pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is Shutterstock using software to "first pass" review all images?  (Read 12405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2015, 18:02 »
0
Well if the problems are with automatic software at SS they don't use it a BS. Images refused for noise and focus at SS accepted at BS.  last batch 90% approval at BS 50% at SS


« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2015, 06:36 »
+12
Well if the problems are with automatic software at SS they don't use it a BS. Images refused for noise and focus at SS accepted at BS.  last batch 90% approval at BS 50% at SS

If the software causes rejections, why do I send back the same photos in a week and they pass, with no change. The theory is flawed but useful for somebody looking for something to blame or find some conspiracy. My answer is much simpler. The reviewers are incompetent, and pressed to make numbers. SS doesn't care because they have 1 million new photos a week to be reviewed.

« Reply #27 on: July 26, 2015, 07:23 »
0
Well if the problems are with automatic software at SS they don't use it a BS. Images refused for noise and focus at SS accepted at BS.  last batch 90% approval at BS 50% at SS
This review issue problem is only inside the SS. In BS my last reject was in May, two images. And before that, one image in March. And since March 120 reject in SS. My approval rating is 95.3% in BS since 2012. But these days approval in SS can be anything between 0% to 100%. And for my reject and approval is totally lottery. Sometimes I try guess, "this set will approved 100%", but no, or vise versa. SS review is so unexpected these days.

« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2015, 02:13 »
0
SS say they are a technology business - if they were using software for reviews  :o wouldn't they be boasting about it? Shareholders would love the prospect of reduced costs?

« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2015, 05:00 »
0
I do not know if you use software for a first check, but if they use it must be software that does not use EXIF information. I export the photos from LR without sending them information of camera it information camera raw.

« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2015, 10:41 »
+3
SS say they are a technology business - if they were using software for reviews  :o wouldn't they be boasting about it? Shareholders would love the prospect of reduced costs?

Go the SEC Filings section of the SS site and pull up Form 424B4 (a prospectus from 2012), search for "review", and you'll find this:  "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."

That statement is 3 years old.  Imagine where they are today.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2015, 10:58 by stockastic »

Rinderart

« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2015, 12:14 »
0
SS say they are a technology business - if they were using software for reviews  :o wouldn't they be boasting about it? Shareholders would love the prospect of reduced costs?

Go the SEC Filings section of the SS site and pull up Form 424B4 (a prospectus from 2012), search for "review", and you'll find this:  "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."

That statement is 3 years old.  Imagine where they are today.
Should be posted on SS also in the large review thread..

« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2015, 12:44 »
0
SS say they are a technology business - if they were using software for reviews  :o wouldn't they be boasting about it? Shareholders would love the prospect of reduced costs?

Go the SEC Filings section of the SS site and pull up Form 424B4 (a prospectus from 2012), search for "review", and you'll find this:  "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."

That statement is 3 years old.  Imagine where they are today.
Should be posted on SS also in the large review thread..

Interesting that it refers to "proprietary review" technology.   Just checking the pixel dimensions wouldn't support that statement.  The clear implication is that they've developed some image quality algorithms of their own. 

« Reply #33 on: July 31, 2015, 12:00 »
+3
This morning I submitted one little photo at 12:39 and it was rejected at 12:46 for being soft.  1st, maybe I don't know what soft means because to my eye at 250% it looks just fine, and 2nd I have a hard time believing that there is a reviewer sitting at their work station at 12:39 in the morning anxiously waiting for someone to submit a photo so they can review it.  I feel like this had to be a programmed response.

« Reply #34 on: July 31, 2015, 14:47 »
+5
Its not 12:39 everywhere in the world

« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2015, 18:15 »
+1

If the software causes rejections, why do I send back the same photos in a week and they pass, with no change. The theory is flawed but useful for somebody looking for something to blame or find some conspiracy. My answer is much simpler. The reviewers are incompetent, and pressed to make numbers. SS doesn't care because they have 1 million new photos a week to be reviewed.

+10 last statement . reviewers are incompetent.
correction, SOME reviewers . i say it's some reviewers who are using their own software to earn money recklessly , or having their chimp or children do his/her job to review the images.

ss can easily find out who is incompetent and not doing a proper job of reviewing but getting IT to identify who is giving out mass of rejections with wrong WB, focus is not where we think it should be,etc..

but again, your other statement is right on the button... they don't care because they have 1 million weekly . the only people who care are the legitimate reviewers who is getting blamed as a whole .
i guess these good reviewers are getting far and few as i am sure they've gone to other agencies already along with their managers like Scott.

« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2015, 18:17 »
0
This morning I submitted one little photo at 12:39 and it was rejected at 12:46 for being soft.  1st, maybe I don't know what soft means because to my eye at 250% it looks just fine, and 2nd I have a hard time believing that there is a reviewer sitting at their work station at 12:39 in the morning anxiously waiting for someone to submit a photo so they can review it.  I feel like this had to be a programmed response.

Yesterday, I had something similar. Submitted a dozen images and almost immediately they were all reviewed and accepted. I almost died of shock.

The same thing happened a couple of hours later. I uploaded another batch, had immediate response, with majority accepted.

Not sure what happened there, but if it's a trend I'm cheering for it to continue!
« Last Edit: July 31, 2015, 18:23 by marthamarks »

« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2015, 20:11 »
0
Its not 12:39 everywhere in the world

12:39AM in New York is 9:39AM in New Delhi.

« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2015, 12:10 »
+2
Time of day wasn't exactly my point.  The fact that the submission was received, opened reviewed and rejected (for something that I can't even see), email sent and received in 6.5 minutes was the point.  I just have a hard time believing that there are reviewers sitting at their screens any time of day, any where in the world waiting for a photo to be submitted so they can review it. 

Maybe reviewing has also become cutthroat....  artists are so selfish we have never considered the poor reviewers starving for their next photo to arrive... ;)

« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2015, 13:01 »
+1
Time of day wasn't exactly my point.  The fact that the submission was received, opened reviewed and rejected (for something that I can't even see), email sent and received in 6.5 minutes was the point.  I just have a hard time believing that there are reviewers sitting at their screens any time of day, any where in the world waiting for a photo to be submitted so they can review it. 

Maybe reviewing has also become cutthroat....  artists are so selfish we have never considered the poor reviewers starving for their next photo to arrive... ;)

I understood what you were saying, and my reply was to say I experienced the same thing: near-instantaneous review of newly uploaded images.

It has happened to me once more since then, too, for a total of three batches reviewed (and mostly accepted) almost immediately.

Shelma1

« Reply #40 on: August 01, 2015, 13:03 »
+1
Its not 12:39 everywhere in the world

It's my understanding that reviewers look at images in their own geographical area.

« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2015, 13:05 »
0
Time of day wasn't exactly my point.  The fact that the submission was received, opened reviewed and rejected (for something that I can't even see), email sent and received in 6.5 minutes was the point.  I just have a hard time believing that there are reviewers sitting at their screens any time of day, any where in the world waiting for a photo to be submitted so they can review it. 

Maybe reviewing has also become cutthroat....  artists are so selfish we have never considered the poor reviewers starving for their next photo to arrive... ;)

The review ques do ebb and flow.  There are times when the images available to review are low.

As for Shutterstock I don't really believe their response. I think are likely using the proprietary image pre screening mentioned in the Form 424B4 SEC filing before reviews.


« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2015, 13:40 »
+5
The thing to keep in mind is that reviewing by skilled humans is a huge expense for SS and a very large and obvious target for cost reduction.  And cost reduction is what they need, to increase profits in the short term and quiet those howling first-round investors.

They probably have big stockholders standing up in meetings and asking "why can't we automate this, or just send it all to China?  I don't see why that would be so difficult".   Those sorts of know-nothing questions are hard to answer, because the answers aren't simple.  But that's what you're up against in a public corporation.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2015, 14:21 by stockastic »

« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2015, 23:48 »
0
The thing to keep in mind is that reviewing by skilled humans is a huge expense for SS and a very large and obvious target for cost reduction.  And cost reduction is what they need, to increase profits in the short term and quiet those howling first-round investors.

They probably have big stockholders standing up in meetings and asking "why can't we automate this, or just send it all to China?  I don't see why that would be so difficult".   Those sorts of know-nothing questions are hard to answer, because the answers aren't simple.  But that's what you're up against in a public corporation.

that is the most realistic account explaining why since ss went public they behave like some bolier-room telemarketing company.
yes, it is not uncommon for a public company to fawn to a big shareholder. we know of even banks and other companies  outsourcing to India after sending their top team leads to India to train the new office; send them back to North Am and then fire them the next day . then a week later announce the head office in California,etc is closed, taking away with them all the subsidies they got from the city and state leaving an empty business.

in another case, we also know of a big shareholder insisting his chimp of a son becoming manager of the branch without any objections from the rest, laying off an experienced manager who was worth the wages she was paid. the son of the main stockholder was paid a 3rd of the wage. he had no qualification whatsoever. yes, money talks.

Rinderart

« Reply #44 on: August 02, 2015, 01:05 »
+1

If the software causes rejections, why do I send back the same photos in a week and they pass, with no change. The theory is flawed but useful for somebody looking for something to blame or find some conspiracy. My answer is much simpler. The reviewers are incompetent, and pressed to make numbers. SS doesn't care because they have 1 million new photos a week to be reviewed.

+10 last statement . reviewers are incompetent.
correction, SOME reviewers . i say it's some reviewers who are using their own software to earn money recklessly , or having their chimp or children do his/her job to review the images.

ss can easily find out who is incompetent and not doing a proper job of reviewing but getting IT to identify who is giving out mass of rejections with wrong WB, focus is not where we think it should be,etc..

but again, your other statement is right on the button... they don't care because they have 1 million weekly . the only people who care are the legitimate reviewers who is getting blamed as a whole .
i guess these good reviewers are getting far and few as i am sure they've gone to other agencies already along with their managers like Scott.

« Reply #45 on: August 02, 2015, 11:37 »
+2
Its a miracle these public corporations stay in business ;)

« Reply #46 on: August 02, 2015, 19:27 »
+3
The thing to keep in mind is that reviewing by skilled humans is a huge expense for SS and a very large and obvious target for cost reduction.  And cost reduction is what they need, to increase profits in the short term and quiet those howling first-round investors.

They probably have big stockholders standing up in meetings and asking "why can't we automate this, or just send it all to China?  I don't see why that would be so difficult".   Those sorts of know-nothing questions are hard to answer, because the answers aren't simple.  But that's what you're up against in a public corporation.

Paying people to review the same photos 2, 3 or more times because the reviews are inconsistant, is cost effective? Stockholders should hate that waste of money.

« Reply #47 on: August 03, 2015, 11:45 »
+2
The thing to keep in mind is that reviewing by skilled humans is a huge expense for SS and a very large and obvious target for cost reduction.  And cost reduction is what they need, to increase profits in the short term and quiet those howling first-round investors.

They probably have big stockholders standing up in meetings and asking "why can't we automate this, or just send it all to China?  I don't see why that would be so difficult".   Those sorts of know-nothing questions are hard to answer, because the answers aren't simple.  But that's what you're up against in a public corporation.

Paying people to review the same photos 2, 3 or more times because the reviews are inconsistant, is cost effective? Stockholders should hate that waste of money.

I'm sure that gets discussed.  Then the R&D guy gets up in front of the mike and talks about how "AI" will be more accurate than humans, in the very near future, they're already working on it, can't tell you more today but stay tuned, etc.  Then his budget gets approved.

« Reply #48 on: August 03, 2015, 12:22 »
+1

I'm sure that gets discussed.  Then the R&D guy gets up in front of the mike and talks about how "AI" will be more accurate than humans, in the very near future, they're already working on it, can't tell you more today but stay tuned, etc.  Then his budget gets approved.

+10. nothing's changed. in the 80s, we had those experts coming in to tell the company how they can save by laying off mid management , replace them with the minimum wage assistance . hint, just get the mid-mgt ppl to make a job-description so give step-by-step instruction of their projects.
when that was done, a month later, all mid-mgt was laid-off and the company boasted stellar increase in profit. thanks to the experts. next thing we knew, the company closed down .

in the 90s, same thing. different companies, same expert sent in. they replaced the ppl who made the company . the same ppl who implemented the programs, the winning of the contracts of the stellar companies at that time . replaced them with numbers ppl . new boss comes in and called us "you people... instead of our names". 
then, before we know it, they closed the headoffice and moved to some place where like it is now with india, etc.

the experts are still in business. only the corporations they advised from 80s , 90s, 2K...
are no longer in existence.

« Reply #49 on: August 04, 2015, 07:24 »
0

+10. nothing's changed. in the 80s, we had those experts coming in to tell the company how they can save by laying off mid management , replace them with the minimum wage assistance . hint, just get the mid-mgt ppl to make a job-description so give step-by-step instruction of their projects.
when that was done, a month later, all mid-mgt was laid-off and the company boasted stellar increase in profit. thanks to the experts. next thing we knew, the company closed down .

in the 90s, same thing. different companies, same expert sent in. they replaced the ppl who made the company . the same ppl who implemented the programs, the winning of the contracts of the stellar companies at that time . replaced them with numbers ppl . new boss comes in and called us "you people... instead of our names". 
then, before we know it, they closed the headoffice and moved to some place where like it is now with india, etc.

the experts are still in business. only the corporations they advised from 80s , 90s, 2K...
are no longer in existence.

+20. I meet number of these "experts" in stupidities in my career. When they kill a company it is never because of making stupid decisions but only because you must adopt a "new" strategy. Unfortunately, its seems their strategy is never the good one at the right time. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3801 Views
Last post September 14, 2009, 07:32
by Noodles
29 Replies
5310 Views
Last post March 31, 2012, 17:26
by Paulo M. F. Pires
68 Replies
12687 Views
Last post July 17, 2018, 18:38
by StanRohrer
25 Replies
10314 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
14 Replies
3448 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:28
by etudiante_rapide

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors