MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Hell of rejections on "well covered..." blah  (Read 18241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 07, 2009, 05:23 »
0
All of sudden my acceptance rate drops like hell at DT since the late of March. Only 3 out of 15 was accepted in my last submittion. Almost all rejections are for "this is well covered....". Funny thing is FT accepted 3 of DT rejected photos. hm...

anyone experiencing similar there?



« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2009, 05:39 »
0
anyone experiencing similar there?

Where is your portfolio link?

« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2009, 05:59 »
0
All of sudden my acceptance rate drops like hell at DT since the late of March. Only 3 out of 15 was accepted in my last submittion. Almost all rejections are for "this is well covered....". Funny thing is FT accepted 3 of DT rejected photos. hm...

anyone experiencing similar there?



Yes, I had almost 100% acceptance in March, but half of my first batch in April was rejected for this very reason - "well covered..." or "too many shots from the same series". I really hate it when photographs which are technically OK are rejected for those stupid reasons. I would not mind so much if it did not affect my acceptance ratio in a negative way...

« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2009, 06:17 »
0
Here is the link: http://www.dreamstime.com/patrickwang_info [nofollow]

I started uploading to DT since middle of February and receiving overall 60% acceptance ratio. Just when I gaining confidence on what I should submit to DT and improving acceptance rate then things changed suddently after a month and half. I've been digging out travel photos accumulated in the past years so nothing changed in my submitted photos.

Peep, I did receive some "too many shots" rejections as well. May be you can try to split them in different bunch of submission. 100% accepted in March? Wow... a dream of me  ::)

« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2009, 07:21 »
0
Here is the link: http://www.dreamstime.com/patrickwang_info

I started uploading to DT since middle of February and receiving overall 60% acceptance ratio. Just when I gaining confidence on what I should submit to DT and improving acceptance rate then things changed suddently after a month and half. I've been digging out travel photos accumulated in the past years so nothing changed in my submitted photos.

Peep, I did receive some "too many shots" rejections as well. May be you can try to split them in different bunch of submission. 100% accepted in March? Wow... a dream of me  ::)


I did split them - I always do it to avoid any stupid reviewer who does not like the particular subject (he would mass-reject the whole batch). I usually put only two or three images out of  series in a batch. And it usually works OK for me both here and on Fotolia. But this time the reviewer was a bit overzealous and obviously looked at the previous batches.

« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2009, 09:56 »
0
Yeah they just nailed me too for "well covered subjects".   

How long before one of these agencies simply starts posting a list of subjects they currently want, and stops accepting anything else?

And how is a new submitter supposed to know whether a subject is "well covered"? 
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 10:03 by stockastic »

vonkara

« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2009, 17:56 »
0
If you are having issues with the well covered subject and before shooting you made your research for shooting something not well covered or better than the actual images in the collection, then reply to the email. This is the DT version of IS scout.

Hopefully If they abused the well covered rejection, either your file will be approved and maybe they will be notified to take more care in the future, If many people reply to those kind of rejection

« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2009, 21:57 »
0
Let me be devil's advocate for a moment and ask - why do they reject photos for "well covered" subjects anyway?  Don't they want new takes on old subjects?  Don't they advertise their vast number of images?  Do they want the old images to keep selling?  What are they afraid of?

Doesn't every subject become "well covered" eventually?  And then are they just going to stop accepting new photos and lay off the reviewers?


« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2009, 01:49 »
0
yeah been getting a lot of these rejections too lately.

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2009, 03:55 »
0
All of sudden my acceptance rate drops like hell at DT since the late of March. Only 3 out of 15 was accepted in my last submittion. Almost all rejections are for "this is well covered....". Funny thing is FT accepted 3 of DT rejected photos. hm...

anyone experiencing similar there?



Yes, starting in Feb. The same rejected photos are now my best sellers on IS, FT and SS for the last two months. Some well covered subjects can still use new higher quality, better produced, similar images.

What DT has apparently done, (and it's their business, not mine) is issue blanket refusals for "well covered" subjects, that "don't sell well" without regard to the content or quality.

As pointed out in another thread, if you submit a chocolate cookie and get refused for too many like this, the problem may be that someone already uploaded 30+ of the same setup, and same cookie! That's filling the results, instead of a diverse and assorted collection.

If DT wants to market stale old redundant photos, shot on older equipment, smaller size, that's their decision. I can't complain because my sales are going up on five other sites, with the same images that DT (and Panther) just refused.  ;D

« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2009, 08:44 »
0
I suspect it's about labor costs.  Reviewers have to be a big expense for these companies so they're looking for ways to reduce reviewing hours.  One easy way is to direct reviewers to immediately reject any image of a subject on the "black list" and not spend even any time looking at its technical quality at 100%.

Remember, as these competing agencies are steadily reducing our prices to zero, they're killing themselves too.  The word "commodity" doesn't even describe the situation now.    I predict they'll increasingly focus on current needs (i.e. what big buyers are asking for this month) and try to stop spending time reviewing anything else. 




« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2009, 09:20 »
0
I agree with above.    They are mass-rejecting without looking more and more these days.  They have top contributors filling the needs anyway...

« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2009, 09:57 »
0
It still is better to tell us that they don't want that image than trying to find the technical problem for which they could reject it.

« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2009, 10:11 »
0
I once read an interesting article about retailing and malls.  Over the years the big clothing stores have ended up selling all the same stuff, and shoppers just got bored and quit going to the malls.  Same thing will happen here to some extent. 
 
Right now these microstocks are just DIY warehouses not adding any value to the product.  They make money by preventing buyers and sellers from communicating directly.   It will take time but things will change. 

« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2009, 10:48 »
0
He he. I had 8 waiting and another 10 that I submitted earlier today.   They cleaned the que, and APPROVED 16/18.  Fast and Good accepance ratio ;) Me like longtime...

« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2009, 10:56 »
0
It still is better to tell us that they don't want that image than trying to find the technical problem for which they could reject it.

OK - but then they should not use those rejections to decrease our acceptance ratio which they then use to calculate the position of our photos in the search engine results...
It should be something like Accept-Ignore-Reject for any photo. And only the photos rejected for technical flaws should decrease your position in search results.

« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2009, 11:38 »
0
I got a "to many similars"-rejection today. It was an image that was already online that I had improved (fixed a crooked horizon etc). I wrote a mail to them about it and wrote a note to the editor about which pic it was meant to replace. Today the improved pic was in my reject list because it was to similar to the picture it was meant to replace LOL


« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2009, 05:06 »
0
Hi Achilles,


Thanks for your reply. I just feel frustrated on these recent huge amount of rejections and wanted to know if others experiencing the same. I did not use "stupid" in any of my message here and on any other forums.  I do appreciate their work and respect the feedbacks on the rejected images.

Yes, as you suggested that I can always go through DT support in the first instance to address any questions or disagreement on any rejections I have got. However there are something else makes me feel not want to do that. I am not going to talk about anything in detail here anymore but will write a message directly to DT later. 

« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2009, 05:26 »
0
Take it as a challenge patw. Its frustrating for me as well if my images get rejected, but it helps me also to improve. Without the increasing standards of microstock I would not have learned and improved so much.


« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2009, 04:38 »
0
I know it sounds cruel, but I would delete all images that didn't sell 2 years or more, and I would implement an algorithm like TinEye in every site to block reuploading of old deleted images and for deleting duplicates. This way images that sell would stay online until nobody buys them 2 years or more, and poor images that didn't sell would be deleted. I know this is not directly connected with the reason "well covered" but I think it would be good for all. It would be good even for contributors who's poor images would be deleted.

« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2009, 04:47 »
0
I know it sounds cruel, but I would delete all images that didn't sell 2 years or more, and I would implement an algorithm like TinEye in every site to block reuploading of old deleted images and for deleting duplicates. This way images that sell would stay online until nobody buys them 2 years or more, and poor images that didn't sell would be deleted. I know this is not directly connected with the reason "well covered" but I think it would be good for all. It would be good even for contributors who's poor images would be deleted.

I totally agree with you, although I think the limit should be 3 or 4 years, just to ease contributors into it.

I also think it would be a good idea to delete some of those pics that really are too similar. Like 30 photos of the same pencil from the same contributor. Yes, it would require some resources, but it would pay out because it would make the site more appealing. Also it would solve some of the problems mentioned in the search engine thread.

« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2009, 07:55 »
0
@OP as this is not allowed on our forums, it would be a good exercise to use the freedom of MSG and ask for critiques from other users by posting the images. This generic discussion is not helpful without seeing the images.

That's why I asked his "port" in the begin. I should have said the "rejected ones". It's useless to discuss this in abstracto. Maybe Leaf should open a separate category dedicated to rejections + advice to keep it organized. Also, the full size image should be posted. It's easy to put a big bar or cross over it in PS.

« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2009, 10:10 »
0
I so agree with this.  That is one of the things that must make the searches frustrating for buyers that have to wade through dozens of basically the same image.


I also think it would be a good idea to delete some of those pics that really are too similar. Like 30 photos of the same pencil from the same contributor.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2458 Views
Last post April 16, 2008, 10:19
by Karimala
5 Replies
3343 Views
Last post December 20, 2008, 13:15
by anonymous
6 Replies
3700 Views
Last post August 26, 2009, 13:20
by cascoly
10 Replies
3330 Views
Last post December 10, 2010, 11:30
by cthoman
6 Replies
2452 Views
Last post June 07, 2014, 02:36
by Beppe Grillo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results