr]

You know, I think there would be a lot less whining from submitters if reviewers were allowed to give better feedback than clicking a checkmark for a standard response.  If they were allowed to give a little more detail  in their response, it would be much more helpful.

Also, spending many many hours sitting in front of a computer reviewing stuff has got to skew ones attitude to the point where stuff DOES get rejected that shouldn't.

However, I do someone feel for these guys.  I have to imagine that the majority of stuff submitted is NOT from professional photographers, but from idiots who read an old article somewhere about how to make millions with a $30 digital camera.

[loongirl]

Like everyone else, I've had a few 'easy button' reviewers, but for the most part, the reviewers have been pretty decent. In fact, recently I had one reviewer write a short note, somewhat apologetic, telling me that there was nothing wrong with my image other than they already had way too many.

There's been many, many reviews that have been super-helpful - I've probably learned more as a beginning stock photog from detailed reviews than you can imagine.

I realize that the time element for commenting on reviews is limited - who the heck wants to spend even 2 minutes commenting, when you're only earning a few cents per image??? But there are still those who care enough to comment and are willing to spend the time, and I always hope I show up in their queue.

And then there was the wonderful reviewer (and I mean that in true sincerity) who started out her review with "Oy vey!!!!" and then politely told me that I needed to squelch the noise . . .   (she was right - it was horrible - and since she reads this thread, I want her to know that I still laugh over that one!)

  b