You've gotta keep your sense of humour - congrats.
This 'inconsistency' has been going on for far longer than microl.

Borderline images always can go either way.  People aren't robots.

@csproductions, that's hilarious!

Quote from: sjlocke on August 02, 2011, 07:49

Borderline images always can go either way.  People aren't robots.

They were in the same batch so unless this reviewer has a serious case of dimentia, it has nothing to do with being 'borderline'.  Either both images have poor lighting or both don't.

One reviewer thinks it has poor lighting, the other doesn't. It's so often just luck of the draw and not just with ss.

Considering they were in the same batch, it's hard to make the case it was separate reviewers. 

Most likely the reviewer hit the wrong rejection reason button.  Maybe they thought it was not commercial enough without the graphic??

Either that or decided why have 2 of the same thing and the one with the graphic is more marketable.  I think the wrong button is often pressed and usually the lighting button.  I had the same thing, involving an isolated version version of a rejected picture - the truth is the background on the non-isolated version was pure crap.

I don't know how other sites work or what 'same batch' means there, but I could upload 20 in a row, and they could be picked up by different people.

At Shutterstock images are uploaded in batches or groups, rather than piecemeal, and submitted all together.  Each batch is reviewed at the same time, by presumably the same person.  Doesn't work the same as it does on Istock. 

I have the same experience at iStock. I submitted two photos which were shot within a few seconds in the same setting, except the model was laughing in one and serious in another. One was rejected for lighting and the other accepted.

Borderline images always can go either way.  People aren't robots.

Here's an IS rejection. Borderline which way?  I always laugh at the either or rejections or some with multiple reasons that contradict themselves.

The execution of isolation contains stray areas that are either too feathered or rough.

Or maybe both?

Yesterday I had twelve acceptances and four rejections. The four rejections were all for "date must be in the correct format - month date year" (ONLY), yet all 16 had the format date month, year, as all my others have, and as Sirimo said in the opening Caption thread: "Date data might be 'month date year" or "date month year" or in rare circumstances where the specific date isn't known just "month year" - so that shouldn't even be a choosable rejection reason. I haven't had any unfair caption rejections for a while, so I don't know if that means I've somehow avoided the rogue inspector for ages or if there are new editorial inspectors coming on board (and not before time, but they need to read the stickies).
And for those who care: this is more than a whine, it's a SCREAM.

why can't they just say, "look, we hate it and frankly, you can do better"
or maybe a bit softer " we're just not that into it"

why can't they just say, "look, we hate it and frankly, you can do better"
or maybe a bit softer " we're just not that into it"

FT does that.

Quote from: Poncke on January 02, 2013, 18:19

Quote from: vannphoto on January 02, 2013, 17:11

why can't they just say, "look, we hate it and frankly, you can do better"
or maybe a bit softer " we're just not that into it"

FT does that.

they say something about aesthetics, which is a bit insulting when their site is not up there is user-friendliness.

No, they say something like, while your photo is great, we dont need it. Its not the aesthetic thing I am talking about.