Rejected images experiment

Perry

« on: November 24, 2009, 16:47 »

#link

I tried to upload 20 images that were earlier rejected by SS. I did this because these images have sold elsewhere and the rejection reasons were a matter of taste: "composition", "lighting" etc.

What happened? Every image got accepted. Every single of them. This is how consistent their reviewing process is...

I just got 20 new images at SS without any shooting/processing.

I'll keep you updated if I sell any of these images


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2009, 17:01 »

#link

i'm happy that reviewers at ss don't have long memories or maybe you just got a completely different one. i might try a similar experiment...

fotolia is completely different. only one photo was accepted out of a series of 4 similars with corresponding rejection reason. so, i sneaked one reject in a few weeks after the fact and...they remembered and rejected with 'similar' reason.


	Ignore \| Logged

eppic

« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2009, 19:59 »

#link

Quote

fotolia is completely different. only one photo was accepted out of a series of 4 similars with corresponding rejection reason. so, i sneaked one reject in a few weeks after the fact and...they remembered and rejected with 'similar' reason.

Drat! There goes my strategy for resubmitting rejects at Fotolia. Maybe I should wait a couple months first.


	Ignore \| Logged

eyeCatchLight

Premium Member

« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2009, 23:49 »

#link

hm no, for me they accepted the second time. it was an image that i really couldn't imagine to be rejected, so i submitted again and it worked.... just try, it seems a random process... Roll Eyes


	Ignore \| Logged

illstudio

« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2009, 00:26 »

#link

Quote from: Perry on November 24, 2009, 16:47

How long did you wait to resubmit?


	Ignore \| Logged

nruboc

« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2009, 01:28 »

#link

I would rather submit and forget, then gamble that they don't catch me. If memory serves, someone got banned for flagrant re-submitting


	Ignore \| Logged

Perry

« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2009, 04:47 »

#link

Quote from: illstudio on November 25, 2009, 00:26

How long did you wait to resubmit?

Between a couple of months and about a year.

And I have to pont out that I only uploaded "good" images that were accepted & sold elsewhere, I didn't try to upload any borderline stuff.


« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 05:56 by Perry »	Ignore \| Logged

Pheby

« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2009, 06:49 »

#link

Quote from: eppic on November 24, 2009, 19:59

Quote

Drat! There goes my strategy for resubmitting rejects at Fotolia. Maybe I should wait a couple months first.

If you resubmit a rejected image to fotolia, you should slightly alter the keywords. That way, you don't have to wait for a few months to resubmit. That works for me, and I also alter the keywords for similar images. They seem to have some kind of alert if several images have exactly the same keywords, and that makes them automatically reject resubmits and similars. That's what I assume, anyway.


	Ignore \| Logged

Perry

« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2009, 07:04 »

#link

Quote from: nruboc on November 25, 2009, 01:28

I would rather submit and forget, then gamble that they don't catch me. If memory serves, someone got banned for flagrant re-submitting

I would rather see that they would reject only when there is clearly a technical reason instead rejecting images based on reviewers' (bad) taste...

I don't plan to mass-submit my rejected images, but a few now and then (the ones I feel I will miss most sales if I don't re-submit)


« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 07:12 by Perry »	Ignore \| Logged

hqimages

« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2009, 09:04 »

#link

Nothing wrong with re-submitting.. sometimes one reviewer will reject, while the other approves.. especially if you know yourself when an image really should not have been rejected, sometimes the reviewer can even click the wrong button by mistake..


	Ignore \| Logged

melking

« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2009, 09:58 »

#link

Quote from: Perry on November 24, 2009, 16:47

lets see your portfolio at shutterstock!


	Ignore \| Logged

Magnum

« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2009, 10:13 »

#link

How this work? what´s stopping a reviewer from approving or rejecting whole batches like this. Are they payed per image rejected or approved? Are an image passing through only one reviewer?


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2009, 13:39 »

#link

inspired by perry, i resubmitted 4 images that were rejected by ss in the last few weeks. they all got through today!

i don't know what fotolia's policy is, but resubmissions are not banned at ss, is or dreamstime. if you can correct the original problem, then by all means do so.

but i think perry's point is that the review process is reviewer driven and you'll get different results each time.


	Ignore \| Logged

nruboc

« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2009, 16:59 »

#link

Quote from: ap on November 25, 2009, 13:39

It is allowed but you have to follow the guidelines, which the original poster did not:

ShutterStock Submitter Guidelines: Possible Reasons for Receiving Warnings

"5. Submitting an image that has already been rejected without writing a note to the reviewer explaining why the image(s) is being resubmitted. Resubmitting an image without making the appropriate corrections. "

One of these days I'm going to try using that as a reason and see what they say "they selling on other sites"


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2009, 17:42 »

#link

Quote from: nruboc on November 25, 2009, 16:59

It is allowed but you have to follow the guidelines, which the original poster did not:

ShutterStock Submitter Guidelines: Possible Reasons for Receiving Warnings

"5. Submitting an image that has already been rejected without writing a note to the reviewer explaining why the image(s) is being resubmitted. Resubmitting an image without making the appropriate corrections. "

One of these days I'm going to try using that as a reason and see what they say "they selling on other sites"

That might work better than what I was thinking: "These were incorrectly rejected the first time". Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2009, 20:45 »

#link

Considering the number of photos SS reviewers have to accept/reject each day I am not surprised at all that your images were accepted second time. Maybe they were good enough, but that particular reviewer was very tired, or he/she simply didn't like your images for some reason. You had more luck second time

It happened to many people so it's not unusual. That's why I wouldn't tell about this in any forum. Do you remember what happened to a contributor who did similar test on IS and posted the result on the forum? His account was terminated on IS.


	Ignore \| Logged

Perry

« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2009, 08:24 »

#link

Quote from: melking on November 25, 2009, 09:58

lets see your portfolio at shutterstock!

Quote from: Whitechild on November 26, 2009, 20:45

That's why I wouldn't tell about this in any forum. Do you remember what happened to a contributor who did similar test on IS and posted the result on the forum? His account was terminated on IS.

That's why I use a different alias here and on microstock sites

Quote from: Whitechild on November 26, 2009, 20:45

I am not surprised at all that your images were accepted second time. Maybe they were good enough, but that particular reviewer was very tired, or he/she simply didn't like your images for some reason. You had more luck second time

The problem is that there should be no "luck" involved. It's very frustrating to shoot, process, photoshop, keyword, upload and then get rejected just because some stupid individual clicked the wrong button or had a bad lunch.

I think sites should make a page with rejected images where you could click a button if you have a problem with a rejection. The reviewers/inspectors/whatever that have most clicks should be straightened out by the agency. Or you could get images re-reviewed if you want to (the amount of images could be limited, let's say you could have 10% of the rejected images re-reviewed)

I'm not sure that's the correct way to do it, but they certainly would need some kind of a review quality feedback-system.

I also think that I would LOVE a site that doesn't require categories or keywords BEFORE an image is accepted (we all know that for example Alamy and Photocase does this)

Luckily the site with the most painstaking uploading system (iStock) has also the best reviewers (of the best selling sites. We all know the low-earners accept junk)


« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 08:33 by Perry »	Ignore \| Logged

Sign up with Shutterstock

Dreamframer

« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2009, 21:47 »

#link

Yes Perry, you are absolutely right...but for now I guess we have to live with these problems.


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2009, 02:47 »

#link

Quote from: Perry on November 24, 2009, 16:47

Odd. I figure that some of my images that passed should have been rejected and the ones that got through made me happy enough. Grin

Honest, I don't re-submit, I figure it comes with the game. I'll repeat what people have been writing here since the first day I read the forum, and it's true with mine and still true for others. Some of my rejected images at site "X" and best sellers at site "Z". Most of the time, "Z" is SS and I won't say who the two sites are that are covered by the letter "X", except that as of January 2010 they will be Ex sites and no longer get any of my photos.

Hint: it's not iStock. IS is where I have found the most consistent and accurate reviews and reasons for rejections.