there'll comes a time, when all kind of photos are there and we can't submit anything anymore, they reject everything.
whatcha gonna do?  

I was thinking about...
I will post kids playing around and ugly woman outdoors, looking left, up, right, down.

I also have some words about LCV: It depends...
There are truly LCV images in any portfolio. For some of my 4+ year old images I'm wondering, how it's possible it wasn't sold, for some other I'm happy that I don't see them anymore in my portfolio.
But I have also LCV rejections that really hurt. At Veer I uploaded 3 (three) times the same image, always got rejected as LCV. Summed I have more than 1000 sales of that image (also extremely unique 3d-illustration-photo combination). What kind of Martians are the veer buyers? (I guess, the Veer reviewer was right...)

Quote from: RacePhoto on August 16, 2011, 19:01

...Maybe SS is saying, lets not fill the collection with things that don't sell well, it was a mistake we made in the past, and they should know best what that is...

I just don't think low paid reviewers should be making this decision.  I'm still surprised by what sells and what doesn't and I've been doing this for 5 years now.  When images get rejected and then they sell on the lower volume sites, it makes me wonder how much this policy is costing me?

I also think the sites need to seriously consider us, not just how much money they can make.  The higher my rejection rate, the less I supply.  They are going to make me look at other ways of selling my images.  How can that be good for them?

I notice how you ignored the final line of the message. Let me try again. And for some reason others here think that LCV has something to do with too many images, they aren't the same thing, that's a different issue.

Anyway, new good images should be accepted based on image quality and should rarely be rejected for LCV opinions. The buyers should determine the commercial value.

I really shouldn't look here before 7am, don't think my eyes are focusing yet.  Sorry I missed that.

And I'm up doing an insomnia session. 

I just hate it when people argue with me for agreeing with them. And even stranger, I was staying on topic! 

I am having some tea, does that balance things a little better?

I agree, rimglow. They should get rid of that rejection. If images are technically correct and not an exact duplicate of something already on the site, it should be accepted. Some of my images that I never would have guessed to be best sellers, are. No one can guess at what the intended use of an image might be.

I read so many posts on what do reviewers know, they should judge an image only on its technical merits. I think that's BS, why are reviewers getting payed, who else is going to decide it then? What's more important is, that libraries are getting way to big especially SS's, so something should be done to make it easier for the buyer to find what he/she's looking for in a matter of minutes, not hours, like so many buyers are reporting. If anything photos should not only be judged on its technical merits, but also about all the other aspects such as concept, originality etc, wether it's a good shot or not. Nobody needs 16+ million of technically good or even perfect photos, if 95%, plainly said, sucks. As long as they don't change their mentality or better said the way they run their business (and think like most ppl over here do), putting quantity over quality, prices are not going to rise. With cutting royalties we're going to get less and less. If someone took out the garbage, good photographers would earn a few times more, bad photographers would be flushed out and search results would present relevant and quality results

Quote from: Slovenian on August 19, 2011, 11:01

I read so many posts on what do reviewers know, they should judge an image only on its technical merits. I think that's BS, why are reviewers getting payed, who else is going to decide it then? What's more important is, that libraries are getting way to big especially SS's, so something should be done to make it easier for the buyer to find what he/she's looking for in a matter of minutes, not hours, like so many buyers are reporting. If anything photos should not only be judged on its technical merits, but also about all the other aspects such as concept, originality etc, wether it's a good shot or not. Nobody needs 16+ million of technically good or even perfect photos, if 95%, plainly said, sucks. As long as they don't change their mentality or better said the way they run their business (and think like most ppl over here do), putting quantity over quality, prices are not going to rise. With cutting royalties we're going to get less and less. If someone took out the garbage, good photographers would earn a few times more, bad photographers would be flushed out and search results would present relevant and quality results

I don't see anything in your post that addresses whether the reviewers are competent at marketing. If they want to reject for "aspects such as concept, originality etc, wether it's a good shot or not", that's probably what they are trained to do. I'm suggesting that no one knows what Limited Commercial Value even means. Does it mean the reviewer doesn't like photos of pizza pans, no matter how well executed, and therefore no one else will either? It's an absurd reason to reject something. How do they know what the graphic community is looking for? How could anyone know?

You didn't answer my question as well. Lately it seems the reviewers don't know much about anything just reject whole batches (for no real reason, content that passes inspection on ALL sites with flying colours) to a lot of contributors. I'd be glad if they re-learned the basics and then they can get to LCV or hire someone who'll do it for them or stop rejecting it for that reason, I really don't care, all I want is my content to get 90% acceptance rate like it used to up to a month ago. I really don't care if 1-2% of my files get rejected for LCV