MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What's your opinion on the fact that reviewers are also contributors?  (Read 28796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 25, 2011, 05:13 »
0
I would like your 2 cents  ;)

In SS I don't know because rev. are a bit of hidden, but in Fotolia and Dreamstime, the most of them are also contributors with its images online. Do you think that they have preferential treatment in approvals and get their images rather approved than normal contributors?


Microbius

« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2011, 05:28 »
0
I would like your 2 cents  ;)

In Shutterstock I don't know because rev. are a bit of hidden, but in Fotolia and Dreamstime, the most of them are also contributors with its images online. Do you think that they have preferential treatment in approvals and get their images rather approved than normal contributors?
Not only that, but are they more likely to refuse images that are in direct competition with their own work?

« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2011, 05:56 »
0
I am not an never have been a reviewer..

However, how else will sites find people willing and able to conduct reviews for the return they get?

Probably the biggest  benefit for a reviewer is the education that comes with the job.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2011, 06:01 »
0
Sure, it's an awful concept. Obviously the sites can spare a lot of money this way, they just offer the job to ppl who they already know are cheapos anyway, and than you'll have a bunch dilettants reviewing images for a dime a piece. The worst case is istock, where the dilettant staff shamelessly hijacked the whole thing. If you think getty is bad for istock, what do you think of these admins-inspectors who play little mob bosses on 'their site', as if it was some sandbox for dumb and dumber?

« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2011, 07:58 »
0
I would like your 2 cents  ;)

In Shutterstock I don't know because rev. are a bit of hidden, but in Fotolia and Dreamstime, the most of them are also contributors with its images online. Do you think that they have preferential treatment in approvals and get their images rather approved than normal contributors?
Not only that, but are they more likely to refuse images that are in direct competition with their own work?

^^ That is the key in my opinion.  I know several big microstockers who claim this is a serious issue for them.  True or not, it sure gets suspicious at times when you know that they have a reviewer who is in direct competition with you...did they just review your batch? You will never know.  BTW the two specific people I know are reviewers for one of the top five agencies.  But they WON'T discuss much about their job due to their contract or I'd share more with you if I could.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 08:02 by Mantis »

« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2011, 09:04 »
0
It's definitely a conflict of interests. But the sites are only interested in making more money. I doubt fairness is a concern for the agencies.

lagereek

« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2011, 09:41 »
0
It has puzzeled me for years! the big four, they are earning millions, so why cant they afford real picture-editords, a pro picture-editor would want to get a good salary, yes, but then again look at all the hassle it would save. In the long run it would also run a lot smother.

« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2011, 10:23 »
0
It's definitely a conflict of interests. But the sites are only interested in making more money. I doubt fairness is a concern for the agencies.

Exactly.  It's a conflict of interest because of basic human nature.  It's a system that should be changed, but won't because of the reason you gave. 

red

« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2011, 11:13 »
0
Just curious - how would you hire reviewers? From what pool of professionals (I assume you would want a reviewer with credentials or are amateurs ok?)

Are there many pros who don't sell their photos in some kind of stock pool? Would you hire fine art photogs that don't shoot stock? Would they know what might sell as stock? Would you hire successful stock photogs (conflict of interest)? If you agreed to pay them more how many hours would you ask them to work?

Would you hire photogs who are technical experts? If so should they team up with experienced stock shooters and collaborate on reviews? This would slow things down so are you prepared for longer reviews?

Would you hire a mix of international photogs and if so should they be assigned to reviewing only photos from specific countries as they might be more familiar with the subjects shot? Would you make all reviewers sign something saying they would never sell their photos at the site they work for or at any other stock site?

I'm not disagreeing on the original premise but would like to hear opinions on the ideal criteria for a reviewer.

« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2011, 11:50 »
0
I think it's part of the game and I don't have an issue with that. It would be too obvious if a rater would start aiming at his competitors, because refusals generate complaints.

Pro picture editors won't scan photos for some noise in irrelevant parts of it. ;D

lagereek

« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2011, 11:52 »
0
In the early days of Getty, just after they aquired Stones and Image-Bank, they had special reviewers with knowledge in differant fields, one took care of medicine, surgery, another of say technical pictures, etc, etc.
That was in the days when they only worked with professionals and they paid them very good money. They even employed Art-buyers and real Art-directors from the advertising world. It was a differant ball game altogether.
Today,  they dont house anything like that, everything seems to be done on the cheapo and then you dont get very good people. Simple as that really.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2011, 12:35 »
0
I'd only check for legal issues, and obvious technical problems (purple fringe, out of focus) leaving decisions about what sells to the buyers and artistic choices (selective focus, lighting, level of noise) to the photographers.

This way - no matter who the reviewers are - there's nothing unfair they can do with a clear set of rules.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 12:36 by microstockphoto.co.uk »


Shank_ali

    This user is banned.
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2011, 13:28 »
0
I am not an never have been a reviewer..

However, how else will sites find people willing and able to conduct reviews for the return they get?

Probably the biggest  benefit for a reviewer is the education that comes with the job.
Beg to differ but the biggest benefit for a reviewer is getting payed to work from home, sat on there bums and looking at there computer.Nice work if you can get it !
I made a lightbox on Istockphoto called..Inspectors Delight.It contains beautiful and stunning work from talented artists who also happen to be Istock inspectors.Respect the talent and never question there commitment to there respective companies.

lagereek

« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2011, 13:37 »
0
I always thought it was some silly little girl, with legs up on the desk, filing her nails, chewing gum and the odd weed puff,  hence the weird inspections. Ten hours later she is so dizzy from all the garbage shes been watching that for the next ten hours, everything is accepted.

« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2011, 15:21 »
0
I am not an never have been a reviewer..

However, how else will sites find people willing and able to conduct reviews for the return they get?

Probably the biggest  benefit for a reviewer is the education that comes with the job.
Beg to differ but the biggest benefit for a reviewer is getting payed to work from home, sat on there bums and looking at there computer.Nice work if you can get it !

Not a lot different from what we do, is it? I know a couple of ex-inspectors. The impression they gave me was that the pay is pitiful and the work mind-numbing.

« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2011, 05:22 »
0
Are you sure that inspector are also contributors? On SS too? I don't like this idea, I think that it's not serious because there's a big conflict of interest. Who are the inspectors on Fotolia? I find them not so enlightened in their choices.... :-\ ::)

« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2011, 07:42 »
0
Are you sure that inspector are also contributors? On Shutterstock too? I don't like this idea, I think that it's not serious because there's a big conflict of interest. Who are the inspectors on Fotolia? I find them not so enlightened in their choices.... :-\ ::)

Yes, the once I know are anyways.  Not sure if Mat is asking me that questions, but if so, I don't know any Fotolia inspectors at all and the ones I know happen to be shooting partners of mine so I know them through our friendship.  But nobody's providing me any list of inspectors and such.  At IS there is really "no secret who their inspectors are" and most of them are also contributors. So in my case it's pure coincidence that I happen to shoot with some, that's all.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 07:50 by Mantis »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2011, 07:45 »
0
I always thought it was some silly little girl, with legs up on the desk, filing her nails, chewing gum and the odd weed puff,  hence the weird inspections. Ten hours later she is so dizzy from all the garbage shes been watching that for the next ten hours, everything is accepted.

Might be closer to the truth then most would think : ))

« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2011, 07:56 »
0
I am not an never have been a reviewer..

However, how else will sites find people willing and able to conduct reviews for the return they get?

Probably the biggest  benefit for a reviewer is the education that comes with the job.
Beg to differ but the biggest benefit for a reviewer is getting payed to work from home, sat on there bums and looking at there computer.Nice work if you can get it !

Not a lot different from what we do, is it? I know a couple of ex-inspectors. The impression they gave me was that the pay is pitiful and the work mind-numbing.


^^yep.  I hear stories as recent as last month when we were shooting together about the constant flow of isolated tomatoes and apples on white, the constant flood of the same subject matter day after day, and simple self review prior to submitting of out of focus images, white balance way off, etc.  And it's day after day after day.  I definitely got the impression that it's a monotonous machine.  Once comment that was made, however, is that every now and then they see something really refreshing and new, which gives them shooting ideas of their own, hence the self value they can get from the job.

« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2011, 09:40 »
0
I always thought it was some silly little girl, with legs up on the desk, filing her nails, chewing gum and the odd weed puff,  hence the weird inspections. Ten hours later she is so dizzy from all the garbage shes been watching that for the next ten hours, everything is accepted.

What women have you met?  We can definitely be silly, with our legs anywhere we want, filing what we want , chewing puff, smoking gum AND do a serious job all at the same time

I think you need to direct your suspicions to another quarter.

« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2011, 12:14 »
0
definitely a conflict of interest - cant think of any other field that would get away with this - book reviewers, movie critics, etc are all screened for possible bias, PLUS the reviewers are known publicly, so their customers can determine whether there's bias or not. 

at the very least, reviewers should not be allowed to review work similar to what they shoot.  if the reviews are technically oriented, training, not experience is sufficient.  i'm surprised that these agencies give so much trust to reviewers to determine what will show up in their collections.

another factor is how reviewers are paid - any per image payment is going to encourage quick reaction reviews.  do every reviewer look at every image at 100%?  or do they get an idea of the image from an enlarged thumbnail?

« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2011, 12:17 »
0
Contributors always worry about their fellow contributors reviewing their images.  Really...there is no need to. 

I used to be a reviewer, and all of the reviewers I know who are contributors are very fair.  Where I worked, our boss regularly checked our work and always followed up with complaints about reviewing.  One of our reviewers even owned her own stock agency!  It wasn't a problem.  Trust me...by the time you've reviewed your 2000th image of the day with all the crap that is submitted, you want to approve good images...some days you're even begging for good images.  I could have cared less about my competition on those days!  Just please let me look at something pretty without any problems...please please please!!!  LOL 

What contributors need to worry about is what they submit, not that the reviewer might also be competing with them.  300 images of the same seagull will give anyone a headache.     

« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2011, 12:29 »
0
Well guys, I think that photographers should never be reviewers!
Best Reviewers would be designers who use photos and illustrations...

All other constellations come up with problems.

Cheers!

« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2011, 13:13 »
0
Well guys, I think that photographers should never be reviewers!
Best Reviewers would be designers who use photos and illustrations...

All other constellations come up with problems.

Cheers!

I agree. 

And it is a shame that most people will not talk about unfair rejections on some of the sites for fear of repercussions and because they are often lone voices; those that do are ignored or chalked up as novices.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
8632 Views
Last post October 04, 2006, 02:37
by leaf
1 Replies
3963 Views
Last post April 18, 2008, 06:35
by Seren
14 Replies
5702 Views
Last post August 09, 2011, 17:08
by fotografer
Envato's idea of a fun fact

Started by Semmick Photo Envato

9 Replies
6974 Views
Last post September 25, 2015, 03:24
by sharpshot
0 Replies
1586 Views
Last post February 10, 2015, 17:27
by heywoody

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors