MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Hell of rejections on "well covered..." blah  (Read 18237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dook

« Reply #50 on: April 18, 2009, 15:44 »
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.
That would be good solution, but in the case you are uploading only to one agency. Imagine going through 5,6 or more sites and keywording the same pictures.


« Reply #51 on: April 18, 2009, 19:03 »
0
Ok so at some point the microstocks' customer surveys show that most buyers are finding what they want.  So they don't really need any new photos unless they're really unique, and can tell their reviewers to start rejecting anything else right off the top without even bothering to look at it at 100%. That cuts reviewing time way down and is a big cost reduction for the microstocks.  A lot of submitters give up, that reduces costs even more.  Eventually the archives have all the standard, ordinary stuff anyone is likely to want - all the common objects, foods, architectural landmarks, and 10,000 snappy "business team" and "confident doctor" shots to choose from. Then what?  All they would want would be top-drawer new shots featuring unusual subjects or novel treatments - done by pros, requiring serious setup, model fees, extensive Photoshop work etc. .  To get those, they have to raise their commissions considerably, and raise the price to the customer.   You see where I'm leading - the "microstock" era ends.

Just a bad dream I had last night.  In reality, I think there is always a market for creativity.  But it's hard to see how today's microstock business model can continue indefinitely.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 19:07 by stockastic »

« Reply #52 on: April 23, 2009, 09:34 »
0
it's kinda sad. once they were accepthing anything. and their sales are so bad these days.

batman

« Reply #53 on: April 23, 2009, 10:13 »
0
it's kinda sad. once they were accepthing anything. and their sales are so bad these days.

well, i think that's just it, yuliang11. they were accepting anything before and sales are so bad.
so they have to start being more picky so those who gets accepted could start getting sales again.
it's good for us too, it raises our own standard to learn to edit our work.

i am already beginning to disable many of my old images with lots of views and zero dls. just to clean up my act. i was lazy at the beginning too, as i was getting so many approvals. but the no sales prove
that approval is not the important thing, getting the kick ass images that sell is.

« Reply #54 on: April 30, 2009, 08:16 »
0
I just uploaded a flower pic  :)

Was it accepted?

I just had 13 of 13 flower pics rejected. *sigh*

« Reply #55 on: April 30, 2009, 09:23 »
0
I just had 13 of 13 flower pics rejected. *sigh*

Same here ... They seem to reject just about everything I upload at the moment. What really annoys me is that they don't even bother to give you any other reason for the rejection except for the usual "well covered subject" one.

batman

« Reply #56 on: April 30, 2009, 09:46 »
0
Just out of curiousity, do any of you find the same rejection reason with other sites.

My roommate who has a portfolio with Stockxpert told me she has the same rejection . I am wondering if the same reviewer moonlights for Dreamstime, Stockxpert and who knows which other sites.

Anyone here has both Dreamstime and Stockxpert who had recent rejections. Can you tell?

« Reply #57 on: May 01, 2009, 11:02 »
0
I just uploaded a flower pic  :)


Was it accepted?

I just had 13 of 13 flower pics rejected. *sigh*


It wasn't of course, although I had hopes, since istock and shutterstock accepted it and I already had some sales on it .

In addition I received a "lack of composition"

Here is my lack of composition: 



« Reply #58 on: May 01, 2009, 11:34 »
0
Here is my lack of composition: 




It's really not a good composition.

« Reply #59 on: May 01, 2009, 11:39 »
0
I know, there is not much - meaning no - copy space in it and it has too much contrast for a background image. Nevertheless it sold...

« Reply #60 on: May 01, 2009, 11:40 »
0
I am kinda fed up of their stupid "this is well covered..." rejections. I can see they have several similar photos - so what? My photos might not be better but they certainly are not worse than the ones they already have - so I want my chance to compete. It is not my fault somebody else started with them earlier and had already sent something similar. My pictures deserve to be allowed in that competing business. Let buyers decide which one to download. In many countries it would be even against law to prevent competition in that way. E.g. in my country if I were not allowed to sell - say - flowers just because somebody else is already selling them, I could appeal to the law and I would win. This "well covered" sh-t is all wrong. Why do not they just delete the old unsold similar "well covered" images instead?

Moonb007

  • Architect, Photographer, Dreamer
« Reply #61 on: May 07, 2009, 16:10 »
0
They have always been tight on rejections for things like Flowers...but I have noticed more rejections then normal.  I think maybe it has to do with them cleaning out their database, who knows.  But I wish they would not count rejections for "Not what we are looking for" under your stats.  I did however get a $21 referral, so some lucky photographer sold a $210 image.

« Reply #62 on: May 07, 2009, 16:26 »
0
But I wish they would not count rejections for "Not what we are looking for" under your stats.

So do I. And another thing that makes me angry with them. They did not complain about those images when they wanted to reach x.xxx.xxx milestone and boast about their huge collection. That time they did not mind such images, did they. And now they are going to reject them and lower your AR retroactively, which is egregious!

« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2009, 14:56 »
0
Looks like i fallen foul of this subject is well covered reject, funny as every one else took them even fototilla who are the masters of rejects ,your lost dreamtime  everyone else's gain   ;)

« Reply #64 on: May 10, 2009, 08:58 »
0
Well, 80% rejected for that "well covered nonsense" again. I am fed up. I am going to stop uploading for a month and then I am going to try again. If they stopped with this stupidity, I would go on uploading, otherwise I would not upload any more. This is only a waste of my time. And the sales there have decreased considerably too since they began with this we-have-it-all-covered and go-to-hell-with-your-images policy.

« Reply #65 on: May 10, 2009, 14:34 »
0
well one of the images they rejected two days ago sold on 123Rf  one view one sale ,so ppl do want new stuff no wonder their sales are decreasing .

« Reply #66 on: May 10, 2009, 15:04 »
0
So Dreamstime want to keep old files which are probably of lower quality and reject new stuff  ??? A move guaranteed to date the site very quickly!

« Reply #67 on: May 10, 2009, 15:08 »
0
They're not, they're increasing at a faster rate than any other agency I upload to.

no wonder their sales are decreasing .

« Reply #68 on: May 10, 2009, 15:35 »
0
well one of the images they rejected two days ago sold on 123Rf  one view one sale ,so ppl do want new stuff no wonder their sales are decreasing .

Yeah, I have the very same experience. The new files are usually better than their old well-covered stuff and even if they are not better, they are certainly not worse and they are NEW. I used to upload only files accepted at least by two other agencies in Big6. And I did not have a single technical rejection. Only this well-covered blah blah or too many shots blah blah.

CCK

« Reply #69 on: May 15, 2009, 05:54 »
0
Where I could bargain on one or two rejection for every 100 submissions, I sit with a 40% acceptance rate for this month, every rejection the same reason: "This is a very well covered subject in our data base or the subject of your image is too specific etc." A search reveals that the subject is not that well covered at all. I think the problem lies with new inexperienced reviewers, so I decided to stop uploading at DT for a while, at least until the problem is solved. I try to keep my acceptance rate above 90% and with the current rejections I will soon be trying to stay above 80%.

« Reply #70 on: May 15, 2009, 10:48 »
0
Where I could bargain on one or two rejection for every 100 submissions, I sit with a 40% acceptance rate for this month, every rejection the same reason: "This is a very well covered subject in our data base or the subject of your image is too specific etc." A search reveals that the subject is not that well covered at all. I think the problem lies with new inexperienced reviewers, so I decided to stop uploading at DT for a while, at least until the problem is solved. I try to keep my acceptance rate above 90% and with the current rejections I will soon be trying to stay above 80%.

Since about two months Dreamstime seems to have changed their acceptance policy drastically. Before my acceptance was around 80 to 90%. Now I'm glad if half of the uploads are accepted. And as far as I can see it's becoming worser and worser. Let's be clear: It's their right to accept what they want!

But as far I can see, their explanation for many refuses makes no sence. I take my work serious and try to make saleable stuff. I look at the images in the database and try to make them different and appealing and better. Nearly all refusions are for "This is a well covered...." That may be, but if it was the same, I normally would not make and upload it. I make a lot of abstract designs, which come in the abstract categories and it looks like these categories are blocked for new images. What's contributed in there is nearly automatically rejected. If they are making a quality comparison between what they have and new stuff, It's not clear to me what they are judging.

It feels like indifference. They might not be interested in this kind of images anymore?
If this is wise it's not up to me. As far as I can see, they very often miss the best and some nice selling images on other sites and take/hold the lesser quality....

For me it's difficult to see the sence of it. I feel my enthousiasm for this site is lowering. I can imagine that the same effect is on more contributers. Isn't this threat expressing this feeling all toghether? I wonder if this is what they aim for or want to happen?....and if, how it could be in their commercial advantage? What do you think?


« Reply #71 on: May 15, 2009, 12:22 »
0
As I've posted here before, I think it's about labor costs, and skilled reviewers cost money.  As microstocks struggle to survive and increase their profits, they'll try to focus on what sells and stop spending time (money) reviewing what doesn't sell.  So they tell their reviewers that if a subject is on the "well covered" blacklist, don't spend any time on it, just reject it.  It won't matter if it's better than anything they have of that subject because it won't even get a serious look.

I am sure if you submitted the best "happy Asian business team" that was ever created, it would get reviewed and accepted, because that's something they think they can sell this week. 



« Reply #72 on: May 15, 2009, 12:51 »
0
I haven't noticed any increase in "well covered" rejections.  Out of 95 images uploaded this month, only six have been rejected, five of those for "well covered."  The other was because I'd forgotten to attach a model release.  All of the rejected images were simple backgrounds/textures or flowers/trees, which are definitely well covered, so IMO they got it right.

A couple of years ago, I did have a blanket "well covered" rejection on a bunch of shots of fresh rosemary sprigs.  Upon further investigation, I found exactly eight shots of rosemary...not exactly a well-covered subject.  I contacted customer support, pointed out the problem, and asked for a second review.  They reviewed them again, and accepted nearly every image.  So...if you really truly think the reviewer got it wrong and feel your images are worth fighting for, then ask customer service for a second opinion.


« Reply #73 on: May 15, 2009, 13:09 »
0
I don't mind the ubiquitous "well covered" rejection , so long as when I do check DT to find  a lot (or even a just a single half page) of them dating one year or older with 0 dls.

« Reply #74 on: May 15, 2009, 16:46 »
0
They have 10 photos of a particular subject, and those photos rarely or never sell.  Therefore, it must be a well covered subject with poor returns.  But everytime I have been inclined to look to see if it really is a well covered subject those photos don't sell because they are pure crap.  Why don't they approve the new photo that was actually taken for a desgner by today's standard stock photographer... it has copy space, it is uncluttered, it has good colour, it is appealing to the eye...  and delete one of the old crap ones that are essentially invisible to a designer? 

... still scratching my head.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2457 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
3699 Views
Last post August 26, 2009, 13:20
by cascoly
10 Replies
3329 Views
Last post December 10, 2010, 11:30
by cthoman
6 Replies
2451 Views
Last post June 07, 2014, 02:36
by Beppe Grillo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results