Author Topic: DT have nearly 40,000 files pending (Read 9741 times)

litifeta · « **on:** January 03, 2007, 02:52 »

Had some of mine in the queue for weeks, always 21 hours away.

Going to be slow progress from here methinks. Maybe they are focussing on deleting some of those non sellers?

That would be worth the wait!

phildate · « **Reply #1 on:** January 03, 2007, 02:57 »

wow, thats gonna take a lot of inspecting...I was wondering why some of mine were taking so long to get through the queue.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #2 on:** January 03, 2007, 03:10 »

I guess they just have a break..

dbvirago · « **Reply #3 on:** January 03, 2007, 08:26 »

Just got a couple reviewed from Dec. 19th. gues they're back

snem · « **Reply #4 on:** January 03, 2007, 08:50 »

Mine from Dec. 20th are still in the queue...

leaf · « **Reply #5 on:** January 03, 2007, 09:47 »

perhaps people are starting to get eager for the prizes when they reach 1,000,000 images

dbvirago · « **Reply #6 on:** January 03, 2007, 11:13 »

They're back and they're pissed. Just went down in flames 0 for 5. Maybe I should stick to the easy sites like SS and IS. LOL

madelaide · « **Reply #7 on:** January 04, 2007, 16:42 »

I have images with a 10-day expected time for review. $:-\$

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf · « **Reply #8 on:** January 04, 2007, 18:07 »

so do you all have a stack of 100 images to push through the dreamstime cue when the time of 1,000,000th image comes around

MiguelAngelo · « **Reply #9 on:** January 04, 2007, 19:42 »

I had 10 files reviewed today and only one rejection for some reason that I do not remember but also do not agree!!!!

They have been on the cue for around 3 weeks. Lucky me those reviewed files came with two sales!!!

litifeta · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2007, 05:11 »

yeah i guess that is what is happening leaf. I couldn't be bothered with competitions. just want to make some cash. by the way, cool wedding shots on your website

madelaide · « **Reply #11 on:** January 05, 2007, 20:12 »

I had seven consecutive rejections today. They never did that to me in DT!

Regards,
Adelaide

litifeta · « **Reply #12 on:** January 22, 2007, 16:54 »

the reviewers at DT definately monitor this site. after my last post I had a lot of reviewing done quickly.

rather than reject good images, they need to do what they promised: Clean the non-selling crap off their site.

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** January 22, 2007, 17:13 »

I also had four images inspected, one approved, three rejected for "we have too many". And as it often happens to us in any site, these "too many" were approved in other sites and already sell...

Regards,
Adelaide

ichiro17 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 22, 2007, 17:34 »

Quote from: litifeta on January 22, 2007, 16:54

the reviewers at DT definately monitor this site. after my last post I had a lot of reviewing done quickly.

rather than reject good images, they need to do what they promised: Clean the non-selling crap off their site.

No offense to anyone, but DT is full of BS. Some of their rejections are complete crap and this "we have too much" garbage they feed photographers is pathetic because they end up having 3/4 as many pictures as SS and IS. Logically, if you have the same contributors at each site (which by and large is the case) then the sites have approximately the same types of pictures, and if SS doesn't have too many of a particular type of photograph, how can DT who has less?

PS - 1 million photos isn't much, so I don't know why they are making such a big deal. As well, I do hope they start cleaning up their junk like iStock is sort of doing (somehow its preventing them from reviewing quicker

)

I'm upset because I have a total of $2.50 in downloads this month from them and I have 207 photos up. They've also rejected 90% of what I've thrown their way - most of which has been accepted by SS

Joe

StockManiac · « **Reply #15 on:** January 23, 2007, 06:45 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on January 22, 2007, 17:34

No offense to anyone, but DT is full of BS. Some of their rejections are complete crap and this "we have too much" garbage they feed photographers is pathetic because they end up having 3/4 as many pictures as SS and IS.

No offense taken and I totally agree.

There have been quite a few times when I received the infamous "we have too many" rejection and when I did a search on their site, less than a dozen similar photos appeared. What a crock! And then when I resubmitted them again a couple of weeks later (with absolutely no changes), they accepted them.

As I stated in another thread, I think that they have a power-complex at DT. They are rejecting lots of images that are being accepted and selling at other sites so that they can feel more powerful.

leaf · « **Reply #16 on:** January 23, 2007, 07:39 »

boy with all this trash talk you would think dreamstime was turning into the new istock. I guess someone has to be picked on

I can't say i mind dreamstime so much, however i am getting good sales there, so perhaps that is what is putting me in a good mood.

litifeta: I doubt the reviewers monitor this site then decide to take action in their reviews afterwards (ie who to reject or accept or how fast to do it). However if you fear that is happening you could easily change your user name here to be different than your dreamstime name.

I think dreamstime can still be applauded for giving the photog. a large percentage of the sale. I remember when they were starting people were rather sceptical to their business model, but currently they are my biggest earner - even above shutterstock. People were also sceptical to their level 1/2/3 images, but i think they seem to be working well. It is great to get $1.50 for a level 2 print download.

epixx · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2007, 14:55 »

DT works fine for me, and even if some of the rejects are questionable, it's much, much better than StockXpert and CS. My sales are good there as well, and it competes with iS being the second or third best earner.

The review times have been long lately, but my photos are going to be online for years, so I don't really worry about it. In many ways, it may hurt them more than it hurts us, since photos will be online earlier at other agencies.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #18 on:** January 23, 2007, 21:55 »

DT is medium volume for me... not bad, not great,... uploaded a dozen pix today and was told to expect over a 5 day wait for review. -tom

litifeta · « **Reply #19 on:** January 24, 2007, 02:10 »

Leaf, a bit of constructive criticism is not trashing someone. I make money there as well, but they have never answered even one of my emails, and take sensorship to the extreme.

I think the overarching complaint about DT is their lack of consistency in rejections - and the fact that on this subject they refuse to enter into any dialogue with anyone..

Everyone seems to have the same "we have too many" or something along the lines of "too many variations of the one shot".

And yet when you search the database, there are some big names - who are also reviewers - with 50 or so of the 1 shot, like a model with paint dots on themselves and all over the walls - one shot head this way, next head the other way, bent arm, straight arm etc etc etc: none of which have ever had a sale;

and, you see a similar image (to the one that they rejected of yours for having too many of the same type) approved after they rejected yours.

From the way I have always done business, you should expect your suppliers and customers to follow your own lead on ethical and moral issues. Like, show some strategic leadership and show consistency. And, when you make a promise, follow up on it.

Basically, clean the non-selling crap off the site, forget about the 1 million image ego boost, and stop rejecting ace images.

To date, I have earned $140 from DT, and spent $180 on bandwidth costs uploading the images. So I will be waiting a long time for a return on the investment I have made there.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #20 on:** January 24, 2007, 12:25 »

Add me to the list of many rejections for "this is a well-covered subject in our database,etc.etc.etc.,RRAAALLLPHH!" I've had more of those than I can remember and of course many of them were NOT well-covered in their database. I can't complain too much, though, because they haven't yet rejected my people pictures, and whenever I upload a new batch (always small, and lately only one image at a time), I actually get some sales for a short while. I'm not thrilled to hear about their censorship, though, as it reminds me of IS' censorship, which I despise. Hey, they're privately owned enterprises, so they're allowed to do whatever they want. But when they make a forum available for their members to use and then try to micro-control what their members say on that forum, well, that's just tacky and rude. What's the point of a forum in that case? Obviously, they and others hope that visitors and prospective new members will see nothing but ravingly positive statements like "Oh, I just love it here. This is my favorite site. Thanks xStock, we love you so much," and the reader will then become convinced to upload their entire library of photos based on the good comments they read. Very sneaky way to do business, if you ask me, and I steer way clear of forums that do that. From what I've seen, BigStock's forum allows much more freedom of speech, but alas it's poorly attended.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #21 on:** January 24, 2007, 12:40 »

.... you didn't hear it from me.... but I'm sure hundreds of others have already done the same and I'm not the first guy to do this........
I've very recently gone back and resumbitted stuff from 4 or 5 months ago that was rejected for "too many already" , "not looking for this kind of image" or "not microstock material" ......... and they've been accepted. Sometimes, it's the EXACT same shot, sometimes, I've just flipped it horizontally. And the crazy part, ... the pic sells within a couple days.
I guess the outfits and their wares for sale go through evolutionary changes or, ......their staffs do. try it, see if you get results. Be interesting to hear.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: DT have nearly 40,000 files pending (Read 9741 times)

litifeta

phildate

Freezingpictures

dbvirago

snem

leaf

dbvirago

madelaide

leaf

MiguelAngelo

litifeta

madelaide

litifeta

madelaide

ichiro17

StockManiac

leaf

epixx

a.k.a.-tom

litifeta

HughStoneIan

a.k.a.-tom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors