MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: No FTP and Uploads Until June 14, 2010  (Read 13599 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2010, 06:21 »
0
thanks Alex for coming here and letting us know :)

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2010, 09:49 »
0
We regret if this has caused you any inconvenience. We should have a more responsive, spacious and stable FTP server to suit your uploading requirements soon.

Thanks! This is great news. We can gladly wait a few days is we can have a better FTP experience afterwards.

« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2010, 10:21 »
0
I couldn't care less since I stopped uploading after their latest crazy rejections spree.

« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2010, 14:06 »
0
I couldn't care less since I stopped uploading after their latest crazy rejections spree.

right

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2010, 02:48 »
0
I couldn't care less since I stopped uploading after their latest crazy rejections spree.

right
All sites have periods of crazy reviews during which they either reject all or even accept all crap

I stopped asking myself if it's a new reviewer, or an official policy: I simply stop uploading for a while and then retry, situation may change completely after a week or so.

In microstock the only constant is inconstancy

« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2010, 04:56 »
0
I couldn't care less since I stopped uploading after their latest crazy rejections spree.
right
All sites have periods of crazy reviews during which they either reject all or even accept all crap
I humbly disagree. On most sites (especially iStock), reviews are very professional. 123RF is far out of line now.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2010, 05:31 »
0
I couldn't care less since I stopped uploading after their latest crazy rejections spree.
right
All sites have periods of crazy reviews during which they either reject all or even accept all crap
I humbly disagree. On most sites (especially iStock), reviews are very professional. 123RF is far out of line now.

True. I should have said *some* sites. IS is clearly very professional in reviews indeed. All other major sites have *short* "crazy" period at times in my opinion, but are usually fair most of the time. My previous statement could clearly give an overly negative impression, which is not what I think.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 05:38 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2010, 07:23 »
0
Dear 123RF.com Contributors,

Kindly note that we're migrating to a new FTP server this entire weekend. As a result, we will not be enabling any FTP processing or uploads. The system is scheduled to be installed and running on Monday, June 14, 2010.

We regret if this has caused you any inconvenience. We should have a more responsive, spacious and stable FTP server to suit your uploading requirements soon.

Thanks for your kind understanding!

Alex
for 123RF.com
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 11:56 by Sion »

« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2010, 12:15 »
0
Thanks for the info, Alex! I thought the problem was my FTP program

« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2010, 19:06 »
0

We regret if this has caused you any inconvenience. We should have a more responsive, spacious and stable FTP server to suit your uploading requirements soon.

Thanks for your kind understanding!

Alex
for 123RF.com

sorry, but it wont matter how big or fast your ftp is until you get the review/massive non-sensical rejections problem in hand

it's particualrly evident when i upl editorial and RF images from the same shoot, many just moments aapart - the edit are accepted in bulk of 90% or more, while the RF are rejcted for bad lighting


steve

« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2010, 02:34 »
0
Hi All,

Thanks for your opinions on rejections at 123RF.com. i was about to jump on the review team and get severely mad with them for rejecting the images that you painstakingly shot and uploaded to us.

But before that, it is only fair that I hear both sides of the story. And I did, I personally went through the rejections and to simply put it, I have to agree with their decision.

However, at 123RF.com we do hear out our contributors and give them an avenue for appeal if you wrote to
submission@123rf.com, I understand that the contributors have been using this avenue too. Therefore, after re-reviewing the images, we also have concluded that they would continue to be rejected for purely technical reasons.

If you feel that other stock agencies have accepted your photo when we rejected them, please feel free to quote our image filename and provide us a link to the other stock agency to strengthen your appeal to us.

We pride ourselves in being a learning organization and we do learn from our mistakes and we're not afraid to apologize if mistakes have been made.

At this juncture I'd like to leave you with a request - please be objective in raising your appeal, if you feel that in all fairness, the images you took are simply not good enough, perhaps you should just leave things as it were.

Thank you very much.

Alex.
for 123RF.com

WarrenPrice

« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2010, 15:52 »
0
I've had it both ways, Alex; some that you reject are accepted at other sites (and sell well); some that you accept are rejected by other sites.  I wish I could say those also sell well.   ;D

ap

« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2010, 15:57 »
0
i do have one photo that was rejected elsewhere but accepted by 123 from back when i started. it sells well enough that i try to resubmit them elsewhere again.

« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2010, 12:23 »
0
FTP still isn't working for me 6-16-2010

As far as the rejections at 123RF, it often seems rather arbitrary to me often (near 100% accepted or 100% rejected varying by batch), but it is nice to know we have an appeal now if a rejection just seems totally out of line.

--=Tom

« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2010, 21:51 »
0
Hi everyone!

We have migrated to a newer and better FTP server for all your uploads. The FTP server name is now ftp.123rf.com. Kindly make the changes to your FTP client.

Thanks!


Regards,
Anglee


newbielink:http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/ftp-server-of-123rf/ [nonactive]

Did you switch your FTP setting to ftp.123rf.com from submit.123rf.com?

If you'd done so but the error still occurs,

kindly e-mail to newbielink:mailto:submission@123rf.com [nonactive].

Thank you.

~eRic~




 
 

« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2010, 23:39 »
0
But before that, it is only fair that I hear both sides of the story. And I did, I personally went through the rejections and to simply put it, I have to agree with their decision.

However, at 123RF.com we do hear out our contributors and give them an avenue for appeal if you wrote to submission@123rf.com, I understand that the contributors have been using this avenue too. Therefore, after re-reviewing the images, we also have concluded that they would continue to be rejected for purely technical reasons.

If you feel that other stock agencies have accepted your photo when we rejected them, please feel free to quote our image filename and provide us a link to the other stock agency to strengthen your appeal to us.


really? you agreed that 90+% OF IMAGES REJECTED IS A GOOD THING?  your reviewers could at least have the courtesy to give a REAL rejection reason.

NO WAY AM I GOING TO BOTHER SHoWING YOU OTHER SITES THAT ACCEPTED & sold THESE SAME IMAGES - if your reviewers can't do their jobs why should i do it for you?  i'd rather spend more time upl'ing to sites that actually SELL images.  for MONTHS now, entire batches of RF images get rejected for technical rerasons, while editorial shots from the SAME shoot, often NEARLY THE SAME shot, get accepted at 90%+ -- THAT'S JUST PLAIN SILLY.

why do i even bother submitting anymore? i really dont know - i do get a few pennies a month, and the submit process is simple and quick, otherwise i'd be done

steve

« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2010, 07:29 »
0
Alex,
I think the problem is in the fact that many contributors (myself included) enjoyed a reasonably high approval percentage up until the last 4 or 5 months. Then it flipped to a very low percentage accompanied by lame / generic dismissal reasons.

While I experience a payout every (almost) month with 123, I certainly won't pull my port. However, I have completely halted uploads since a 100% rejection of a batch that had a 100% acceptance rate everywhere else. I also tried an experiment; I took my best selling 123 image (51 sales) and submitted it again - rejected for poor lighting....that alone tells me the reviewers are, at best, not "in touch" with what sells.

An appeal process simply doubles my workload and as you said, you agreed with the reviewers, so no real reason to go through that.

I will test the "submission" waters again in 6 months with another one of my top selling 123 images to see if reason has returned.

« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2010, 10:12 »
0
Still cannot connect:

Status:   Resolving address of submit.123rf.com
Status:   Connecting to 203.175.165.18:21...
Status:   Connection attempt failed with "ECONNREFUSED - Connection refused by server".
Error:   Could not connect to server
Status:   Waiting to retry...
Status:   Resolving address of submit.123rf.com
Status:   Connecting to 203.175.165.18:21...
Status:   Connection attempt failed with "ECONNREFUSED - Connection refused by server".
Error:   Could not connect to server

« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2010, 10:44 »
0
Still cannot connect:

Status:   Resolving address of submit.123rf.com
Status:   Connecting to 203.175.165.18:21...
Status:   Connection attempt failed with "ECONNREFUSED - Connection refused by server".

Maybe that's because they decommissioned that server.  The new one is at ftp.123rf.com.

« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2010, 13:44 »
0
yeah, they switched servers, of course in stealth mode they didn't actually mention it anywhere on the site that I could find... The new server worked for me.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2010, 14:43 »
0
yeah, they switched servers, of course in stealth mode they didn't actually mention it anywhere on the site that I could find... The new server worked for me.

I found this very frustrating.  They dropped communicating on their active forum in favor of a hit and miss dependence on TWITTER.   I hate Twitter.  Why should I have to read thru all that crap to find information about 123rf. 

USE YOUR OWN WEBSITE.  It works.   >:(


« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2010, 21:32 »
0
Cascoly and Anonymous,

Alex advises that you do not delete rejected photos that you might want to appeal, as we maintain a history of which reviewer rejected which image. Hence, you can just tell us which filename is affected, we will do the rest.


Many thanks,
Anglee

1. who are you?  why are you speaking for Alex?  common courtesy dictates a 'new member' who WORKS for an agency should identify themselves, and not start leaving  msgs with no indication of your connections

2. why are YOU telling us this rather than Alex?  Alexeady stated he AGREES with his reviewers ridiculous mass rejections
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 21:34 by cascoly »

« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2010, 21:46 »
0
Cascoly and Anonymous,

Alex advises that you do not delete rejected photos that you might want to appeal, as we maintain a history of which reviewer rejected which image. Hence, you can just tell us which filename is affected, we will do the rest.


Many thanks,
Anglee


1. who are you?  why are you speaking for Alex?  common courtesy dictates a 'new member' who WORKS for an agency should identify themselves, and not start leaving  msgs with no indication of your connections

2. why are YOU telling us this rather than Alex?  Alexeady stated he AGREES with his reviewers ridiculous mass rejections


I guess 123RF is going down and down... what is happening there??? no answer by email no nothing... oh..

the more curious is the following... I have sent an email with 4 or 5 links to photos approved in FT, and those are now approved, the other keep rejected.. I was going to place links to all of them, but I just said the following:

Hi have read your post at microstockgroup forum regarding the late rejections and I would like to send links from other agencies where the files were accepted, I will use Fotolia and Shutterstock, if you want more please tell me.

So here we go:

Filename: luissantos84100600116 @ http://pt.fotolia.com/id/23304348
Filename: luissantos84100600113 @ http://pt.fotolia.com/id/23304312
Filename: luissantos84100600111 @ http://pt.fotolia.com/id/23304295
Filename: luissantos84100600100 @ http://pt.fotolia.com/id/23304202
Filename: luissantos84100600098 @ http://pt.fotolia.com/id/23304171
Filename: luissantos84100600093 @ http://pt.fotolia.com/id/23304127
Filename: luissantos84100600091 @ http://pt.fotolia.com/id/23304099
Filename: luissantos84100600090 @ http://pt.fotolia.com/id/23304088

Quick note regarding the "stained glass window" and the interior shoots of Gloucester Cathedral were all accepted by Fotolia and Shutterstock!

I am not going to continue this email, I spend my time shooting, editing and keywording, not telling agencies what I have been accepted here or there...


So now instead of just UPLOAD.. we need to link also our portfolio accepted by other agencies from I guess reviewers.. have 123RF fire them?
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 21:58 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2010, 13:42 »
0
Alex advises that you do not delete rejected photos that you might want to appeal, as we maintain a history of which reviewer rejected which image. Hence, you can just tell us which filename is affected, we will do the rest.
Assuming you work for 123RF, I actually deleted my last batch - 80-90% rejected at 123RF and 80% accepted at iStock (currently the strictest as to technical quality). This is so gross, and/or obviously some mistake or a case of automated "reviewing" that it is rather pointless to ask for a reconsideration: going through the same process would be a waste of time for both sides.
I can only agree to each and every point of "anonymous". Looking up the links on iStock and the reference on 123RF would be overkill in terms of extra workload, especially since 123 isn't exactly a top seller. I also stopped submitting since then. Hopefully the "learning process" will be completed 6 months from now, so we can catch up then, if ever. If the review process has been automated or outsourced, just don't. The Editorial still gets accepted the normal way.

« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2010, 21:03 »
0
Cascoly and Anonymous,

Alex advises that you do not delete rejected photos that you might want to appeal, as we maintain a history of which reviewer rejected which image. Hence, you can just tell us which filename is affected, we will do the rest.


Many thanks,
Anglee


1. who are you?  why are you speaking for Alex?  common courtesy dictates a 'new member' who WORKS for an agency should identify themselves, and not start leaving  msgs with no indication of your connections

2. why are YOU telling us this rather than Alex?  Alexeady stated he AGREES with his reviewers ridiculous mass rejections


Hi Cascoly,

I'm one of the online marketing executives in 123RF.com. I liaise with Alex directly thus I'll get all the updated information regarding the issues that you're facing now and responded to you as needed.


Cheers,
Anglee

 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2010, 22:53 »
0
More upload problems???  I tried twice to upload a batch.  Each time it seemed to be working but when I was prompted to save ... nothing was there.

Anyone else having a problem with the upload?

« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2010, 00:24 »
0
working for me now (wasn't on friday)

« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2010, 03:22 »
0
Anglee often pops into these forums to answer questions and it is fairly obvious that he/she is a spokesperman for 123rf. You're just nit picking now.


1. who are you?  why are you speaking for Alex?  common courtesy dictates a 'new member' who WORKS for an agency should identify themselves, and not start leaving  msgs with no indication of your connections

2. why are YOU telling us this rather than Alex?  Alexeady stated he AGREES with his reviewers ridiculous mass rejections

« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2010, 09:04 »
0
More upload problems???  I tried twice to upload a batch.  Each time it seemed to be working but when I was prompted to save ... nothing was there.

Anyone else having a problem with the upload?

Exactly the same here.

Xalanx

« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2010, 10:26 »
0
Just uploaded a batch of 40-something photos. Worked without problems, and fast.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2010, 12:19 »
0
Hmmmm... something ain't right.  I can't stay logged in and my images aren't uploading???

WarrenPrice

« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2010, 12:33 »
0
Just tried again with same results ... no images uploaded???

I am using the web form uploader with just a few images.  It goes thru the normal upload routine except no images appear at the end.  I press the 'save' button and get the message 'no images available.'  or something like that.

Must have been a maintenance weekend?  Reminds me ... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."   :P

« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2010, 21:03 »
0
Hi everyone!

We have migrated to a newer and better FTP server for all your uploads. The FTP server name is now ftp.123rf.com. Kindly make the changes to your FTP client.

Thanks!


Regards,
Anglee

Good day to all photographers / contributors!

We have changed our server's setting. Kindly switch the setting to ftp.123rf.com for all your updates. This should fix all your problems with regards to FTP matters.

If you need further assistance feel free to contact us at submission@123rf.com. Kindly advise us your UID, email address and any other details such as 3rd party software used. This will helps to expedite the process.

Regards,
Anglee

WarrenPrice

« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2010, 21:20 »
0
My problems are with the Web Form uploader, Anglee, not FTP. 
I submitted a message via the contact form.

The last try was rejected because "File too Large."

It was a simple 5mb JPG file?????

« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2010, 21:29 »
0
Cascoly and Anonymous,

Alex advises that you do not delete rejected photos that you might want to appeal, as we maintain a history of which reviewer rejected which image. Hence, you can just tell us which filename is affected, we will do the rest.


Many thanks,
Anglee


1. who are you?  why are you speaking for Alex?  common courtesy dictates a 'new member' who WORKS for an agency should identify themselves, and not start leaving  msgs with no indication of your connections

2. why are YOU telling us this rather than Alex?  Alexeady stated he AGREES with his reviewers ridiculous mass rejections


Hi Cascoly,

I'm one of the online marketing executives in 123RF.com. I liaise with Alex directly thus I'll get all the updated information regarding the issues that you're facing now and responded to you as needed.


Cheers,
Anglee

 

i dont have any upl problems - i have problems with reviewers rejecting en masse with ridiculous reasons - and alex said he agreed wiyth those reivews, so good luck in getting any progess

steve

« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2010, 21:31 »
0
Anglee often pops into these forums to answer questions and it is fairly obvious that he/she is a spokesperman for 123rf. You're just nit picking now.


1. who are you?  why are you speaking for Alex?  common courtesy dictates a 'new member' who WORKS for an agency should identify themselves, and not start leaving  msgs with no indication of your connections

2. why are YOU telling us this rather than Alex?  Alexeady stated he AGREES with his reviewers ridiculous mass rejections

it's NOT nitpicking to ask that people who WORK for an agency identify themselves when they post about that agency on a forum.  i dont keep track of al employees, so i didnt know this was an employee, tho i certainly guessed it

s

« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2010, 11:29 »
0
Anglee or Alex should ask that Anglee could request a verified stamp from Leaf. 

« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2010, 20:57 »
0
My problems are with the Web Form uploader, Anglee, not FTP. 
I submitted a message via the contact form.

The last try was rejected because "File too Large."

It was a simple 5mb JPG file?????

Hi WarrenPrice,

It's ok now! You may try to re-upload using the Web Form Uploader.

Cheers,
Anglee

WarrenPrice

« Reply #40 on: June 25, 2010, 13:01 »
0
It is broken again, Anglee.  Same thing as before; the web form uploader responds as if uploading but no images are there.
HELP!!!!  :D

« Reply #41 on: June 25, 2010, 13:47 »
0
It is broken again, Anglee.  Same thing as before; the web form uploader responds as if uploading but no images are there.
HELP!!!!  :D
Their earnings page is broken too, all zeroes for more than a week.

« Reply #42 on: June 27, 2010, 22:56 »
0
It is broken again, Anglee.  Same thing as before; the web form uploader responds as if uploading but no images are there.
HELP!!!!  :D
Their earnings page is broken too, all zeroes for more than a week.


Hi WarrenPrice and FD-regular,

We will try to fix the uploader issue as soon as possible and keep you posted!


Many thanks,
Anglee

« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2010, 00:35 »
0
It is broken again, Anglee.  Same thing as before; the web form uploader responds as if uploading but no images are there.
HELP!!!!  :D
Their earnings page is broken too, all zeroes for more than a week.


Hi WarrenPrice and FD-regular,

We will try to fix the uploader issue as soon as possible and keep you posted!


Many thanks,
Anglee

Hi,

It's ok now! You may re-upload again. Thanks!

And, do apologize for the inconvenience caused.


Cheers,
Anglee



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1424 Views
Last post April 23, 2007, 14:30
by Istock News
86 Replies
27090 Views
Last post June 16, 2010, 08:52
by RT
52 Replies
9387 Views
Last post July 05, 2016, 22:13
by henrytrinh
22 Replies
4729 Views
Last post July 31, 2016, 18:28
by Minsc
0 Replies
574 Views
Last post March 12, 2019, 05:56
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results