MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Upload Limits Slashed  (Read 10870 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 18, 2011, 22:20 »
0
Was surprised to see I only have 6 slots left this week when last night I had about 104. 

March 18, 2011 (09:11)
Contributors: The upload limithas been decreased to 5 submissions/day (35/week). Such measure was taken in order to limit the massive number of similar and identical uploads. We kindly ask you to be more selective with your uploads. - posted by Tangie


35 per week?  OMG, who are they trying to emulate?  Istock?  I don't even get 35, my acceptance is 79.5% and you need 80 so I get half.  For the first time in 18 months I have time to edit my pile and I will have to sit on them and try to remember where I sent what.   

I bet they have been swamped reviewing all the ex-exclusive IS portfolios.


« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2011, 00:03 »
0
Nice. Thanks for the heads up. I haven't seen the message. So sweet of them to let us know.

« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2011, 03:37 »
0
I can't understand their rejection policy, so I stopped uploading months ago.  I really don't like going through the tedious process knowing that my image could be rejected just because the reviewer thinks it's "similar" to something else.  I much prefer spending my time doing something less frustrating.

« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2011, 03:53 »
0
This is standard practice for DT; they vary the upload limits almost on a weekly basis

« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2011, 04:50 »
0
This is standard practice for Dreamstime; they vary the upload limits almost on a weekly basis

sorry but never like this one

« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2011, 10:13 »
0
This is standard practice for Dreamstime; they vary the upload limits almost on a weekly basis

sorry but never like this one

Agreed - first time in 3 years I can't upload (because I already uploaded 35 this week)...

« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2011, 10:18 »
0
What is their definition of a week I wonder?  Is it Monday through Sunday maybe?  Most of my slots were already filled when the change took place yesterday (Friday).

« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2011, 10:24 »
0
I wish they would find a way to punish those that are abusing the whole uploading of similars and duplicates, instead of punishing everyone.

« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2011, 11:10 »
0
I wish they would find a way to punish those that are abusing the whole uploading of similars and duplicates, instead of punishing everyone.
I don't. Despite what they say, buyers buy similar images and images from the same series. They buy them a lot. These agencies just need to allow us to organize our images into series and collections. If they want to limit the number of images from a collection that show up in a search, that's fine, but don't restrict similars. They are just being lazy by taking the quick fix solution. It doesn't help buyers or contributors though.

velocicarpo

« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2011, 11:11 »
0
Dreamstime is going nowhere like this.
They should get their inspection process fixed instead of bothering Contributors with bad politics like that.
Like many of the long term submitters I am a fulltime microstocker and many of us professionalized in producing high quality stock in Volume. We have nothing to do with low quality spammers, but rely on a certain sales Volume which comes through Portfolio growths these days.
When I see what crappy stuff Dreamstime still accepts it is no surprise that many abuse this system.
They are pushing themselves further into the "don`t bother" sites since the sales had been always disappointing the last month - especially taking into consideration that they are one of the first MS companies.

velocicarpo

« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2011, 11:13 »
0
I wish they would find a way to punish those that are abusing the whole uploading of similars and duplicates, instead of punishing everyone.
I don't. Despite what they say, buyers buy similar images and images from the same series. They buy them a lot. These agencies just need to allow us to organize our images into series and collections. If they want to limit the number of images from a collection that show up in a search, that's fine, but don't restrict similars. They are just being lazy by taking the quick fix solution. It doesn't help buyers or contributors though.

Exactly! Very oftenly I BUY and SELL shots from a Series. DT just doesn`t know how to handle the Volume and try to find a simple solution without thinking too much about their actions.

Furthermore I will repeat what I wrote in another post about DT:

As a BUYER: this whole duplicate thing is complete nonsense. I download per month arround 150 Images and I can assure you that Designers love duplicates!

I give you one example:
Last week I was looking for a typical Microstock Image. It was for an print Publication and promoting the Customers Website (Something like: "Visit our page too!"). So I searched for a couple smiling in front of a Laptop. Now you may think there are enough Images of that, but no, not on Dreamstime. They have to be a certain age and a certain environment. Fastly I found something suitable and downloaded it. But the angle was not right and didn`t leave enough space for the assigned text. Off course you can Photoshop this arround, but time is money and before I struggle around half an hour in PS I looked if there are other Images from the same series with a different angle. Answer: no. I left Dreamstime and went to another page (Canstock) and found it.

« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2011, 11:34 »
0
I wish they would find a way to punish those that are abusing the whole uploading of similars and duplicates, instead of punishing everyone.
I don't. Despite what they say, buyers buy similar images and images from the same series. They buy them a lot. These agencies just need to allow us to organize our images into series and collections. If they want to limit the number of images from a collection that show up in a search, that's fine, but don't restrict similars. They are just being lazy by taking the quick fix solution. It doesn't help buyers or contributors though.

Cory, I think we are talking about two different things. Note my word abusing. I agree with you totally. I am talking about the people who upload upwards of twenty photos, with one small change in them. I am talking about people who upload an image, then change the color of the background, and upload twenty more. It's two different issues.

I ran across this abuse last week while surfing for some images for a project. I don't remember what I was searching for or I would post a link. I think you know what I mean, though.

Best solution...yes, organize images into series.

edit: And I disagree with the notion that twenty, thirty, forty images of almost exactly the same shot is helpful. This has been discussed so many times here and there are always two schools of thought. velocicarpo, I also buy and sell, maybe not in the volume that you do, but I don't find it helpful having to scroll through 2 pages of virtually the same image. As Cory stated and I agree...put images in a series so one or two show in the search and the buyer can find more, if they are looking for that, in an extended search.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 11:38 by cclapper »

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2011, 11:36 »
0
Luckily, bad policies hurt agencies more than photographers: if buyers can't find what they need at any particular agency, they will search somewhere - as an independent, I couldn't care less where they buy from (except for agencies with very low %)

« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2011, 11:52 »
0
I ran across this abuse last week while surfing for some images for a project. I don't remember what I was searching for or I would post a link. I think you know what I mean, though.
I gotcha. Yeah, there are some real abusers out there. I just get worried when I hear punish someone because they always seem to come up with these blanket policies instead of targeting the REAL abusers like you said. Maybe, I'm just thinking of those rejections for similars when you have more than 2.  ;D

That said, if you eliminate the non-sellers from the search or just have one or two representatives from a particular collection or series, then a lot of that abuse sorts itself out by whether it is useful or not.


« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2011, 14:43 »
0
I ran across this abuse last week while surfing for some images for a project. I don't remember what I was searching for or I would post a link. I think you know what I mean, though.
I gotcha. Yeah, there are some real abusers out there. I just get worried when I hear punish someone because they always seem to come up with these blanket policies instead of targeting the REAL abusers like you said. Maybe, I'm just thinking of those rejections for similars when you have more than 2.  ;D

That said, if you eliminate the non-sellers from the search or just have one or two representatives from a particular collection or series, then a lot of that abuse sorts itself out by whether it is useful or not.

Totally agree.

velocicarpo

« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2011, 14:43 »
0
Isn't their maximum images allowed per week rate based on your average % of accepted images?  In other words, the higher the % of your images they approve, the more you can submit each week.

Mat

Yes. I have 86% acceptance rate and a limit of 35. Much too low.

« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2011, 12:41 »
0
Isn't their maximum images allowed per week rate based on your average % of accepted images?  In other words, the higher the % of your images they approve, the more you can submit each week.

Mat

Yes. I have 86% acceptance rate and a limit of 35. Much too low.

I'm just under 70% and can only upload 18 a week.  It doesn't bother me as I do anywhere from 5-10 a week (vectors) but if I was doing more photographs then I would be highly annoyed or if I could get 20 or more vectors done a week.  And I also don't do a ton of similars either (that's what killed my acceptance ratio last year when I got back online because I didn't know about it).

Let's just hope that this only lasts a few weeks and things will get back to normal for those that do a high volume of images.  It doesn't hurt me but I can really sympathize with those of you that do a lot more than the minimum they're going to take right now.  Also makes me wonder if it hurts sales.  I also agree that the ones abusing the system should be penalized and not everyone else who follows all the rules and guidelines.

« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2011, 09:04 »
0
you never know what someone could need - that's the truth

and all this restrictions are...

« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2011, 10:55 »
0
IS move which is CRAP! :P

« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2011, 09:59 »
0
Sometimes, the policies at DT are just crap; how much time does it really take to review a group of 100 images that are all similars; just hit the reject key for 99 of the images and allow the rest of the contributors submit a decent number of images each week.

I do not like their policy of similars but do not punish me because someone else will not follow the guidelines.  At least they allow us to upload and keep in the upload area until submission, that is what I do.

« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2011, 10:05 »
0
Not only that but I think they also want us to be more selective and only upload our "best" shots instead of tons and tons of images of the same shoot...  ???

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2011, 11:35 »
0
Not only that but I think they also want us to be more selective and only upload our "best" shots instead of tons and tons of images of the same shoot...  ???

I don't have a lot of similar uploads, but there have been cases where a photo I don't think has a lot of sales potential, sales like crazy...so having to chose what is the best can sometimes be difficult because what I think is good someone else might think is pure crap...so it's difficult when you're limited. I don't advocate uploading 30 similar, but more than just a couple would be much fairer in my opinion.

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2011, 17:44 »
0
I can't understand their rejection policy, so I stopped uploading months ago.  I really don't like going through the tedious process knowing that my image could be rejected just because the reviewer thinks it's "similar" to something else.  I much prefer spending my time doing something less frustrating.
I did the same.

« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2011, 20:04 »
0
If DT really wants to take a progressive step, go back and review some of the older files; some of them are pure trash.  Granted  most have sales but that does not indicate quality.  Do a search for bald eagles; you will see older bald eagle in flight shots with underside of wings black (dark shadows), poor focus, poor lighting, etc.  Same thing for pets, some really trashy pet shots, never should be in a professional portfolio of selling images.  I am in favor of good fair standards of acceptance now and using these same standards to eliminate older files that would never get accepted now if submitted.  Why keep 12 million images in your database if 5 million of them are junk; purge this junk

redwater

  • retro stock illustrations
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2011, 20:20 »
0
+1


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3519 Views
Last post June 21, 2008, 10:04
by vphoto
1 Replies
4023 Views
Last post February 07, 2010, 14:21
by UncleGene
14 Replies
5909 Views
Last post February 20, 2010, 09:54
by donding
28 Replies
8071 Views
Last post May 31, 2010, 17:56
by bendicks
5 Replies
3479 Views
Last post April 08, 2013, 14:12
by Poncke

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle