MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Dumc on February 16, 2017, 12:13

Title: File was returned for revision
Post by: Dumc on February 16, 2017, 12:13
Can anybody explain to me what does that mean?

You are required to disambiguate your keyword terms. Please review your keywords to ensure each search term has been disambiguated. Terms that require disambiguation are framed by a dotted black line. Click on the terms with a dotted black line, then pick the correct meaning below the keyword box.

One of those keywords, that is framed by "dotted black line" is a scientific (latin) name of a bird so I really don't understand what should I do here. One of the framed keywords is also "wildlife" so I have no clue whats wrong with this keywords.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: ShadySue on February 16, 2017, 15:32
Very many species names or Scientific names are not in the CV. Loads of complaints, no resolution. This has been going on for over a year. Previously, if it wasn't in the CV, a buyer in the know could always find it by putting a non-CV keyword phrase into quotes, but that stopped over a year ago, and shortly after that even non-CV keywords became unreachable, at least on new uploads. Then a lot of species which were previously in the CV were remapped to false species, eg my European Siskin pics mapped to Pine Siskin (the North American species). Apparently it's because iS's CV is being 'unified' with Getty's, which seems to be surprisingly limited. There have been lots of complaints and examples on their keyword/search forum, but in fact only a few contributors are involved. If more people complained, something might get done; or it might not. Meanwhile, why submit for 'as low as 2c', which won't happen anyway if your file can't be found.

Typos corrected: phone auto correct  ::)
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Dumc on February 16, 2017, 16:24
Yeah, but, what about "wildlife". I think it's ok keyword for a bird, or not? And there are tons of other word that are marked like that and I think are appropriate.

For example "sunrise" for this photo.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-coloured-vineyard-early-autumn-morning-576796132?src=Al9XmTRYh6dCYfMEJIbIYA-1-3 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-coloured-vineyard-early-autumn-morning-576796132?src=Al9XmTRYh6dCYfMEJIbIYA-1-3)

As for 2cents, right now I'm going to leave my files at istock and see how it goes. If I'll see 2cents sales pouring in I'm outta there...
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: ShadySue on February 16, 2017, 16:30
I have't uploaded for over six months, so I can't speak to any recent problems.
I have read of really surprising keywords not being available under the new system.
Again, I recommend reading and, if necessary, adding to the thread over on iS's forum.
No-one here can help you.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Pauws99 on February 16, 2017, 19:05
Very many species names or Scientific names are not in the CV. Loads of complaints, no resolution. This has been going on for over a year. Previously, if it wasn't in the CV, a buyer in the know could always find it by putting a non-CV keyword phrase into quotes, but that stopped over a year ago, and shortly after that even non-CV keywords became unreachable, at least on new uploads. Then a lot of species which were previously in the CV were remapped to false species, eg my European Siskin pics mapped to Pine Siskin (the North American species). Apparently it's because iS's CV is being 'unified' with Getty's, which seems to be surprisingly limited. There have been lots of complaints and examples on their keyword/search forum, but in fact only a few contributors are involved. If more people complained, something might get done; or it might not. Meanwhile, why submit for 'as low as 2c', which won't happen anyway if your file can't be found.

Typos corrected: phone auto correct  ::)
CV just wont work in the "real world"
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Mantis on February 17, 2017, 19:36
Whatever is going on is a massive fail.  I uploaded a number of landscape images that are being rejected for property release required. Here's one of them. I did upload it again. We'll see what happens.  But I got at least 20 rejections for "needs property release" for other landscapes images.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: angelawaye on February 17, 2017, 22:22
Ask the bears to file a property release - or would they need one too ...
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: JimP on February 17, 2017, 22:28
Very many species names or Scientific names are not in the CV. Loads of complaints, no resolution. This has been going on for over a year. Previously, if it wasn't in the CV, a buyer in the know could always find it by putting a non-CV keyword phrase into quotes, but that stopped over a year ago, and shortly after that even non-CV keywords became unreachable, at least on new uploads. Then a lot of species which were previously in the CV were remapped to false species, eg my European Siskin pics mapped to Pine Siskin (the North American species). Apparently it's because iS's CV is being 'unified' with Getty's, which seems to be surprisingly limited. There have been lots of complaints and examples on their keyword/search forum, but in fact only a few contributors are involved. If more people complained, something might get done; or it might not. Meanwhile, why submit for 'as low as 2c', which won't happen anyway if your file can't be found.

Typos corrected: phone auto correct  ::)
CV just wont work in the "real world"

Right, good idea but unless they put all the words in and keep up, it's a failure.

You need to set terms not just keywords so the match Getty. Any words that don't match or aren't CV won't be searched. It's to our advantage to set Getty words.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: alno on February 18, 2017, 05:37
What exactly that dumb site has to start doing to all of you to drop it quietly for ever? :) File returned for revision, property release for a landscape, 2c per download, concealed income data... They are enormous f&*#up in EVERY way you can only imagine. What a patience... 
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: ShadySue on February 18, 2017, 05:43
Quote

You need to set terms not just keywords so the match Getty. Any words that don't match or aren't CV won't be searched. It's to our advantage to set Getty words.
It would have been to their advantage had they mapped iS's CV into Getty's instead of rendering presumably many thousands of existing files unsearchable.

Hopefully  if you discover during uploading that  an essential keyword is missing, you can abort the upload - or don't they allow that nowadays?
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Stockmaan on February 18, 2017, 05:55
Ask the bears to file a property release - or would they need one too ...
... and mother bear, you need sign too.  No joke at getty!
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Pauws99 on February 18, 2017, 06:56
Ask the bears to file a property release - or would they need one too ...
... and mother bear, you need sign too.  No joke at getty!
Model Release surely?
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on February 18, 2017, 07:58
2c sales are already happening for nonexclusives and 1c sales for exclusives. Have some self respect people, or at least admit to yourself that you will never stop working with an agency regardless of how they treat you or how little they pay.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Tror on February 18, 2017, 08:07
It`s soooo good to see People still wasting time with unworthy Agencies like Getty. That chews up their time and keeps them from submitting to the important Agencies.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Microstockphoto on February 18, 2017, 13:23
some parts of nature are privately owned, so you would need a property release, nothing weird about that. the question is, is that waterfall privately owned. could be the case
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: jodijacobson on February 18, 2017, 14:04
anything on Navajo property in the USA needs a release like the slot canyons in Page Arizona
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: niktol on February 18, 2017, 14:34
What exactly that dumb site has to start doing to all of you to drop it quietly for ever?

Stop bringing money
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Sammy the Cat on February 18, 2017, 15:48
Why oh why waste your time bothering to upload to that site. :'(

The whole thing is an abomination  >:(
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on February 19, 2017, 04:07
What exactly that dumb site has to start doing to all of you to drop it quietly for ever?

Stop bringing money
Oh it won't be istock that stops bringing money. It will be the other sites when buyers are signing up to the 90% discounted sub packages on istock and we are getting 5-10% of the scraps we get now. Wake up. Stand up for something or you'll fall for anything.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: niktol on February 19, 2017, 06:26

Oh it won't be istock that stops bringing money. It will be the other sites when buyers are signing up to the 90% discounted sub packages on istock and we are getting 5-10% of the scraps we get now. Wake up. Stand up for something or you'll fall for anything.

Your suggestion being, stop selling images on IS? I don't know you and you are free to do whatever you want. I have no problem with that.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on February 19, 2017, 06:36

Oh it won't be istock that stops bringing money. It will be the other sites when buyers are signing up to the 90% discounted sub packages on istock and we are getting 5-10% of the scraps we get now. Wake up. Stand up for something or you'll fall for anything.

Your suggestion being, stop selling images on IS? I don't know you and you are free to do whatever you want. I have no problem with that.

Of course you are free to do whatever you want. I am only suggesting you think about what you are doing and and act in your own self interest. I can't make you think about it or tell you how to run your business.

You have no obligation to justify it to me, as much as I would like to hear some sort of justification.  Maybe you can convince me as to why it is a good idea to telegraph to every single agency that they are overpaying us by up to 20 times what they need to to get our work? That is precisely what you are doing when you supply work to IStock under an agreement that they can sell licenses for 1 or 2c. Fortunately I think enough people have woken up to this that IStock have put the last nail in their own coffin.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: niktol on February 19, 2017, 06:46

You have no obligation to justify it to me, as much as I would like to hear some sort of justification.  Maybe you can convince me as to why it is a good idea to telegraph to every single agency that they are overpaying us by up to 20 times what they need to to get our work? That is precisely what you are doing when you supply work to IStock under an agreement that they can sell licenses for 1 or 2c. Fortunately I think enough people have woken up to this that IStock have put the last nail in their own coffin.

I don't know what's a good idea and what's not for IS, and frankly I don't care. I don't work for them. If I decide to stop uploading content for a couple of months or for good, I will not give them an advance notice, nor will they take a disciplinary action if I go on vacation without their approval. They provide a platform that I will use as long as it's worth my while. I will stop when there is nothing in it for me. Not the case yet. All that "united we are, rah rah" talk from anonymous online competition does not make a whole lot of sense to me, sorry.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on February 19, 2017, 07:02

You have no obligation to justify it to me, as much as I would like to hear some sort of justification.  Maybe you can convince me as to why it is a good idea to telegraph to every single agency that they are overpaying us by up to 20 times what they need to to get our work? That is precisely what you are doing when you supply work to IStock under an agreement that they can sell licenses for 1 or 2c. Fortunately I think enough people have woken up to this that IStock have put the last nail in their own coffin.

I don't know what's a good idea and what's not for IS, and frankly I don't care. I don't work for them. If I decide to stop uploading content for a couple of months or for good, I will not give them an advance notice, nor will they take a disciplinary action if I go on vacation without their approval. They provide a platform that I will use as long as it's worth my while. I will stop when there is nothing in it for me. Not the case yet. All that "united we are, rah rah" talk from anonymous online competition does not make a whole lot of sense to me, sorry.

What are you talking about? We aren't united. We are in competition.

I am looking for the best outlets for my work and to protect my long to medium term income irrespective of what you do. I am not asking to trust me or do what I do. I am just asking you to engage your brain for your own self interest, you absolutely don't have to.

This is a forum for discussing what we are doing on microstock sites and perhaps why. That is what I am doing. What you do, why you do it and whether you want to talk about is entirely up to you.

You seem to be saying you happily enter contracts without caring what the specifics are as long as the return is above a certain level. That seems odd to me and not how I run my business.

My relationship with IStock is the same as with all the agencies aside from the pathetically low RPD there compared to the others, so I am not sure why their attitude to your vacation time is relevant?

Why should one accept 20x less money for a license sale from them than from Shutterstock or Adobestock? Why do you think Shutterstock or Adobestock will continue to pay us 20X more when they see we will accept 20X less? Again, I am not asking you to join a Union here, I am asking based just on how you run your own business.

You don't have to answer, but spouting ideological BS about free markets isn't really relevant here. What we are discussing is what is in your best interests an agent in the market.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: niktol on February 19, 2017, 07:11

You don't have to answer, but spouting ideological BS about free markets isn't really relevant here. What we are discussing is what is in your best interests an agent in the market.

There is nothing ideological about what I say. I do engage my brain, thank you. And I make my own conclusions. But keep thinking I am stupid, uneducated and illiterate, this is to my advantage.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on February 19, 2017, 07:28

You don't have to answer, but spouting ideological BS about free markets isn't really relevant here. What we are discussing is what is in your best interests an agent in the market.

There is nothing ideological about what I say. I do engage my brain, thank you. And I make my own conclusions. But keep thinking I am stupid, uneducated and illiterate, this is to my advantage.

To your advantage how? What I think of you or you of me is irreverent outside of pointless internet arguments like this one.

The reason I used the word "ideological" is because that's how the
Quote from: niktol
All that "united we are, rah rah" talk
comment came across. It didn't address anything concrete about what was going on IStock beyond not wanting to act in a way anyone else was on principle.

As I say, you don't need to justify yourself or your actions to me and you really don't seem to be addressing anything about the situation beyond your previous statement that as long as they keep paying you you will keep uploading, irrespective of what they ask for in return.

Don't feel you have to respond if you don't want to, if that is your position I do understand where you are coming from. I am just saying that isn't what I am choosing to do.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: niktol on February 19, 2017, 07:42

You don't have to answer, but spouting ideological BS about free markets isn't really relevant here. What we are discussing is what is in your best interests an agent in the market.

There is nothing ideological about what I say. I do engage my brain, thank you. And I make my own conclusions. But keep thinking I am stupid, uneducated and illiterate, this is to my advantage.

To your advantage how? What I think of you or you of me is irreverent outside of pointless internet arguments like this one.

The reason I used the word "ideological" is because that's how the
Quote from: niktol
All that "united we are, rah rah" talk
comment came across. It didn't address anything concrete about what was going on IStock beyond not wanting to act in a way anyone else was on principle.

As I say, you don't need to justify yourself or your actions to me and you really don't seem to be addressing anything about the situation beyond your previous statement that as long as they keep paying you you will keep uploading, irrespective of what they ask for in return.

Don't feel you have to respond if you don't want to, if that is your position I do understand where you are coming from. I am just saying that isn't what I am choosing to do.

Man, I really don't want to fight with you. I think you are a cool dude (or dudette?) but I don't see a point for you to get angry at me.  In all fairness you are the one who started with the "Stand up for something or you'll fall for anything" exhortative statement, so I just responded in kind. I do understand where you are coming from too, and I will keep a close eye on that 2c business, but the jury is still out, at least for me.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on February 19, 2017, 07:52

You don't have to answer, but spouting ideological BS about free markets isn't really relevant here. What we are discussing is what is in your best interests an agent in the market.

There is nothing ideological about what I say. I do engage my brain, thank you. And I make my own conclusions. But keep thinking I am stupid, uneducated and illiterate, this is to my advantage.

To your advantage how? What I think of you or you of me is irreverent outside of pointless internet arguments like this one.

The reason I used the word "ideological" is because that's how the
Quote from: niktol
All that "united we are, rah rah" talk
comment came across. It didn't address anything concrete about what was going on IStock beyond not wanting to act in a way anyone else was on principle.

As I say, you don't need to justify yourself or your actions to me and you really don't seem to be addressing anything about the situation beyond your previous statement that as long as they keep paying you you will keep uploading, irrespective of what they ask for in return.

Don't feel you have to respond if you don't want to, if that is your position I do understand where you are coming from. I am just saying that isn't what I am choosing to do.

Man, I really don't want to fight with you. I think you are a cool dude (or dudette?) but I don't see a point for you to get angry at me.  In all fairness you are the one who started with the "Stand up for something or you'll fall for anything" exhortative statement, so I just responded in kind. I do understand where you are coming from too, and I will keep a close eye on that 2c business, but the jury is still out, at least for me.
Fair enough I get it. I am honestly not angry, not at you at least! I am sorry if it came off that way. I only mean to attack the point, not you. I really don't think you are stupid.

It will be interesting to see what the impact of the changes at IStock are and how other agencies will react.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: niktol on February 19, 2017, 08:07

It will be interesting to see what the impact of the changes at IStock are and how other agencies will react.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I think in 5 years or so (maybe earlier, maybe later) the photostock market will no longer provide a sustainable income for individuals. Teams with some serious business analytics and IT capabilities will easily outperform them and then each other thus dropping the price to a bare minimum which has not been reached yet. It's a natural course of things and each of us has a next to zero impact on the path to the inevitable end. I am aggressively looking for options and that's how I am addressing the issue.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on February 19, 2017, 08:28
I don't know. People have been saying that for the last ten years, ever since micro started really. And especially since about 2010. It could happen at some point, but I don't see anything that points to it happening now any more than at any other time in that period.

In fact I have seen RPDs rise everywhere except for IStock, Bigstock and Depositphotos, all agencies that have been failing in that time and all agencies I stopped working with for this reason. I have managed to increase my income many times over in that same period (with a couple of bumps along the way).

What I have seen is a saturation of the market. IMHO every company/ customer that needs a subscription service now has one. Whenever I see a significant rise in DLs on one subs program I see a decrease elsewhere. That is why these changes on IStock scare me. They will be aggressively undercutting other sites, it's what they do, and taking our customers from higher paying programs onto theirs.



Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: niktol on February 19, 2017, 10:38
I don't know. People have been saying that for the last ten years, ever since micro started really. And especially since about 2010. It could happen at some point, but I don't see anything that points to it happening now any more than at any other time in that period.

In fact I have seen RPDs rise everywhere except for IStock, Bigstock and Depositphotos, all agencies that have been failing in that time and all agencies I stopped working with for this reason. I have managed to increase my income many times over in that same period (with a couple of bumps along the way).

What I have seen is a saturation of the market. IMHO every company/ customer that needs a subscription service now has one. Whenever I see a significant rise in DLs on one subs program I see a decrease elsewhere. That is why these changes on IStock scare me. They will be aggressively undercutting other sites, it's what they do, and taking our customers from higher paying programs onto theirs.

You might be right on every point.

However, the reasons I rarely make fast decisions that seem to be obvious in this business are these:
-I was wrong on many occasions when interpreting events and data that seemed to me to have clear and intuitively obvious consequences or causes.
-Many people are often wrong (including people on this board) when interpreting events and data that seem to them to have clear and intuitively obvious consequences or causes.
-The only thing that seem to have served me very well is empirical observations and data I collected over years. They give surprising counter-intuitive and valuable results sometimes, but they take time to collect.

The attempt to undercut other agencies coming from a comparatively big player is of course a red flag that may or may not have serious repercussions for us in the future. In all honesty I have not figured out what that means for us yet. Many smaller agencies that attempted to undercut the big players as a business strategy are long gone now, so that approach may not work for IS either. IS does show signs of decline unlike SS or Fotolia, so things may work out quite naturally so to speak (as in "death by natural causes").

But I hear you.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on February 19, 2017, 11:54
Your approach is very similar to my own, in this case there a are a few factors that have made me act straight away, and for me it isn't even border line.

First is my previous experiences with IStock and Getty. They have always pushed the boundaries to fleece contributors as much as possible. If they have 2c as a minimum they will be hitting that minimum. As I said on a previous thread, they are already paying out license sales at this level even under the existing system. This drop in return per download is beyond anything ever attempted by any agency. Literally almost 20X less than Shutterstock pays. I cannot run my business making 5% of what I do now.

Second I think that optics very much matter. It sends a message to other agencies that we are prepared to accept less. They are running businesses. If I was a Shutterstock shareholder I'd be asking why they are paying out 38c/dl when they could be paying 2c and still getting content.

Third and possibly most importantly is that it could well be too late to act by the time I have enough data to base a decision on. Once other agencies follow suit there will be no rolling back the clock.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Dumc on February 19, 2017, 14:15
What are this messages, that you 2 are exchanging relevant to the topic?
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on February 19, 2017, 14:47
Fully half the posts on this thread, including yours referenced the 2c sales before our conversation (see posts 2 and 3). The changes at istock are the main thing going on in the micro world right now. Of course it is going to be debated on a thread about uploading to istock.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: niktol on February 19, 2017, 14:50
What are this messages, that you 2 are exchanging relevant to the topic?

They are not. We just had a friendly exchange on a tangential subject. Feel free to ignore. As to your original post, replace the binomial name with the common name (e.g. "Buteo jamaicensis" with "chickenhawk"), "wildlife" with "bird", and see if it helps.
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: Josephine on February 20, 2017, 04:25
Keywords: Do I have to revise ALL keywords in order to get accepted? Do I have to cancel all keywords which do not fit?
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: stefanocarocci on February 21, 2017, 12:28
I have some files in revise status on ESP what does it mean? what i have to do? someone can help me please?  :-[
Title: Re: File was returned for revision
Post by: ShadySue on February 21, 2017, 13:50
What are this messages, that you 2 are exchanging relevant to the topic?

They are not. We just had a friendly exchange on a tangential subject. Feel free to ignore. As to your original post, replace the binomial name with the common name (e.g. "Buteo jamaicensis" with "chickenhawk"), "wildlife" with "bird", and see if it helps.

Never heard of chickenhawk, but I know Red-tailed Hawk. Whatever, that's not the point. The scientific name is searchable by everyone, even outwith the site-supported languages. I would imagine that's a keyword phrase which disappeared, as previously on iStock the CV supported the scientific names of more or less all common UK and North American birds at least.
It may be that even though you can't actually keyword with the scientific binomial, it will still be searchable, mapping invisibly. Things like that have happened unannounced in the past. I'm not saying that is the case, it's just a slight possibility.