pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Hell of rejections on "well covered..." blah  (Read 18249 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: May 15, 2009, 16:52 »
0
pixart, that's the point I was trying to make.  They're telling the reviewers to just reject images of subjects on the "well covered" list without even looking at them. 


« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2009, 11:51 »
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?

Totally agreeing with you. They shouldn't punish the contributors for their own mistakes. I mean, it's not our fault that they used to accept a lot of crappy photos and now have a full database. Just because a subject is well covered doesn't mean that the photos they already have are any good.

CCK

« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2009, 12:36 »
0
Fact is, almost everything is well covered by now. To reject images because the subject is well covered is not far from saying we don't accept new contributions, because we have everything we need.

« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2009, 12:52 »
0
CCK I think that day is coming.  When the microstocks were getting started, their goal was just big archives.  Now they're done trying to impress buyers  with how many million images they have, and want to cut back on reviewing expenses.  So the whole thing is turning around and they may get to a point where all they accept is whatever is posted on a "wanted this week" list.


« Reply #79 on: May 18, 2009, 15:09 »
0
Well, they should at the very least have said so - I would not have bothered with them any more if they had said they wanted just some business idiots teams etc. But DT is used to punishing us contributors for their problems - look at the "refunds" they without our permission just take of our account because THEY accepted some fraud credit card. And now our AR would be damaged because THEY used to take a lot of crap (so that they could boast how many pictures they had in their huge database) and now they have too much of everything.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 15:20 by peep »

« Reply #80 on: May 18, 2009, 15:24 »
0
They've concluded that crowdsourcing can provide all the quality they will ever need and all the contributors they could ever want, for just token payments.

Personally I don't think they're correct, but it will take time for things to turn around and new players to get started. 

« Reply #81 on: May 18, 2009, 15:48 »
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.

That is a very good point! Technically perfect work can be rejected and it's costly on your acceptance rate.

Does that mean that we should all search the database for what we are going to upload to see how much of the same is already there? I don't think we all have time for that!


KB

« Reply #82 on: May 18, 2009, 16:06 »
0
Does that mean that we should all search the database for what we are going to upload to see how much of the same is already there? I don't think we all have time for that!
That's exactly what DT wants us to do.

The problem is, I've done that in the past, and sometimes still gotten "well-covered" rejections.

« Reply #83 on: May 18, 2009, 19:44 »
0
We can't decide by just searching the existing database because we have no definition of WCS .  And I don't think they're being totally honest with these rejections anyway.  I just had a "concrete background" image rejected as a WCS.  I thought it was a really nice one, and anyway, some of these microstocks still list "grunge textures" as something they want.  So maybe they should take down the sign....




« Reply #84 on: May 18, 2009, 23:47 »
0
Searching for subject covering can give you a geenral idea, but it doesn't help always as the reviewers themselves are not doing the search before rejecting for well covered subject. I'm sure most of time they are just guided by their feeling how an image is well covered. I have recently had an image of ivy seamless background rejected on DT even though there was only one ivy background in the database and it was not seamless. After I resubmitted, with results from the search, the image was accepted. So I'm pretty sure, it is either not in their requirement to do the searches before rejecting, or they are not doing what they are supposed to do.

« Reply #85 on: May 19, 2009, 06:26 »
0
DT rejected my rose image because of "well covered..." reason. I resubmitted it with explanation there is no such beautiful red rose in their database, with such evenly spread raindrops, and so brightly red, but they rejected it again  ::)


« Reply #86 on: May 19, 2009, 10:31 »
0
DT rejected my rose image because of "well covered..." reason. I resubmitted it with explanation there is no such beautiful red rose in their database, with such evenly spread raindrops, and so brightly red, but they rejected it again  ::)




awww whitechild, i guess dreamstime does not soften with poetry  ;)

RacePhoto

« Reply #87 on: May 19, 2009, 15:28 »
0
awww whitechild, i guess dreamstime does not soften with poetry  ;)


Or fake raindrops.  ;D

Be honest how many of these have you seen on a stock site? Search for John Glenn on your favorite sites. But it is a postage stamp, thus refused on FT, DT and Panther, for too many like this. When they don't have ANY like this.


Enough whining, they can do what they want, but it is just what the top of the thread says. Rejections by guidelines, not for content or quality.

« Reply #88 on: May 27, 2009, 09:22 »
0
Just abnormal rejections. Plus abnormally low sales.

That's not a good approach  >:(

I've heard many claims from various microstocker to give up with this stock. Now, I believe that this might be the case.


« Reply #90 on: June 05, 2009, 14:14 »
0
Thank you! It makes it much easier to know what to improve if I get concrete reason.

« Reply #91 on: June 05, 2009, 14:16 »
0
It always be subjective as long as human is involved besides different agencies have different criteria. Stop worrying about this, same photo may sell somewhere else.

« Reply #92 on: June 06, 2009, 10:23 »
0
Achilles ~ Thanks for that information.  The "well covered subject" rejection can be confusing, especially for someone who takes many photos of the same subject.  For example, my portfolio is FULL of animals (esp dogs).  I can get a rejection one day for "well covered subject" and turn around the next day and have another photo of the same subject approved.  I pretty much decided on my own the "well covered subject" rejection just meant my picture wasn't good enough to compete against the numerous others already uploaded on DT. Which is totally fine to me, because I'd rather have a small portfolio with lots of sales than millions of images on-line and very few sales.  

Now, if you could just get the "Poor lighting" rejection to have just a bit more clarity to give some direction to member (ie: underexposed, overexposed, blown highlights, too dark, too light, direct flash etc.) it sure would help me improve my approval ratio....  ;D



« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 10:25 by sgcallaway1994 »

« Reply #93 on: June 07, 2009, 15:27 »
0
I will not comment the previous posts, but as this is on topic, would like to tell you that we're doing consistency monitoring constantly and that I have asked special attention to be given to the "Well covered" reason for the near future.

While the reason was usually associated with others (like lack of composition for instance), we will try to focus now on those reasons solely. This way we aim to show the problem itself, without any reference to what we have online.

Hopefuly this will help.

I'm sure it will :) Thank you!! :)

« Reply #94 on: June 16, 2009, 01:47 »
0
Just got another photo of fire flames rejected with the reason "We are looking for images that exceed the technical quality and creativity of the images already online. Thank you"
I have many photos of flames and I have not been able to get any of them accepted recently. It feels like there is a brick wall now built for this type of shots. The funny thing is all my recently rejected fire photos were shot with brand new Canon 5d Mark II in 21Mp quality. Half a year ago a lot of similar photos from me was accepted without a single problem. And those accepted were shot on an older 5D in 12Mp. Go figure.

« Reply #95 on: June 16, 2009, 07:10 »
0
Achilles just wrote me, that they had a discussion and decided to approve the rejected flame photo. DT is the best, I knew it :)

« Reply #96 on: June 16, 2009, 07:22 »
0
I was overly optimistic when I recently shot a dozen well lit 21 megapixel wooden textures. The wood panels were very beautifully worn and I thought these were the finest wood textures ever.

I was prepared for rejections, but DT rejected them all. DT and FT seems to be very hard on textures nowdays.

BTW, three of the textures sell like hotcakes on SS :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2461 Views
Last post April 16, 2008, 10:19
by Karimala
5 Replies
3346 Views
Last post December 20, 2008, 13:15
by anonymous
6 Replies
3701 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