MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: accepted images at Fotolia  (Read 16830 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2008, 10:14 »
0
Peter, so why are getting pissed off then , and why do you still submit very similar pictures ???Something I don t get ??? ???

maybe because they get accepted everywhere else. they are not VERY simmilar, they are just from the same series. not very similar, but similar enough. hhh.

I get pissed for 5 minutes, and move on...


graficallyminded

« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2008, 19:18 »
0
I feel your pain, Peter.  I do series all the time, but what I do is pick a couple at most from each - then submit them in the day's batch.  It's a little more work, but I don't mind.  Batch keywording is easy...then somedays you can submit batches without even having to do any new keywording.  Take a couple from this series, a couple from that series, and you're good to go.  You also lengthen the exposure you get for any one given subject.  Mainly, you get to avoid the rejections.  Reviewers in general will just pick the best 2 or 3 in the series, then reject the rest. 

« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2008, 14:17 »
0
I'm emerald on Fotolia and I have seen a HUGE increase in rejections there over the past few months. 

My acceptance rates at the other sites remain in the 90% range while they have dropped to around 60% on Fotolia.  I have no idea why Fotolia all of a sudden hates my work but take some comfort in the fact that I am not the only one.

Still making good money there, but the randomness of the rejections is pretty annoying.  Thank goodness there are other sites and I am not dependent on the whims of Fotolia's reviewers.

I've had the same experience.  Fotolia seems to hate my work lately, too, but I'm making good money on the images I have there.  Go figure...

Thank God I'm not exclusive, either.

I have found, however, that if I submit a batch of similar items, say, different piles of gemstones, I stand a higher chance of being rejected for "similar content" then I do when I submit batches culled from different shoots.  I can always submit the others later, if I choose.

« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2008, 14:18 »
0
re-inspecting all images (on todays criteria) older than 18 months would be best solution.


only if you assume reviews are consistent -- if an old image is rejected on second review it could just be the reviewer

ideally no image should be rejected by a single reviewer - it should have at least 1 additional review.  in any other situation this would be a no brainer, but when an agency is dealing with thousands of images a day they just cant afford it.

  this is a type ii errorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

it's better overall to accept that there will be false negative [rejecting good images] rather than accepting type i errors [which is what sites like most, cut, yay et al do by accepting just about anything]

it's possible to keep both types of error low, but it's much more expensive and only used where it's critical.  we see examples of this every day, but often the choice between the 2 types isnt acknowledged -- eg, death penalty laws, rules of engagement re civilian casualties.  for a much less important case like selecting pretty pictures, it's no surprise how the agencies react

graficallyminded

« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2008, 10:43 »
0
It seems like people images are all getting accepted easily...everything else, forget it.  Graphics, illustrations, reject reject reject

« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2008, 16:21 »
0
Not speaking about just Fotolia, but it's not a bad idea to keep a folder of similars and when the originals start to lose momentum, push through a fresh batch.  I remember Sy posting that once during a slow period she went through old folders and came up with many new submissions and was rewarded with sales.

I usually do exactly that. And it works well for me - especially on SS.

« Reply #31 on: October 24, 2008, 16:36 »
0
I'm starting to believe that they just randomly click and don't even look at the images anymore, especially when it comes down to the keywording. FT is so far my least favourite for allowing keyword abuse. Perfect example is this picture with an invisible buffalo dog playing a trumpet. http://en.fotolia.com/id/9925180

lisafx

« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2008, 16:47 »
0
I'm starting to believe that they just randomly click and don't even look at the images anymore, especially when it comes down to the keywording. FT is so far my least favourite for allowing keyword abuse. Perfect example is this picture with an invisible buffalo dog playing a trumpet. http://en.fotolia.com/id/9925180


Wow!  How many keywords to they ALLOW at Fotolia?!  That looks like the entire dictionary attached to that one. 


« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2008, 09:36 »
0
Between 7 and 50 keywords, most the big sellers are spamming the keywords but I guess if you're raking in the pennies for them it doesn't matter.  :(

hali

« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2008, 16:24 »
0
I'm starting to believe that they just randomly click and don't even look at the images anymore, especially when it comes down to the keywording. FT is so far my least favourite for allowing keyword abuse. Perfect example is this picture with an invisible buffalo dog playing a trumpet. http://en.fotolia.com/id/9925180


wow, pretty girl.
but even bigger wow for the keywords. reads like the dead sea scroll. it would take me days to think up so many keywords  ;D
that is if i don't fall asleep by my computer... ;D

« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2008, 06:54 »
0
A prime example of 'cut & paste, one size fits all, keywording'; debatable that any buyer looking for a Buffalo image would buy that one though  :D

AstburyD

« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2008, 14:44 »
0
I'm starting to believe that they just randomly click and don't even look at the images anymore, especially when it comes down to the keywording. FT is so far my least favourite for allowing keyword abuse. Perfect example is this picture with an invisible buffalo dog playing a trumpet. http://en.fotolia.com/id/9925180


I couldn't believe this one! Out of curiosity, to see what the response would be, I tried raising this through Fotolia Support. After a little over 2 days they responded to say
"Thank you for your e-mail. We'll look into it." and they set the status on my issue to Closed. The image is still up and still has Buffalo and Trumpet etc?

RacePhoto

« Reply #37 on: October 28, 2008, 00:37 »
0
I'm starting to believe that they just randomly click and don't even look at the images anymore, especially when it comes down to the keywording. FT is so far my least favourite for allowing keyword abuse. Perfect example is this picture with an invisible buffalo dog playing a trumpet. http://en.fotolia.com/id/9925180


I couldn't believe this one! Out of curiosity, to see what the response would be, I tried raising this through Fotolia Support. After a little over 2 days they responded to say
"Thank you for your e-mail. We'll look into it." and they set the status on my issue to Closed. The image is still up and still has Buffalo and Trumpet etc?


He He, someone used a keyword generator on the horn = talking on the phone = trumpet? If you click on the word buffalo you'll see some buffalo but also a girl holding a Christmas package. Click on that and you see another mess of keywords, but a different user? http://en.fotolia.com/id/9992886 which include (the picture is a girl in a red dress with a small Christmas box in her hand) "buffalo, cabinet, Father, feather, gill, locker, meat, pussycat, toilet and vehicle.  :o

Both users are from Japan so I wonder if something in the translation is getting lost? Still it's pretty funny. I wonder what the word buffalo is coming from?

digiology

« Reply #38 on: October 28, 2008, 02:04 »
0
 :o

« Reply #39 on: October 28, 2008, 06:28 »
0
Both users are from Japan so I wonder if something in the translation is getting lost? Still it's pretty funny. I wonder what the word buffalo is coming from?

It's very likely their silly translation system getting haywire. Even the translation from german to english is often completely crazy; I can't imagine what it might do for languages so extremely different as japanese and english.

« Reply #40 on: October 28, 2008, 07:08 »
0
I think everyone would be better served by deleting images with 0 or few sales over a given length of time. That could be done via software. A poor image is a poor image when judged by dollars spent. Don't need an army of inspectors either. Wise retailers would never have a poor selling item taking up shelf space. So why do our sites keep adding to the clutter?

This would be a good option ONLY when the search engine at Fotolia functions on par with the other sites.  Too many images aren't easily found there now!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2924 Views
Last post March 30, 2009, 06:31
by tempura
12 Replies
5494 Views
Last post April 22, 2014, 14:20
by helloitsme
10 Replies
3619 Views
Last post September 30, 2016, 17:10
by YadaYadaYada
4 Replies
1966 Views
Last post January 16, 2017, 10:24
by unnonimus
16 Replies
5105 Views
Last post May 22, 2017, 16:27
by cascoly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle