MicrostockGroup

See this is what happens. The reviewer in question is probably a neewbie or trainee or just so plain tired and stressed he looked at the wrong shot.

" please remove keywords like, oil, gas, industry, petrochemical, engineer, chemical, etc, etc, etc,"  AND here is a file of a chemical oil engineer with GIANT fuel storage tanks in background AND the shot have already sold about 30 times already and among that 4 RF sales.

I know reviewing is a human process but theres got to be limits. I wouldnt post this unless this was such an obvious mistake and fact is, this shouldnt happen, its more in the interst of IS then me.

Yeah probably, but ignorance like this can in the long run cost them a lot of revenue. Reviewing at IS, used to be really good up to about 8 months ago, then its gone downhill rapidly. I wonder whats happend?

Oh come on,  how come then that every other agency have accepted and sold it even for over a 800 bucks?  no, sorry this is plain ignorance to conceptual photography.
The whole problem and which is now being discussed inside Corbis is the fact that editors must learn to recognize conceptual submissions, thats what commands the most revenue.

Yes!  but it becomes an IS problem since they train and employ their reviewers for the sake of IS. This type of reviewing has gone on for some time now, consequently its a pointless exercise submitting any conceptuals which is very strange.
Oh well?  if generic rubbish is what they want, fair enough.

To be fair to IS. My experience, it is not majority reviewers. One, maybe two. Because my experience with IS reviewers is good experience , all very reasonable with objective rejections. But yes, one..maybe two. Scary!.

Maybe you think possible to omit conceptual keyword for application. Then add back them after approval.
Is not possible, Lagereek?

Yes, Bruce words " instead of looking for a reason to reject, look for a reason to approve"  thats become a joke. Dont know but maybe they are using one of these editing-reviewing services?

What on earth are you dribbling about. You see two GIANT oil towers!  you would presume its bloody OIL in  them wouldnt you?  You see an engineer in a whacking big hard-hat, well what is he?  the Pope?
One has to be a complete moron to miss that this guy is working inside an oil and gas refinery,  which he in fact is. he is n ot a model but a real life engineer.
Sorry nicolsay but this falls flat on its face.

Im surprised regarding your statement,  we have both earned Diamond status within IS,  you shouldnt really entertain down out bad and ignorant editing, contrary we have earned the right to object and not just follow the stream.

In a gargantuan effort at perfection there is the collateral damage. That's you this time. Don't agree with it though.

Nicole!  I agree to that type of editing myself. Another of my images almost identical to the one you pointed out has sold 800 times and the premiere keywords there is fuel and oil.
Look I dont mind rejects, that goes with the territory but what I do mind is this type of Getty enforced editing style ( same within the Getty-RM), clean wording and only two or three conceptuals. Thats impossible.
Classic example and well discussed is the close-up of a jet-engine sitting on the wing of an airplane. The present IS reviewer would then reject the keyword "airplane" simply because this is a close-up of the airplanes "Jet-engine" wrong?  or right? well according to the IS philosophy the word "airplane" will cause a rejection.  Crazy!!   "oil-tower, oil-storage, oil-refinery?  well ofcourse you need the word " oil" as in an industrial meaning since OIL is the fundamental raw-material of all these industries.

This is what I mean with being able and educated to review/edit with conceptual knowledge in mind. If a reviewer cant do that, he/she has got no business being there.

best.

Not all, but a number of these words suggests things that aren't visible, not even suggested in the photo.

True, I was assuming someone was using the system correctly.  I'll say I'm occasionally guilty of the same paradigm.

Ha!ha!.. Heart Award to stockastic.
Answer:  Maybe the reviewer don't live in a land where oil is stored in huge tanks. Maybe haven't a clue what that oil industry . That is why I think is ignorance of concept on reviewer side. Much like some westerner used to think all African live in trees and swing down to market like Tarzan, ha!ha!.  Ignorance is the problem.

Dude. I'm a jerk. Don't go ruining my street cred.