MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Hell of rejections on "well covered..." blah  (Read 18246 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2009, 12:23 »
0

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.


This has struck me since day one as the biggest flaw and a huge problem, on every site!

http://tinyurl.com/cospck

Example, not picking on this person, and look at the keywords on the best selling image with two sales.

accident auto automobile beautiful blue break breakdown broken call car cell child childhood clueless complicated damaged drive engine female fix frustration girl hands heart help helpless hood hopeless kid look machine mechanic mechanical mobile motor motorcar parking phone red repair ride scarf solution stop support trouble unhappy vehicle wait winter woman work worries young



Do they have child drivers licenses now? Help me with Heart and red.

He left out dirt, shoes, weeds, bluejeans, sky, clouds...  ::)

Only for the brave, take a look at this, after you look at the keywords. Guess what the photo is? I left off the last few words, which are actually what it is.

a fire a kiss an old age chomk dialogue ecology it and it kiss love love it matches kiss the burnt down matches kiss the burnt matches which have burnt down matches the creative

http://us.fotolia.com/id/12673387

Worst example, but worth the humor of it all, most of these do not include plurals.

FT Red Tomato = Search results: 25807 files
StockXpert Results for "red tomato" 16928 Images
BS = 9,758
123 = 10000 matches
DT = Search results: 24,705
IS = Search results: 24,705
SS = 30,566 results.

The horses are out of the barn, no use to try to close the door now.

DT isn't being stupid, they are sticking their finger in the dike, trying to stop the flood.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 12:25 by RacePhoto »


« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2009, 12:51 »
0
They're trying to stop the flood, but they already have 6 feet of water in the basement and no way to pump it out.

RacePhoto

« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2009, 13:49 »
0
They're trying to stop the flood, but they already have 6 feet of water in the basement and no way to pump it out.

Old one: It's too late to remember to drain the swamp when you are up to your a$$ in alligators.  ;D

How do you go back and edit 6 million photos for keywords, extended redundant series shots, or potential infringing content?

They could throw up their hands and say, it's impossible, or start watching the incoming material, and some day work backwards to make corrections for previous loose regulations. Best part is, I'm not the one who has to figure out how to fix this mess.  ;D

KB

« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2009, 15:40 »
0
They could throw up their hands and say, it's impossible, or start watching the incoming material

But oddly enough, they seem to be watching incoming material and, at least in my experience, rejecting series of 1s. That is, they cannot afford to add one new image of a "well covered" subject, yet they can afford stuff like this:
http://tinyurl.com/d9yobv

I'm talking about the first 46 "cheeseburgers" (all of which are actually chicken burgers, but would a buyer really care? ;) )

Never mind that some of these are so similar they are hard to tell apart. What about some of these keywords:
beef (chicken, beef, it's all the same, right?), cheddar, cheese (maybe I'm blind, but I can't see a speck of cheese in any of those 46), isolated (ok, some are, but some are not yet still have the keyword), mayonnaise (as visible as the cheese), mustard (ditto), ripe (I love my chicken cheeseburgers ripe, don't you?), snack (ha!).

Has anyone ever gotten a keyword rejection from DT? Perhaps they never look at keywords.

But my biggest beef (sorry) is that they have room for 46 images on the same subject (when a dozen or two would have been plenty), but not 1 more from me on other "well covered" subjects.  :P

ETA: The search link above sorts by age, descending, so those first 46 are all new images (accepted within the last few months). And apologies to the contributing photog if you read this. I have no problem with your work (other than your keywording), just a problem with DT accepting so much of it while denying others!  ::)
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 16:00 by KB »

« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2009, 15:54 »
0
Rejecting new images is easy. That actually reduces your labor costs because the screeners spend less time checking quality at 100%.  Weeding out the junk from 6 milllion old images would be extremely expensive. All they can do is raise standards on new images and delete old ones, that didn't sell, automatically after a cutoff date - that costs nothing.  This is what will happen, nothing more.

This means they're now rejecting images that may very well be better than what they already have.   

Is this strategy going to improve the quality of the archives over time? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.


« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2009, 08:09 »
0
My acceptance rate for DT over the last month is now the lowest of all the agencies. The same reason is used on all of the rejections "This is a very well covered subject" even on one-of-kind originals with nothing like it in the DT library. It is perplexing and frustrating and it would help me understand what is going on if the rejections made sense, but they don't. Maybe I should stop uploading for awhile?

« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2009, 05:39 »
0

Has anyone ever gotten a keyword rejection from DT? Perhaps they never look at keywords.


I had one once(I typed leaning instead of learning where the spell checker does not help much :D ) and I could not re-submit, since the image size was too large(in megapixels). Had to do a fresh upload which ended in e rejection because of "this is not what we are looking for". This was quite frustrating but a mail to the editor was sufficient  :)

And yes the only sort of rejections I currently get is "well covered subject" and it does not help much to brows the galleries before submitting because also what I think is not well covered or a unique pic gets rejected for that reason. I found a subject what does appear not to be well covered and I currently mostly upload to this subject since I want to raise my AR.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 14:39 by Inga »

« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2009, 08:09 »
0

How do you go back and edit 6 million photos for keywords, extended redundant series shots, or potential infringing content?

However istock is just doing that. How? Little by little...

« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2009, 10:19 »
0
I just had 2 of 4 rejected as "well covered subjects".  I suggest we introduce the WCS acronym to describe this trend. 

I guess what they want now is whatever they think they can sell this week, and nothing else.   These companies have enough "stock" images, they don't even want to spend time (= money) reviewing new ones. They want buyers to tell them what they want today, and then have contributors compete for the 1 dollar grand prize.  It's not "stock" per se, it's real-time "crowd-sourcing".

« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 11:15 by stockastic »

batman

« Reply #34 on: April 15, 2009, 11:12 »
0

Old one: It's too late to remember to drain the swamp when you are up to your a$$ in alligators.  ;D



rofl, race... you get my vote this week for top one-liners  ;D

« Reply #35 on: April 15, 2009, 17:58 »
0
I just uploaded a flower pic  :)

batman

« Reply #36 on: April 15, 2009, 23:18 »
0
I just had 2 of 4 rejected as "well covered subjects".  I suggest we introduce the WCS acronym to describe this trend. 

I guess what they want now is whatever they think they can sell this week, and nothing else.   These companies have enough "stock" images, they don't even want to spend time (= money) reviewing new ones. They want buyers to tell them what they want today, and then have contributors compete for the 1 dollar grand prize.  It's not "stock" per se, it's real-time "crowd-sourcing".

i'm wondering if it's a certain reviewer or reviewers who are using this rejection , because i've seen it with other sites as well.  then there's the other favourite with sites like SnapVillage , what's that?
oh yes, "no commercial value".  that's pretty wild too.

 8)

RacePhoto

« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2009, 13:44 »
0
Two offerings, none serious as usual. These came from DT.

We have reviewed your file and this is not quite what we're looking for. To which I'd like to add NQWWLF  ;)

More along the lines of not suitable for prime time, or stock, or too many or LCV, NCV, Snapshot Etc. here's one more. I don't understand the Too Specific part at all.

This is a very well covered subject in our data base or the subject of your image is too specific. Which leads me to:  VWCS

The second part was directly from Monty Python. ITS

There's one we won't ever get anywhere, but you will get the point. Found Usual Content / Keywords - Unusable. I won't put the acronym down, but it's what they are really saying in all the other kinder rejections.  :o

KB

« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2009, 14:00 »
0
There's one we won't ever get anywhere, but you will get the point. Found Usual Content / Keywords - Unusable. I won't put the acronym down, but it's what they are really saying in all the other kinder rejections.  :o
;D  ;D At least, it sure feels that way, doesn't it?  ;D  ;D

batman

« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2009, 14:12 »
0
There's one we won't ever get anywhere, but you will get the point. Found Usual Content / Keywords - Unusable. I won't put the acronym down, but it's what they are really saying in all the other kinder rejections.  :o
;D  ;D At least, it sure feels that way, doesn't it?  ;D  ;D

my vote is for
 Found Usual Content Keywords Unusable
 the best rejection reason.
to which i am sure we all reply , " the feeling's mutual, dudes...i love tofu upside down ! "  :o
 8)

batman

« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2009, 14:32 »
0
it's obvious we are no longer talking about Dreamstime, so ...

here's one i am not quite sure about either: TOO SPECIFIC.
it's the opposite of :  no commercial value , i guess.
wouldn't  that include racing cars, obama, flowers, office, surfing, food isolated,etc...
in other words literally every top seller?  enlighten me please ! ::)
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 14:34 by batman »

« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2009, 14:42 »
0
I'm trying not to overreact  :)

These microstocks are all trying to clean up their act.  Although I'm fairly new, I get the impression they just finished desperately racing each other to the magic "5 MILLION IMAGES" and when they got there, found they had a giant compost file of unsellable photos that buyers didn't want to wade through.  Now they're all rushing to the other side of the boat, rejecting all sorts of perfectly good images.   Who knows where this will end up.



« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2009, 14:56 »
0
I stopped worrying about rejections. My philosophy now is: "if you like it you can take it". I will not even try to read rejection reason cause most of them seem to be totally fake. Too bad cause I might be missing some legitimate ones. This is really bad situation they are overwhelmed with volume of photos we are over saturated with huge number of rejections. Until one of the sites invents solution for this problem I do not see chance for getting better.

« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2009, 15:15 »
0
I care for rejections when I think my image would sell and when it does on other sites. And when AR is important in the ranking of images in search results!

I just started to raise my AR up to 94% in march! And now that! I don't know what to do anymore. Stop uploading? at least my AR would stay like it is now and my pix will stay in the ranking in the search!

« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2009, 15:40 »
0
Some rejections have been spot on, for example reviewers spotting color noise in dark areas. But this "well covered subject" thing doesn't really make sense.  On the one hand they're saying they don't want more of what they already have.  On the other hand they're telling us to look at the "best selling" images and do stuff like that.   What the heck?








batman

« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2009, 16:20 »
0
Some rejections have been spot on, for example reviewers spotting color noise in dark areas. But this "well covered subject" thing doesn't really make sense.  On the one hand they're saying they don't want more of what they already have.  On the other hand they're telling us to look at the "best selling" images and do stuff like that.   What the heck?

oi, look on the bright side. by the time we finally get to understand rejections, we can all quit microstock and start our own MIND READER  business  ;D

Dook

« Reply #46 on: April 18, 2009, 08:16 »
0
The bigest microstock agencies have stable archives now. Few years ago they were in proccess of growing up, they desperatly wanted every single picture contibuters send to them. Now, they can choose what to accept more comfortably. That explains it all. And it is not even close to traditional stock rejections yet.

« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2009, 08:27 »
0
And it is not even close to traditional stock rejections yet.

If the rejection rates are going up, I think the submitters shouldn't be asked to keyword and categorize images. That's something we should demand. I have a few "trad" agencies that allow you to keyword AFTER image is accepted, that's not as bad as on micro sites.

batman

« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2009, 08:32 »
0
And it is not even close to traditional stock rejections yet.

If the rejection rates are going up, I think the submitters shouldn't be asked to keyword and categorize images. That's something we should demand. I have a few "trad" agencies that allow you to keyword AFTER image is accepted, that's not as bad as on micro sites.

never thought it be a big deal, Perry... but good point. it would save a lot of time on the contributor's end if we are allowed to keywords AFTER approval.

« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2009, 14:42 »
0
I think this rejection is fair if they do have already too many similars AND the new submission isn't better in some way (more original, with better lighting, bigger, etc). 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2460 Views
Last post April 16, 2008, 10:19
by Karimala
5 Replies
3344 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
3332 Views
Last post December 10, 2010, 11:30
by cthoman
6 Replies
2454 Views
Last post June 07, 2014, 02:36
by Beppe Grillo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results