pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Older selling files removed because they were approved by accident  (Read 14068 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 23, 2010, 05:21 »
0
Just noticed 3 of my older files were removed from DT today. They moved them into 'rejected files' saying that they were 'approved by accident'.

The interesting thing is that they were active for few months and were selling (not in huge numbers, but still). Since they are now removed and only thumbs showing in rejected files, I don't have way to check how many times they sold exactly. Yet looking at my sales history, they show 3 times in last 40 sales.

Is this a new trend to remove few months old files that sold couple of times? I've to admit I'm rather disgusted. Not that it would be a huge loss anyway. But why?

The full reason is:
 - File approved by accident. We apologize for the inconvenience but the image needs to be removed.
- Too many photos/illustrations on the same subject or from the same series. Your submission should not duplicate content already in your portfolio or content which you plan to upload separately in the future (ie. collages based on your images). Please be more selective and choose only the best shots or illustrations. Avoid submitting simple variations on the same subject or duplicating content already in your portfolio (including from collages). You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system.

EDIT: Ok, so noticed one important thing - there were 4 'similars' in my portfolio. And the removed files were 3 of them leaving only one. So looks like they are going through 'similars' and removing what they thing is too similar.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 05:25 by Danicek »


« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2010, 06:51 »
0
These DT "similars" are starting to get really ridiculous...

Soon if an image buyer needs a horizontal version of a vertical photo he/she needs to shop it elsewhere.

« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2010, 07:22 »
0
These DT "similars" are starting to get really ridiculous...

Soon if an image buyer needs a horizontal version of a vertical photo he/she needs to shop it elsewhere.

DT is acting as if they can't afford anymore storage space anymore...

« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2010, 07:30 »
0
i wonder if that's the reason big guns stopped the uploads. anyway since my sales are still ok i don't mind  it.  :P

« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2010, 07:39 »
0
i wonder if that's the reason big guns stopped the uploads. anyway since my sales are still ok i don't mind  it.  :P

My sales stink. I don't know what happened but sales volume is just a fraction. Just the increase in commission is making it almost bearable.

« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2010, 14:03 »
0
====  You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system.


 i noticed this new explanation on latest rejects for similars. i submit similars all the time, since i cant predict which of 5 similars dt will like, and sometimes they take all 5.

but my question is - has anyone had success in submitting 'sets'?  i see it all the time for illustrations, but wondered if anyone had luck with sets of images - mountains, food, people, doors, etc - in the past i've those rejected saying they'd rather see the individual images [and their separate sales] . similar are montages, where diff images are combined, so a designer would have to spend a lot more time finding all the individual images. dt is the only one of the majors that accepts http://cascoly.com/trav/montage.asp montages. 

steve

« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2010, 14:29 »
0
DT is usually so smart about the way they do business, I hope there is something I just can't figure out by their new position on similars.  On the surface it feels that they are trying to push customers into Istock's arms because not only do they have the exclusive library, also have all the similars that DT has refused.  It's like DT only wants 1 in 4 customers or they only the horizontal ones. 

- scratching my head

xst

« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2010, 20:15 »
0
Good luck!
Do you really want to put now 10 images in one file and sell it for .35c on subscription - 0.03c per image?


====  You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system.


 i noticed this new explanation on latest rejects for similars. i submit similars all the time, since i cant predict which of 5 similars dt will like, and sometimes they take all 5.

but my question is - has anyone had success in submitting 'sets'?  i see it all the time for illustrations, but wondered if anyone had luck with sets of images - mountains, food, people, doors, etc - in the past i've those rejected saying they'd rather see the individual images [and their separate sales] . similar are montages, where diff images are combined, so a designer would have to spend a lot more time finding all the individual images. dt is the only one of the majors that accepts http://cascoly.com/trav/montage.asp montages. 

steve

« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2010, 20:18 »
0
====  You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system.
I did that once, just for DT. The collage was rejected with the reason "please upload images separately".  ;D :o

« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2010, 22:29 »
0
====  You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system.
I did that once, just for DT. The collage was rejected with the reason "please upload images separately".  ;D :o

eheheh good one! never had one like that, just the opposite

« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2010, 23:07 »
0
These DT "similars" are starting to get really ridiculous...

Soon if an image buyer needs a horizontal version of a vertical photo he/she needs to shop it elsewhere.

Don't laugh - this happened to me last week - I couldn't believe it - submitted one horizontal execution and one vertical and the 2nd was rejected for being "similar" - even worse, the images contained type so it was not as if you could rotate the file to turn a vertical horizontal as the type would be upside down - for the first time ever with a DT rejection I was furious - that said, I contacted support and made my argument and they ended up reversing the decision and accepting the refused file. But that's quite a mistake in my book, especially as I am buyer who searches for vertical or horizontal images all the time. 

« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2010, 00:36 »
0
Surely this will kill off DT, why are they persisting with this?  I can understand making a mistake for a few months and changing it but this has been going on too long.  I just can't get motivated to upload there any more, my earnings are well down and they must be losing buyers when they notice that other sites offer them a much better choice of images.

If they really want a smaller high quality collection, they should just delete all files that don't sell after a year.  That gives the buyers the opportunity to see them, now they aren't being given that choice.

« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2010, 00:46 »
0
Surely this will kill off DT, why are they persisting with this?  I can understand making a mistake for a few months and changing it but this has been going on too long.  I just can't get motivated to upload there any more, my earnings are well down and they must be losing buyers when they notice that other sites offer them a much better choice of images.

If they really want a smaller high quality collection, they should just delete all files that don't sell after a year.  That gives the buyers the opportunity to see them, now they aren't being given that choice.

not sure if they are losing buyers at this stage - they still have a good selection of images IMO - but if this policy does continue, in the longer term, i am not sure they won't start losing them as their selection of newer images dwindles. I cannot get a handle on the reasoning behind their actions - I agree with you - why not delete images a year old plus that are not selling? And as for deleting previously approved images saying they are 2 similar where those images have had 3 sales? That just makes no sense 2 me ... they must have something in mind they are doing that we are not privy 2 ... but what?

« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2010, 08:43 »
0
I've always been a DT fan BUT, I have a fairly large-scale client dealing in deodorant / shampoo products that needs a series of "similar" shots of the same woman/same outfit. We looked on DT and they liked the 2 images of a sexy blond woman but could not find any more with her in the same series (she had other shots in different outfits.) Upon searching IS and SS, found the same series with an additional 6 and 7 respectively (wound up purchasing from IS as client didn't want to pay for sub.)

...there you have it.
 

abimages

« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2010, 08:56 »
0
I've always been a DT fan BUT, I have a fairly large-scale client dealing in deodorant / shampoo products that needs a series of "similar" shots of the same woman/same outfit. We looked on DT and they liked the 2 images of a sexy blond woman but could not find any more with her in the same series (she had other shots in different outfits.) Upon searching IS and SS, found the same series with an additional 6 and 7 respectively (wound up purchasing from IS as client didn't want to pay for sub.)

...there you have it.
 

Yep! In my experience having a series of similars can often prove useful to designers. Why are DT not getting this ???

« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2010, 09:17 »
0
One of the biggest gripes that designers have with microstock (as stated on forums for designers) is the lack of series.

It doesn't seem like it would take a rocket surgeon to visit designer forums and ask them what they would like to see in a microstock site. Perhaps if the sites worried about things like what designers want, we'd all make a bit more!

lisafx

« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2010, 10:53 »
0
I completely agree that the "similars" policy as it is being implemented by DT is counterproductive.   However as contributors we don't have much say in it.

I doubt things will change until more buyers like Hoi Ha and Anonymous write DT and let them know specific examples of this policy costing them sales and even customers. 

« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2010, 11:26 »
0
I think even slight variations in face expression can decide which image will buyer want to buy. Sometimes two similar images of a smiling woman can look very different if one smile looks fake, and the other looks more natural.

« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2010, 21:26 »
0
One of the biggest gripes that designers have with microstock (as stated on forums for designers) is the lack of series.

Exactly right - we do use series quite often as a design technique  - but then Dreamstime has to know this, right? They certainly have data on what is being downloaded etc. I am thinking it might be a crop of new, over-zealous reviewers that don't really get what they are doing - hopefull it is not a distinct policy but more of a clean-up effort going a bit wrong. I have faith in Dreamstime that it will get sorted - I think:)

« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2010, 02:31 »
0
I completely agree that the "similars" policy as it is being implemented by DT is counterproductive.   However as contributors we don't have much say in it.

I doubt things will change until more buyers like Hoi Ha and Anonymous write DT and let them know specific examples of this policy costing them sales and even customers. 
I am having my say by not contributing any more images to DT.  It wont make any difference to them but I refuse to go along with this policy.

« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2010, 15:51 »
0
I completely agree that the "similars" policy as it is being implemented by DT is counterproductive.   However as contributors we don't have much say in it.

I doubt things will change until more buyers like Hoi Ha and Anonymous write DT and let them know specific examples of this policy costing them sales and even customers.  
I am having my say by not contributing any more images to DT.  It wont make any difference to them but I refuse to go along with this policy.

amen.   My DT sales went south a long time ago...  I haven't uploaded there in a long time..   this particular issue does not affect me as I do not do studio style series photos.  However, IMHO, it would seem to me if I was a buyer, I'd like to see a series of similar photos of a subject I had a need for.. but that's me.  What really blows my mind is   the statement   "ACCEPTED BY ACCIDENT".    All that does is destroy professional credibility with DT.

My issue with DT cropped up a few weeks ago when I got these emails telling me that someone objected to keywords on my photos.  Those 'someones' being other photographers.  The cases in point were to say the least, moronic. One example,  a landscape picture taken in Yosemite Meadow had  'objectionable' keywords such as  'yosemite' ,  pine (as in the trees in the picture) , and the odd word... 'meadow'.  
I had 4 of theses.  I fired off an email to DT...  but,  have received no response.  The real kicker was when I went to look at the ports of the people objecting.   Low and behold,  if I had the time to waste, I could have legitimately ripped thru their port and protested darn near every pic. These people had some real testicle fortitude!! Where's their flippin heads? Don't they realize anyone could just turn the tables on them??
   I let DT know what an unprofessional policy it was IMHO.                        morons....

I have been considering closing my account there for some time...    perhaps now, I will.   Not making any significant $$ there to make it worth the hassle of checking it.  I'm over payout... I'll probably shut it down in the next few days.    In fact...   seriously,  at one time I  was with 15 agencies...   now down to 8, not counting Stinkstock...
    I am thinking of going down to just  IS and SS and also keeping Alamy...   all the rest are peanut money to me.   I always swore I'd never go exclusive...  but...  as long as SS and IS keep sending me similar money..   ah, time will tell.   8)=tom
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 15:58 by a.k.a.-tom »

lisafx

« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2010, 17:26 »
0
Not that it matters, Tom, if you are leaving the site, but when you get those notices about flagged images, it doesn't mean the words have been changed.  They still have to be checked by an admin.  Only if the admin approves the changes will they be removed.  It's worth adding a note to the admin on the file explaining why you disagree with the flag.

I don't like getting the flags either.  9 times out of 10 they are flagging very relevant words, and if you check the port of the contributor who flagged them you will often find competing images. 

I can sympathize with the folks who vote with their feet and leave a site they don't like.  In my case DT is 13 - 15% of my income, so I would rather stick around do the best I can within the rules they have, even if I do voice objections sometimes.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2010, 17:40 »
0
It would be nice if Dreamstime would place a notice of consequences for the flagger when it is an obvious attempt to get back at the photographer. I don't think they should even allow a photographer to flag another photographer. I believe that should be done by the buyers only. The way it is, it opens the door for mischief by one photographer at the expense of another.  That shouldn't be allowed.

« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2010, 17:41 »
0
I completely agree that the "similars" policy as it is being implemented by DT is counterproductive.   However as contributors we don't have much say in it. ...

It is so sad that it has come that far. It really makes us feel like we are not really a part of this whole thing at all.
But you are right!

« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2010, 17:57 »
0
Eye-opening. I had no idea that photographers could flag images like that. Ridiculous. A waste of everyones time. Testicle fortitude. Ok.  That is my giggle phrase for the day. Love it v


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Approved files gone

Started by Dook Veer

11 Replies
4479 Views
Last post July 27, 2009, 14:21
by Dook
25 Replies
15915 Views
Last post February 26, 2011, 04:42
by ShadySue
9 Replies
4833 Views
Last post October 13, 2011, 12:44
by RacePhoto
2 Replies
1447 Views
Last post April 30, 2012, 03:41
by Wim
2 Replies
2154 Views
Last post March 03, 2015, 17:11
by Tryingmybest

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle