The issue is that DT has recently started to reject images that are just similar but are very far from being "nearly identical".

I am trying to avoid similar images in my uploads, but I also saw that a few times.

The issue is that DT has recently started to reject images that are just similar but are very far from being "nearly identical".

Obviously.  Which is what I find surprising.

The issue is that DT has recently started to reject images that are just similar but are very far from being "nearly identical".

Isn't that what Veer has been doing consequently ever since they started?

Continuing on the OP's thread:

DT still seems pretty lenient from my POV, and their level - price based system would endorse such a policy. Microstock agents, in general, seem to be gradually diversifying their target audience; either by luring people into exclusivity, or by trying to maintain a unique collection of images (and thus rejecting images for various reasons). In doing so, it looks to me like they're creating collections which are not available elsewhere. I see it as Dreamstime's - or any other agents - prerogative to be selective in a market which is overly saturated on the supply side. Microstock is changing, and so must we.

Quote from: MikLav on January 05, 2010, 17:30

The issue is that DT has recently started to reject images that are just similar but are very far from being "nearly identical".

Isn't that what Veer has been doing consequently ever since they started?

Continuing on the OP's thread:

DT still seems pretty lenient from my POV, and their level - price based system would endorse such a policy. Microstock agents, in general, seem to be gradually diversifying their target audience; either by luring people into exclusivity, or by trying to maintain a unique collection of images (and thus rejecting images for various reasons). In doing so, it looks to me like they're creating collections which are not available elsewhere. I see it as Dreamstime's - or any other agents - prerogative to be selective in a market which is overly saturated on the supply side. Microstock is changing, and so must we.

Good observations and (it seems to me) these observations support the need to remain independent.  With so many images being rejected, being exclusive certainly limits the sale of your images.  What is to be done with all those rejects. 

Guys, do you understand that submitting similars will dillute dramatically your RPD? Others may accept them, as they don't have our pricing system. But if you submit two files you will see less revenue, as your RPD will fall down. Not due to search placement, but because 5 sales will be split between these 2 and the file will not reach level 2 so fast.
Also, subscriptions have a thirst for similars. You will receive more sub downloads, because buyers will download them "just in case". This is not bad, it's additional revenue but keep it in mind when comparing RPDs.
More here:
http://blog.dreamstime.com/2009/09/02/similar-images-how-to-upload-and-how-much-is-too-much_art30298

It's much much more difficult for an editor to refuse files than to accept them. Especially when they don't come in batches to allow us to get the best-selling files from a session. Please understand that refusing good files is a tough decision and is applied only when the similarity will lead to lower revenue (lower $ not less downloads).

The alternative is to allow users to submit very few images. That will make them self-selective and will remove any similarity burden from our side. If this is preferred, we can definitely do it.

As for acceptance, it has a role in the placement algorithm along with other quality factors. Acceptance ratio defines a lot the contributor. I realize is not obvious from outside but is very visible when you compare two users: 20% vs 80%. This is not the most important role though.

As a buyer, I was searching yesterday for an image to use in a project I am working on. I came across multiple downloads, and I mean about 20 photos, from one contributor. All the same subject, all practically identical. I was searching the DT site and one other, but I don't recall which site it was on. Whichever site it was, I was amazed that they all got through. There was no way a person would download more than one or two of this series, they were that close. The rest of the shots were just taking up reviewers time, space on the site, and my time sorting through them.

Not insinuating that yours are that way, sharpshot, just relating the frustration for buyers that comes when contributors are allowed to upload a ton of similar images.

I got a rejection one time for a photo being similar to something else in my portfolio. I accidentally named it exactly the same as one already in there. The shot was the same subject as some already uploaded, but the angle, etc. was way different than others. As soon as I renamed it and resubmitted, it was accepted.

to Achilles: I see your point about the RPD and it is great that you bring it to our attention. But why don't you allow us to decide what is good for our income and what is not? In my case: I do not care RPD nor the RPI - the only measure what counts for me is the Return per Portfolio (RPP?).
I am not sure you saw my early post in this topic so I repeat it. Woman is sitting at the office working on laptop (what a great unique idea ). She looks at the laptop, looking away and thinking, looks at the camera, she looks troubled, she looks happy, she looks busy. These are variations. Because of the different customer needs you may want all of these in horizontal and in vertical format as well. If I upload these I'll get more than of them rejected. Customer wants the horizontal one where the woman is looking away - but it got rejected because it was too similar to another one what the customer doesn't need. No problem he/she will find one from another contributor... but why is this good for my income?

My second thought... Every single image costs money: model, editing, keywording, uploading. Other agencies accept the whole series so I will not decrease the number of selects from a shooting session. After spending a lot of money on a session I want to see all the best images online. Maybe they are similar but they are not identical - the only identity is the fact they all cost money. So every image you reject is a significant loss.
Additionally... I do not want to spend even more time/money for another extra super-selection process in my workflow just for DT. If I can not upload the whole series I'll upload a random selection and not the bests, and I'll still get similarity rejections because of that randomness. This leads to frustration and the failed upload is a loss of time/money again.

What I am affraid of: if DT keeps this policy some contributors may stop uploading. Please keep in mind that even if I love DT for a lot of reasons it makes less then 10% of my income. FTL, SS or IS is making 3-4 times more so the annoyance factor (and extra expense) they can reach is higher. They can have more annoying upload process or a more nitpicking reviewing - IS is a perfect example

My next point is the size/exclusivity of your collection. It is clear that many agencies are trying to build an exclusive collection of images to differentiate themself from the competition. DT's new rejection policy leads to the opposite direction: you are on the way to build a 'black out' collection: collection of high quality good stock images can be find anywhere EXCEPT Dreamstime. Are you sure this is the best way to differ from others? I see how your strategy may work in theory because the collection is more tight so it is easier to browse. It is true. But, if I translate it to a simple message it sounds like that: 'DT is great and better than others because they have less images to choose from'. Hmmm... And you are not tightening the collection by quality (this is what IS is trying to do) but by similarity. If this is the case you shouldn't accept any more 'woman with laptop' or happy business people isolated on white' kind of images. I am absolutely on your side if you want to raise the level of quality. I agree if you reject images because of bad lighting... etc. But I can not agree this 'too similar' policy at all.

Excellent points, gostwyck and NitorPhoto - I couldn't have said better. In my opinion the "too similar" rejection should go for photos that are mostly identical. Guy facing the camera with red cup in his hand and same guy facing the camera in identical position, with yellow cup in his hand. Those that differ only by irrelevant aspects. The shot examples given by NitorPhoto with the woman in the office are perfectly acceptable in my view.

Achilles, what about this: http://www.dreamstime.com/chode_info

He has a HUGE number of similar accepted


and he: http://www.dreamstime.com/Antoniomp_info

and he: http://www.dreamstime.com/Hugofelix_info  the same dog in different angles


Are we reviewed under the same light bulb?

I'd like to add my voice to the chorus.  Ignoring the expense of working with a model and the desire to recoup that expense with as many good images as possible, I believe that offering a large number of poses of the same individual in the same outfit and setting is of value to buyers.  It permits them to find the pose that's the best fit for their concept, something even small differences in images can affect. 

Perhaps the problem is that your search mechanisms don't offer a set of related images in a way that's convenient for the buyer, giving a few representatives on the first pass but then delivering the rest when he or she dives in.  But however they're presented, I'd argue that a larger number of similar is a good thing for the buyer.  By discouraging it, indeed, by reducing my ability to upload based on an acceptance percentage damaged by "too similar" rejections, you are doing clients and submitters a disservice.

Guys, do you understand that submitting similars will dillute dramatically your RPD? Others may accept them, as they don't have our pricing system. But if you submit two files you will see less revenue, as your RPD will fall down. Not due to search placement, but because 5 sales will be split between these 2 and the file will not reach level 2 so fast.
Also, subscriptions have a thirst for similars. You will receive more sub downloads, because buyers will download them "just in case". This is not bad, it's additional revenue but keep it in mind when comparing RPDs.
More here:
http://blog.dreamstime.com/2009/09/02/similar-images-how-to-upload-and-how-much-is-too-much_art30298

The alternative is to allow users to submit very few images. That will make them self-selective and will remove any similarity burden from our side. If this is preferred, we can definitely do it.
ortant role though.

Hello Achilles, Happy 2010.  good to hear your insight to this.
I've edited to quote two of your points for emphasis in agreement.
the first one, as I kept echoing SJLocke  who explicitly told me the same thing.
the second, which I think is a good idea. Same way that IS restricts our upload . At first, it may appear to be that IS does not want us indies to overwhelm their exclusives. But now that this matter of similarities and the need to be able to edit your own work objectively, I can clearly accept IS's limit , which in the long run also decreases the ratio of rejection.

Whatever the reason , mostly guesstimates here , that DT , FT, etc.. have now so viciously started to reject "similar" images, I think it is a good idea. This will definitely prevent a contributor from flooding the pages with one thousand and one rendition (colour change only) of golden men, lol..
of same poses different dresses, whatnot.

Specifically in your case, I can also see the value of not giving the subscriber too many choices. I agree that less is more in this sense, esp when an image attains a higher Level with more dls.
Although I am not sure if  a higher level actually brings more future dls,as in my case, I noticed the higher the level the less dls it seem to attract. maybe it's just my imagination, or just my specific upper level images.

anyway, i digress. Quite honestly, I have to admit , like many here, there has been a conspicuous lowering of dls lately. here's hoping this is just a seasonal occurence rather than the shapes of things to expect from DT. I have in fact increased my uploads to DT as my acceptance ratio has consistently iincreased. Hopely, this higher approval and consistent increasing portfolio , still small comparatively speaking, will reflect in an equal increase in my dls.

Happy 2010 to you , Carmen and all at DT.

In my opinion the "too similar" rejection should go for photos that are mostly identical. Guy facing the camera with red cup in his hand and same guy facing the camera in identical position, with yellow cup in his hand. Those that differ only by irrelevant aspects. The shot examples given by NitorPhoto with the woman in the office are perfectly acceptable in my view.

Ditto this.

The photos I saw yesterday had MINOR changes, like four fingers were showing on a hand instead of three. It reminded me of that game where you get 2 photos and you have to pick out 10 differences between them. I had a hard time figuring out how one photo was different than another.

By the way, I was searching again this morning. I searched on DT for female AND wrist AND watch. I ran across another portfolio with a ton of similars. There were differences, but from a buyers perspective, the differences were not that great. I could easily pick out a better of the two or three similars.

I do agree that the reviewers do not always do the right thing. I also know that some contributors flood the system, in the hopes that quantity puts them farther up in the search results, percentage wise. Many good points on both sides of this discussion.