MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DT's official policy on 'similars'?  (Read 10887 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 06, 2012, 16:04 »
0
We all know DT has gone bananas on 'similars' and I've already felt the sting when good shots were rejected.  I now have 3 images I want to submit - same subject, but collections of objects of different color sets.  Obviously a designer wanting to illustrate this subject might prefer one set of colors over another.  But it would be pointless to submit 3 only to have 2 rejected.

I looked around their site but didn't find any actual statement of the new policy on 'similars'.  Does anyone know from experience what might happen, or want to make a prediction?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 16:31 by stockastic »


Microbius

« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2012, 17:13 »
0
I don't think anyone knows what the policy is. Seemingly random, I've had completely different concepts rejected because they use the same components. I think some reviewers just don't like to let a whole batch go through unmolested.

« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2012, 18:44 »
0
They prefer "sets" to overcome similars rejections.  What is a set? Pretty simple.  Collages.  You put 10 "similars" in a set by combining them in Photoshop or some other software.  That way when your single image that includes 10 images as a set sells for 35 cents you net 3.5 cents per image. 

A post from Serban in the DT forums says:

"Similarity is not something easy to explain or to set rules for. Criteria can depend based on subject, concept, previous uploads, portfolio type, user's experience etc. We can't give a clear answer whether your files will be approved or not, without even seeing them.  It's true that we can involve algorithms and other things to deal with this. However, they take time to build, will consume useful resources and will solve the effect, not the cause. We believe contributors need to realize what similarity means based on their portfolio's specificity. If you want examples, I would look into any portfolio with a significant value for the downloads/image parameter (data can be found on the user's profile page). Note how same quality can translate into much better sales.

We can even quadruple your limits. The more we increase them, the less royalties you will get. Do you really want that?"

These were in answer to forum posts over at DT."


Thus, he can't even give a reasonable definition.

« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2012, 19:03 »
0
...

Thus, he can't even give a reasonable definition.

That's how I see it.  Of course they can and will continue to penalize you for rejections.

Sure, mindless repetition - in an attempt to flood the search - is bad and can actually hurt you.  But just leaving 'similar' up to the whims of their reviewers does not work.

It makes perfect sense to have these 3 color set variations available, that's  what 'stock' should be about.  I guess I'll just submit them and if they're rejected I'll just have to conclude that DT is losing its way.  
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 19:22 by stockastic »

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2012, 19:49 »
0
Quit uploading there 6 months ago.Having only 1248 files but don't mind.If they don't want my files ( similars ) it's OK as long as IS and SS are doing much, much better for me x10 . However I believe  DT is perfect site for beginners who.............

« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2012, 20:02 »
0
Quit uploading there 6 months ago.Having only 1248 files but don't mind.If they don't want my files ( similars ) it's OK as long as IS and SS are doing much, much better for me x10 . However I believe  DT is perfect site for beginners who.............
Right. I wonder what research or statistics have proven DT to stop accepting "similars".

It can't be the server space as that is dirt cheap, maybe they automatically wanted to reduce the entire workload and reduce reviewers in the long run.

It just doesn't make any sense.

I have many subjects that require sets and collections and DT seriously believes I should include over 200 images into one just so the file ranks higher over time which will "benefit me more" than selling each image at full resolution. Yeah right - not my experience based on an any other stock site I can say.

Sometimes I wonder if they even understand the concept of stock since pretty much no other agency acts that way and apparently DT has seen better times years ago - so something is not going smooth but hey, they want to stick to their guns, fine by me as long as others are going strong DT might as well shut their doors eventually...

Watch it.

« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2012, 21:00 »
0
The problem with 'sets' is that their web site has no UI for displaying 'sets' in a useful way.  The buyer should be able to see that a particular thumbnail is one of a set, click on that thumbnail and see the whole set. 

« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2012, 21:08 »
0
The problem with 'sets' is that their web site has no UI for displaying 'sets' in a useful way.  The buyer should be able to see that a particular thumbnail is one of a set, click on that thumbnail and see the whole set. 
I suggested exactly that I think over a year ago. Just because this feature doesn't exist doesn't mean it cannot be developed...

It's not rocket science and actually would give DT a little edge over most other agencies not having such a feature in place but hey, who are we to tell DT how to run their business...?

Alamy, amongst others, has been doing that for a looong time. It could be improved no doubt but at least it proves that others in the business know that this is a useful feature.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2012, 22:56 »
0
I'm wondering if the reviewers actually see and make a decision on similars.  I uploaded a set of four images about a month ago.  I knew two were similar to the others, but felt there was sufficient difference that buyers would want to be able to select between them.  They were uploaded via FTP.  When I checked the images to complete the submission (within one hour of upload), two images only showed a blank square, no picture.  The other two were fine.  It appeared the computer system was comparing newly uploaded images and kicking out those it considered too similar.  When I eventually got my acceptance notice for the two images that went through, it stated the other two were rejected as being too similar, even though to all appearances the reviewer had never actually seen the images.

Anyone else had a similar experience?

« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2012, 01:35 »
0
I've rejected uploading new images to DT because their policy of demotivating contributors and losing buyers is too "similar" to istock :)

With the big fall in earnings from istock over the last few years, DT could of made some real progress but they're still in 4th spot on the earnings poll here.  I think that's partly down to this policy, combined with the price hikes and commission cuts.  It's a shame, I like SS but I wish they had a stronger rival that looked like they had a sustainable future for contributors.  It would be hard for me to grow my DT earnings now and I would rather spend time making new images for sites that I think have more earnings growth potential in the future.

« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2012, 06:26 »
0
I'm wondering if the reviewers actually see and make a decision on similars.  I uploaded a set of four images about a month ago.  I knew two were similar to the others, but felt there was sufficient difference that buyers would want to be able to select between them.  They were uploaded via FTP.  When I checked the images to complete the submission (within one hour of upload), two images only showed a blank square, no picture.  The other two were fine.  It appeared the computer system was comparing newly uploaded images and kicking out those it considered too similar.  When I eventually got my acceptance notice for the two images that went through, it stated the other two were rejected as being too similar, even though to all appearances the reviewer had never actually seen the images.

Anyone else had a similar experience?

I haven't necessarily seen the evidence of it as you have, but I think this sounds right.  I believe it's a computer algorithm (Serban even admitted this in the post quoted above) that is comparing new uploads vs those already in your port.  Otherwise, I can't believe every reviewer is comparing each new upload against every other shot in my port.  My port is fairly large now, and I'm getting "similar" rejections now for one new image that is somewhat close to one other image in my port.  That's finding a needle in a haystack.  Reviewers are not doing this alone... it's definitely an algorithm.

« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2012, 06:57 »
0
I haven't necessarily seen the evidence of it as you have, but I think this sounds right.  I believe it's a computer algorithm (Serban even admitted this in the post quoted above) that is comparing new uploads vs those already in your port.  Otherwise, I can't believe every reviewer is comparing each new upload against every other shot in my port.  My port is fairly large now, and I'm getting "similar" rejections now for one new image that is somewhat close to one other image in my port.  That's finding a needle in a haystack.  Reviewers are not doing this alone... it's definitely an algorithm.

I think so too. For a while I thought if the names of the images were too similar, they would get rejected. I started changing mine to be different, and that seemed to work for a while, but then I started getting rejects too.

ShadySue

« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2012, 07:06 »
0
The problem with 'sets' is that their web site has no UI for displaying 'sets' in a useful way.  The buyer should be able to see that a particular thumbnail is one of a set, click on that thumbnail and see the whole set. 
I suggested exactly that I think over a year ago. Just because this feature doesn't exist doesn't mean it cannot be developed...

It's not rocket science and actually would give DT a little edge over most other agencies not having such a feature in place but hey, who are we to tell DT how to run their business...?

Alamy, amongst others, has been doing that for a looong time. It could be improved no doubt but at least it proves that others in the business know that this is a useful feature.

Alamy did 'stacks' for a very short time, a couple of years ago, and it was extremely unpopular with contributors, especially specialists (wildlife/travel location) who might have had extensive coverage of a particular subject but only one, randomly chosen, was shown in the search results. If the potential buyer happened not to like the 'top' photo, they probably wouldn't click on the stack to see if the others better met their needs.
Now the similars are spread through the search, but with an indication of how many images are 'related' under each individual photo. They are not stacked.
Even with the stacking system in place, it could easily be circumvented by dripping up your submissions.

« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2012, 09:03 »
0
I think when the people running an agency can no longer articulate a clear policy or set of guidelines - and don't even think that's important -  it's an indication things are heading downhill.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 09:17 by stockastic »

« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2012, 09:09 »
0
Alamy did 'stacks' for a very short time, a couple of years ago, and it was extremely unpopular with contributors, especially specialists (wildlife/travel location) who might have had extensive coverage of a particular subject but only one, randomly chosen, was shown in the search results. If the potential buyer happened not to like the 'top' photo, they probably wouldn't click on the stack to see if the others better met their needs.
Now the similars are spread through the search, but with an indication of how many images are 'related' under each individual photo. They are not stacked.
Even with the stacking system in place, it could easily be circumvented by dripping up your submissions.
I think you are talking about a different feature than the one I mean.

I just checked Alamy and they still have the system in place that I was referring to.

When I perform a search for "obama campaign" for example I see almost every image has a link underneath stating (More XX). This link takes you to the "set" of that particular photographer. That's what I meant and I think it's quite useful.

« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2012, 10:11 »
0
come on guys! DT is fine ;D

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2012, 10:16 »
0
Alamy did 'stacks' for a very short time, a couple of years ago, and it was extremely unpopular with contributors, especially specialists (wildlife/travel location) who might have had extensive coverage of a particular subject but only one, randomly chosen, was shown in the search results. If the potential buyer happened not to like the 'top' photo, they probably wouldn't click on the stack to see if the others better met their needs.
Now the similars are spread through the search, but with an indication of how many images are 'related' under each individual photo. They are not stacked.
Even with the stacking system in place, it could easily be circumvented by dripping up your submissions.
I think you are talking about a different feature than the one I mean.

I just checked Alamy and they still have the system in place that I was referring to.

When I perform a search for "obama campaign" for example I see almost every image has a link underneath stating (More XX). This link takes you to the "set" of that particular photographer. That's what I meant and I think it's quite useful.

Oh yes, but I thought you were talking about stacking similars.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2012, 11:14 »
0
We all know DT has gone bananas on 'similars' and I've already felt the sting when good shots were rejected.  I now have 3 images I want to submit - same subject, but collections of objects of different color sets.  Obviously a designer wanting to illustrate this subject might prefer one set of colors over another.  But it would be pointless to submit 3 only to have 2 rejected.

I looked around their site but didn't find any actual statement of the new policy on 'similars'.  Does anyone know from experience what might happen, or want to make a prediction?

Spread your submissions out over a few weeks.

« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2012, 12:42 »
0
We all know DT has gone bananas on 'similars' and I've already felt the sting when good shots were rejected.  I now have 3 images I want to submit - same subject, but collections of objects of different color sets.  Obviously a designer wanting to illustrate this subject might prefer one set of colors over another.  But it would be pointless to submit 3 only to have 2 rejected.

I looked around their site but didn't find any actual statement of the new policy on 'similars'.  Does anyone know from experience what might happen, or want to make a prediction?

Spread your submissions out over a few weeks.

I think that's what I'll do.  I know all 3 would sell over time and I don't want some clueless reviewer tossing 2 of them to meet a quota.   Nice that we now have to trick them into accepting photos that will make them money.

« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2012, 14:03 »
0
I looked around their site but didn't find any actual statement of the new policy on 'similars'.  Does anyone know from experience what might happen, or want to make a prediction?
It's up to the reviewer's taste, what he/she feels similar... Regardless of the fact that the agency constantly states that they are so called "professionals". Simply the word doesn't cover anything. Anybody can be professional when he is able to decide...
I'm also tired to death hearing "official" comments about content that isn't accepted due to the fact that they can hurt our sales. This isn't true. What isn't accepted and isn't sold, can't have statistics. Also, we, contributors obviously have a better look over what is selling best, while a single agency sees the market from his own (very closed) point of view. Thus, the majority of "low commercial value" or "similar" images are only GUESSED. While a series of images are sold good at some agencies, a several ones consider them non-creative, doing nothing else but kill the opportunity to the sales, not teaching the contributors.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 06:37 by icefront »

« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2012, 15:51 »
0
You can't ask jack sh..t on DT forums about it unless you accompany it with roses and champagne.

« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2012, 17:03 »
0
come on guys! DT is fine ;D

Not in my book. They have more rules - many of which are illogical and arbitrary, and not consistently enforced - than just about any other site. If these rules made for a wonderful buyer experience or better returns for contributors, I might feel better about it, but none of these rules have elevated them from the bottom of the pile in the top tier sites.

« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2012, 17:08 »
0
come on guys! DT is fine ;D

Not in my book. They have more rules - many of which are illogical and arbitrary, and not consistently enforced - than just about any other site. If these rules made for a wonderful buyer experience or better returns for contributors, I might feel better about it, but none of these rules have elevated them from the bottom of the pile in the top tier sites.

^^ correct.  It only bullwhips them into fewer customers and more disgruntled suppliers (US).^^

Every time they make a change it seems to put them deeper into a back hole...at least from my income perspective.

« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2012, 17:18 »
0
come on guys! DT is fine ;D

Not in my book. They have more rules - many of which are illogical and arbitrary, and not consistently enforced - than just about any other site. If these rules made for a wonderful buyer experience or better returns for contributors, I might feel better about it, but none of these rules have elevated them from the bottom of the pile in the top tier sites.

sarcastic mode, if you notice my posts about DT you would have guess it in seconds :)

Microbius

« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2012, 02:36 »
0
I haven't necessarily seen the evidence of it as you have, but I think this sounds right.  I believe it's a computer algorithm (Serban even admitted this in the post quoted above) that is comparing new uploads vs those already in your port.  Otherwise, I can't believe every reviewer is comparing each new upload against every other shot in my port.  My port is fairly large now, and I'm getting "similar" rejections now for one new image that is somewhat close to one other image in my port.  That's finding a needle in a haystack.  Reviewers are not doing this alone... it's definitely an algorithm.

I think so too. For a while I thought if the names of the images were too similar, they would get rejected. I started changing mine to be different, and that seemed to work for a while, but then I started getting rejects too.
I assumed the reviewer would be shown similar images in the port based on keywords, like buyers do on most sites under "similar images" and the like, but just from within the one portfolio.

Poncke

« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2012, 04:23 »
0
We all know DT has gone bananas on 'similars' and I've already felt the sting when good shots were rejected.  I now have 3 images I want to submit - same subject, but collections of objects of different color sets.  Obviously a designer wanting to illustrate this subject might prefer one set of colors over another.  But it would be pointless to submit 3 only to have 2 rejected.

I looked around their site but didn't find any actual statement of the new policy on 'similars'.  Does anyone know from experience what might happen, or want to make a prediction?

Spread your submissions out over a few weeks.

I think that's what I'll do.  I know all 3 would sell over time and I don't want some clueless reviewer tossing 2 of them to meet a quota.   Nice that we now have to trick them into accepting photos that will make them money.
 

I tried that but didnt fly. I had unique designs, spread over batches, rejected for similar

Poncke

« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2012, 08:32 »
0
.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 08:39 by Poncke »

Poncke

« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2012, 08:33 »
0
.

« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2012, 10:50 »
0
While ago I upload 18 photos collection to DT. I expected that half of them are rejected because too similar. But, what a heck, all of them passed through.. really it was first time on sets.. may by there is some kind of "madam fortune" :)

« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2012, 11:27 »
0
We all know DT has gone bananas on 'similars' and I've already felt the sting when good shots were rejected.  I now have 3 images I want to submit - same subject, but collections of objects of different color sets.  Obviously a designer wanting to illustrate this subject might prefer one set of colors over another.  But it would be pointless to submit 3 only to have 2 rejected.

I looked around their site but didn't find any actual statement of the new policy on 'similars'.  Does anyone know from experience what might happen, or want to make a prediction?

Spread your submissions out over a few weeks.

I think that's what I'll do.  I know all 3 would sell over time and I don't want some clueless reviewer tossing 2 of them to meet a quota.   Nice that we now have to trick them into accepting photos that will make them money.
 

I tried that but didnt fly. I had unique designs, spread over batches, rejected for similar

Then they must be checking for keyword matches (like microbius said earlier), meaning we can't win.

« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2012, 12:12 »
0
once i find a good set of keywords, i tend to use them - i have new images accepted at DT using those keywords & descri[ptions, but also get 'similars ' rejections, so it's not simple

all would be a lot easier if the agencies looked on contributors as allies not enemies and gave us more info on how their reviewers actually work.   a few  would try to game the system, but most would work ytowards mutual benefits.  instead we all waste time trying to guess what will or wont be accepted today

« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2012, 12:32 »
0
I have no evidence to back this up, but I feel like the root cause of aa lot of the weirdness going on with inspections at all the agencies is turnover among their inspectors.  They're probably not paying enough to recruit and retain the right people. It's a constantly churning pool of newbies, temps and students, all with slightly different interpretations of "guidelines" which change every month.   Either that or the whole thing is outsourced to some shop that promises big cost savings, then when that turns into chaos they outsource it again somewhere else...

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2012, 07:51 »
0
Wanna know another weird one?

I have images waiting and yesterday morning the ETR was 21 hours last night it went to 20 hours and this morning it is down to 19!

What the hail type of clock are they using?

« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2012, 08:03 »
0
Wanna know another weird one?

I have images waiting and yesterday morning the ETR was 21 hours last night it went to 20 hours and this morning it is down to 19!

What the hail type of clock are they using?

It's not a countdown but a (generally inaccurate) estimate at a point in time based on the length of the queue and when you submitted.

tab62

« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2012, 09:35 »
0
The funniest part is they told me it hurts my own sales! Let's see I have had one sale for $.35 in 17 days boy I better not have similar pics or I risk losing that $.35  >:(

Poncke

« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2012, 11:19 »
0
The funniest part is they told me it hurts my own sales! Let's see I have had one sale for $.35 in 17 days boy I better not have similar pics or I risk losing that $.35  >:(

Told me the same, but I am out. Problem is that I could only deactivate so many photos. So the rest is up for downloads until I can deactivate again, but I will never reach pay out. So its money in the pockets of DT, which stings me the most.

« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2012, 12:10 »
0
We all know DT has gone bananas on 'similars' and I've already felt the sting when good shots were rejected.  I now have 3 images I want to submit - same subject, but collections of objects of different color sets.  Obviously a designer wanting to illustrate this subject might prefer one set of colors over another.  But it would be pointless to submit 3 only to have 2 rejected.

I looked around their site but didn't find any actual statement of the new policy on 'similars'.  Does anyone know from experience what might happen, or want to make a prediction?

Spread your submissions out over a few weeks.

I think that's what I'll do.  I know all 3 would sell over time and I don't want some clueless reviewer tossing 2 of them to meet a quota.   Nice that we now have to trick them into accepting photos that will make them money.
 

I tried that but didnt fly. I had unique designs, spread over batches, rejected for similar

Then they must be checking for keyword matches (like microbius said earlier), meaning we can't win.

As discussed earlier in the thread, I'm convinced it's an algorithm that is comparing shapes, composition, colors, keywords, etc.  Spacing "similars" out over time, won't help.  The computer -- not the reviewer, whether newbie or veteran -- will catch them and kick them out.

« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2012, 12:58 »
0
As discussed earlier in the thread, I'm convinced it's an algorithm that is comparing shapes, composition, colors, keywords, etc.  Spacing "similars" out over time, won't help.  The computer -- not the reviewer, whether newbie or veteran -- will catch them and kick them out.

I'm going to test that hypothesis with my next batch and will see what happens...

« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2012, 13:02 »
0
As discussed earlier in the thread, I'm convinced it's an algorithm that is comparing shapes, composition, colors, keywords, etc.  Spacing "similars" out over time, won't help.  The computer -- not the reviewer, whether newbie or veteran -- will catch them and kick them out.

I'm going to test that hypothesis with my next batch and will see what happens...

Best of luck... I hope I'm wrong.  Let us know how your attempts pan out.  (I've tried a few times in recent batches... a few cases of a single image that is somewhat similar to one other approved shot in my port... and was shot down each time, convincing me that it couldn't be a person finding the similarities... it would be like playing a match game with thousands of cards.  No one could do that all day long.)

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2012, 08:05 »
0
Well as usual the similar BS strikes again!!!!

I mean what are you only allowed one shot of one image?

I took 6 different shots of one image from all different angles and all using different focal lengths and they hit me with the similar BS once again!

No wonder why i dont bother with them they come up with lame reasons to reject an image that sells well on every other site it is on!

Not to mention they are Editorial and i have close to 1000 i can upload but only allowed 35 a week and by the time they get done rejecting on "Similars" the 1000 will be lucky if it is 100!

What do you have to do? Kiss somebodies ashe and be a big time brown noser?

« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2012, 16:22 »
0
What do you have to do? Kiss somebodies ashe and be a big time brown noser?

Yes. Put on those knee pads, apply that chapstick, pucker up, plug your nose and dig in....so I hear anyway :P

« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2012, 16:27 »
0
The funniest part is they told me it hurts my own sales! Let's see I have had one sale for $.35 in 17 days boy I better not have similar pics or I risk losing that $.35  >:(

Their theory is that images will not climb as high in the levels ranking if you have similar photos. i.e people will buy the cheaper similar still on level 1 instead of a level 2 and so on. 

« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2012, 09:33 »
0
I'm the OP.

They accepted 2, rejected 1 as "similar".   Arbitrary and senseless.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2012, 10:08 »
0
They rejected a bunch of mine for similar and said that it would compete with my other images making less money for me to be had??????????



I dont know about anyone else but when a buyer has more choices to choose from from you they will pick you because you have more to offer besides the similar rejected one may be the one the buyer is looking for!!!!!!

And now it was trashed by the DT similar rejection staff.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2012, 10:19 »
0
Here is the official reasoning behind similars!

Quote
- You already have several very similar images in your portfolio or approved within this batch. If approved, these files will compete against each other for downloads thus diluting your sales.

BS

« Reply #45 on: July 15, 2012, 19:21 »
0
Here is the official reasoning behind similars!

Quote
- You already have several very similar images in your portfolio or approved within this batch. If approved, these files will compete against each other for downloads thus diluting your sales.

BS

A while back Serban posted examples on DT's forum of what he meant by similars when they started this stupid inspection process.  But if my memory serves me correctly it was true similars... a bunch of the same shot with different angles.  That was pretty obvious and understandable.  But it's morphed into an unreasonable inspection process, mostly because they use automation to call the bull crap card instead of an actual reviewer. That, Serban, should be ashamed of.

« Reply #46 on: October 23, 2012, 05:34 »
0
Spread your submissions out over a few weeks.

That doesn't work either. I recently uploaded a Christmas 'similar' image to one that I uploaded over a year ago, and it got rejected for 'too similar'.  ::)

« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2012, 09:34 »
0
I don't know if there were people in your Christmas shot, but I've realized that if you stagger a similar shot with same keywords/title attached to same model release it gets rejected instantly.  Some from series can be very different but the variety of available keywords is limited!

« Reply #48 on: October 23, 2012, 14:15 »
0
With a mentality that rejects 2013 calendars for being too similar to the ones I submitted last year, I'm afraid it just isn't worth the effort.

I may not be a big player but I make DT a couple of hundred dollars a month. However, I can't be bothered with the aggro - not to mention the increasingly difficult task of maintaining an 80% acceptance rate - so I have given up on them.

It's a shame, as I started with DT and have always had a bit of a soft spot for them but, business is business, and I'm not about to modify my work to fit their needs - what they reject sells well on other sites and, pretty soon, DT will have 'limited stock' and their buyers will look to other suppliers.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
23 Replies
5891 Views
Last post June 07, 2009, 08:04
by rene
2 Replies
1883 Views
Last post November 09, 2009, 14:27
by cthoman
15 Replies
5354 Views
Last post March 25, 2011, 20:57
by RacePhoto
37 Replies
7440 Views
Last post March 13, 2013, 18:38
by bddigitalimages
92 Replies
5441 Views
Last post April 08, 2019, 13:40
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results