Author Topic: 'similars' vendetta continues (Read 5295 times)

stockastic · « **on:** November 08, 2012, 17:06 »

I spent a lot of time doing 2 creative (I though) photos of an object. 2 different approaches, 2 images saying very different things, useful in very different contexts. You can guess the outcome.

Both of these images would have sold, and in fact are already selling on SS.

The only word for this is dumb. Just totally dumb.

Thanks for listening.

admin edit: changed title for political correctness (not that it was a big problem...)

Pixart · « **Reply #1 on:** November 08, 2012, 21:04 »

Did you happen to use the same title/keywords? I have the impression that they might automate this and not even look at the 2nd photo.

stockastic · « **Reply #2 on:** November 08, 2012, 21:12 »

Quote from: Pixart on November 08, 2012, 21:04

Did you happen to use the same title/keywords? I have the impression that they might automate this and not even look at the 2nd photo.

Same title and description, and mostly the same keywords. If your guess is correct, then maybe it would be worth resubmitting.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #3 on:** November 08, 2012, 21:13 »

We should just view this as a rubber room where people can come and vent about the insanity - great community service MSG can offer

My observations are that title and keyword variations do not allow one to avoid the similars police.

stockastic · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2012, 21:44 »

That's exactly what I need - a rubber room.

Part of the craziness about 'similars' is that it's applied only to your own photos. I submit 2 takes on a subject. DT might already have 500 other photos of this subject, all of which are cr@p compared to mine. Doesn't matter, they stay and one of mine goes. Or they might have absolutely no photos of this subject. Doesn't matter - can't have 2 from the same photographer.

This is how they improve their collection: by rejecting a good photo that's similar to another good photo. But only if they're from the same person.

"It's a madhouse! A madhouse!"
- Charleton Heston in Planet Of The Apes

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 09, 2012, 00:31 »

Last month I submitted two that actually were similar except for a different color cast to the background. The first one was rejected for technical reasons and the second because it was too similar - to the one that was rejected so neither got in. Weird. Both for technical reasons I can understand, but how could it be too similar to one that wasn't in the database? Both were accepted just fine (and sold) everywhere else except iS. Oh well.

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** November 09, 2012, 03:32 »

I'm over this now. They don't care about frustrating their contributors, limiting what their buyers can purchase and losing out on lots of sales to their rivals. It's a disastrous policy but they aren't listening, so I'll just concentrate on other sites that have no problems accepting and selling my images.

fotografer · « **Reply #7 on:** November 09, 2012, 03:42 »

I never upload a whole session at once. I keep them all in a folder and then each time I upload I upload a couple as different as possible from each of my last few sessions. Takes longer to get them online but I have never had a similar rejection yet.

cathyslife · « **Reply #8 on:** November 09, 2012, 13:34 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 08, 2012, 21:13

We should just view this as a rubber room where people can come and vent about the insanity - great community service MSG can offer

My observations are that title and keyword variations do not allow one to avoid the similars police.

I used to submit similars in different batches and not with the same title and didnt understand why everyone was complaining. But after a time, that didnt work. I came to the conclusion that it didnt matter what you did, they would get rejected. I dont see how it can be automated if titles and keywords are different.

w7lwi · « **Reply #9 on:** November 09, 2012, 15:02 »

I've evidence that there is at least an automated screening of images during upload, possibly in addition to further screening by a reviewer.

I uploaded several images via FTP. When I went to edit them, several did not show a thumbnail and I was unable to edit or advance them to review. Later, after receiving the status e-mail, those that I was unable to do anything with were marked as rejected due to similars. The others were fine. Since these appeared to be flagged immediately upon uploading and had never been advanced to review status it is apparent that some sort of automated screening was taking place. As I said, additional screening may occur at some later point by real people. But something is also happening early on by other than live reviewers.

rimglow · « **Reply #10 on:** November 09, 2012, 15:37 »

After my last rejection for "similar" last spring, I'm very careful to get as creative as possible with file names, titles, descriptions and keywords. I never repeat previous info. Once accepted, I go back and enter the info that makes sense.

It's childish, but it's part of the game they make you play.

stockastic · « **Reply #11 on:** November 09, 2012, 16:06 »

Quote from: w7lwi on November 09, 2012, 15:02

I've evidence that there is at least an automated screening of images during upload, possibly in addition to further screening by a reviewer.

Interesting. The bizarre case described by sgoodwin4813 (rejection for being 'similar' to one that wasn't even approved) also points to mindless automated screening.

If there really is an automated check for 'similars', we might expect, or at least hope, that resubmitting has a chance.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 'similars' vendetta continues (Read 5295 times)

stockastic

Pixart

stockastic

Jo Ann Snover

stockastic

sgoodwin4813

sharpshot

fotografer

cathyslife

w7lwi

rimglow

stockastic

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors