MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Frustrated with Shutterstock reviewers  (Read 6078 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2020, 19:17 »
0
I am aware that you have read a post in recent years, therefore, the thanks are mine.
Thanks to you.

First by your effort to understand my words. That shows, that you put interest in the background, above the supplementary forms of irrelevant details in the way of developing writing, or my effort in trying to collaborate despite my barriers with the rest.

And of course, I thank you for having contributed what has more value in this life, time. You have contributed your time, to collaborate, without decision power in the Agency, to try to help other users for a long time. Your time. Therefore, thank you very much.

Already by mail, I sent you the agreed 60 dollars.
Greetings.


Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #26 on: February 17, 2020, 04:37 »
+4
In all relevant searches are the same as always. Never mind your Coronavirus editorials, or change the official name every day, the World Health Organization. You are placed on the page, 3, 4 and 5 of new files. If they have any quality, directly to page 12.

If they change their name now, they return the same images to Relevant in the new search. It is impossible, Valentine, Christmas, Coronavirus, Carnival, Hallowen, Black Friday, .......... Customers flee from the old tastes of SS. Finger to the screen, doctors and food scattered around the table, like a table for the irrational animals, the market is already saturated. Today's customers are from the 21st century

Maybe, the new CEO of SS puts order, maybe he can no longer, that is, worse than the previous one. We will see it.

His brain tells them, that the client leaves for the same reason in his arguments, All photos are the same.

They, their neurons, of Galactic Gods, do not recognize that the relevant page is similar. Spam in the new, to launch to your tastes, the tastes of the 70s of relevant image placers.
Conclusion, if you want something different as a client, you must go to modern agencies. Since the Similar Content is promoted by the agency itself, diverting quality and modernity towards the competition.

The examiners head out of the course like a football stadium, without understanding Spam's difference from valid and necessary collections. However, they will continue to hide these images and offer Archaic and Prehistoric Dandruff to customers, without variety in the possible tastes of a global market.

If you are not of the classics of your taste, if you sell, it is because customers are looking for you, since SS does not offer more than a certain taste of images, of course, as customers surely say when leaving the company, Similar Files.

Without modifying your files, they will surely end up being accepted, if they are valid, at the time a reviewer examines you with common sense.

One Of the most brilliant Posts I've read In a lot of years. Thanks.

Really? Maybe it's just me but the broken English in that post read like a lot of incoherent thoughts and mumbo-jumbo.  I get that English isn't his first language and despite the language barrier he's trying to convey his message, I can respect that, but 'one of the most brilliant'?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 04:40 by Noedelhap »

« Reply #27 on: February 17, 2020, 09:08 »
+3
it's a company who clearly don't have a clue of what they are doing...rejection for invisible noise is the norm, then they add fe noise crap that can be seen especially from new contributors...really go to some thread of shutter stock forum and see some portfolio, files without any clues or interest commercial value added daily,unbelievable...next financial year will be the nail odin the coffin of this company.

« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2020, 02:46 »
+2
it's a company who clearly don't have a clue of what they are doing...rejection for invisible noise is the norm, then they add fe noise crap that can be seen especially from new contributors...really go to some thread of shutter stock forum and see some portfolio, files without any clues or interest commercial value added daily,unbelievable...next financial year will be the nail odin the coffin of this company.
and yet they are the most profitable microstock company....how many years have you been predicting they will go bust? They are very good at marketing to buyers which is what really matters sadly.

« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2020, 03:53 »
+1
In all relevant searches are the same as always. Never mind your Coronavirus editorials, or change the official name every day, the World Health Organization. You are placed on the page, 3, 4 and 5 of new files. If they have any quality, directly to page 12.

If they change their name now, they return the same images to Relevant in the new search. It is impossible, Valentine, Christmas, Coronavirus, Carnival, Hallowen, Black Friday, .......... Customers flee from the old tastes of SS. Finger to the screen, doctors and food scattered around the table, like a table for the irrational animals, the market is already saturated. Today's customers are from the 21st century

Maybe, the new CEO of SS puts order, maybe he can no longer, that is, worse than the previous one. We will see it.

His brain tells them, that the client leaves for the same reason in his arguments, All photos are the same.

They, their neurons, of Galactic Gods, do not recognize that the relevant page is similar. Spam in the new, to launch to your tastes, the tastes of the 70s of relevant image placers.
Conclusion, if you want something different as a client, you must go to modern agencies. Since the Similar Content is promoted by the agency itself, diverting quality and modernity towards the competition.

The examiners head out of the course like a football stadium, without understanding Spam's difference from valid and necessary collections. However, they will continue to hide these images and offer Archaic and Prehistoric Dandruff to customers, without variety in the possible tastes of a global market.

If you are not of the classics of your taste, if you sell, it is because customers are looking for you, since SS does not offer more than a certain taste of images, of course, as customers surely say when leaving the company, Similar Files.

Without modifying your files, they will surely end up being accepted, if they are valid, at the time a reviewer examines you with common sense.

One Of the most brilliant Posts I've read In a lot of years. Thanks.

And at the same time one of the worst conclusions for the indusrty i guess, assuming that modern agencies with strict curation and fresh content are?
Unsplash and similar :/
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 04:25 by georgep7 »

« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2020, 05:45 »
+1
In all relevant searches are the same as always. Never mind your Coronavirus editorials, or change the official name every day, the World Health Organization. You are placed on the page, 3, 4 and 5 of new files. If they have any quality, directly to page 12.

Actually... not. At the moment, my newer files are even working better than usual. It seems they are regularly updating their algorithm, and, at the moment, the most recent uploads are slightly pushed, even though it's not as spectacular as I have been able to observe previously.


Conclusion, if you want something different as a client, you must go to modern agencies. Since the Similar Content is promoted by the agency itself, diverting quality and modernity towards the competition.


I would like to believe what you're saying, but my numbers are saying something else.

If I compare the 2019 yearly RPI to 2018 by platforms, here is the evolution:
Shutterstock   -10,09%
IStock   -9,03%
123RF   21,52%
Alamy   -25,19%
Dreamstome   60,84%
Depositphotos   14,50%
Adobe   108,52%
Bigstock   -10,77%

As we can see, SS is far from being the only problematic platform. We can see, indeed, that the smaller platforms are getting better numbers, including some notorious golden turds like 123RF and DP. Adobe is showing an amazing performance, with a three digit yRPI growth.

That being said, here is the fundamental data: the revenue share from SS, IS and Alamy all together has not changed a lot: they represented 84% of my income in 2019 vs 89% in 2018, SS being stable at 32%. In the meantime, AS showed an amazing evolution, but we're talking about jumping from 1.5% of the revenue share in 2018 to 4%. It's expected to be smaller, as I have only 25% of my portfolio on this platform, but we're still talking about marginal phenomenon.

So, yes, I'd like to think that SS is decreasing in favor of other agencies, but it's not the case. The issues we're dealing with when it comes to Shutterstock are not that different from the general ones about Microstock.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 09:26 by BalkanskiMacak »

Shelma1

« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2020, 07:24 »
+3
Follow the money.

1. Reviewers get paid per image, so if they reject everything in two seconds and then accept in two seconds when resubmitted they get paid twice.

2. If youre an established contributor, you make a higher royalty rate and SS keeps less of the money, so your work gets rejected more often and when accepted automatically gets pushed back in the search. That way new contributors can flood the site with images that get pushed to the top, and SS keeps more money by paying lower royalties.

« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2020, 09:01 »
0
Follow the money.

2. If youre an established contributor, you make a higher royalty rate and SS keeps less of the money, so your work gets rejected more often and when accepted automatically gets pushed back in the search. That way new contributors can flood the site with images that get pushed to the top, and SS keeps more money by paying lower royalties.

I'm definitely not sure about that theory. I studied the numbers after reaching a new tier, and it did not have a significant impact.

being in a higher tier may mean you are more expensive, indeed, but it means your photos are more bankable, as it needs more than a few ducks in pound to reach the levels. Therefore, your return on investment may be higher.

« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2020, 10:38 »
+1
getting rejected 99.99% of uploaded footage. Only stupid reasons. This stock website is crap. It makes me go scouting all other newer crappy footage they accept and spam their email, twitter and facebook with hypocrisy standards.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2020, 13:14 »
+3
getting rejected 99.99% of uploaded footage.

You've uploaded 10,000 clips and only had 1 of them approved?

« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2020, 13:47 »
0
uploaded 50 new files in the last month and only 1 was accepted. It seems like they are f*cking with me. I uploaded 20 thousand files since 2012, mostly no problems.

« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2020, 15:25 »
+1
Rejections are generated by the nerves and pressure. They work with the pressure that customers leave the Agency because they offer them too similar content. It goes by times, what lasts the reviewer without common sense, the content continues its course, with stable increases, since the rejected genre is placed in the following week, the following month, or three months later.

I hope that the department of placing images in the shop window will grant other types of files to the clients, otherwise they will follow the amazing numbers of Freepik. It finds no ceiling in its growth.


 Similar Content is what is offered. Having everything is something that made SS the number 1. As long as the tastes of the department do not change to offer images to the current times, the client will continue his pilgrimage towards the extremely modern and avant-garde quality month after month, to the minimum price. having everything in SS is good, offering the rancid and outdated tastes of the 70s, no.

They are losing complete collections of very valid files for potential clients and continue to offer the same line of the files. The client has a hard time finding something fresh. For other customers, it doesn't matter exactly, they don't have time, and they keep choosing in the first third of the New or Relevant page.

« Reply #37 on: February 20, 2020, 00:44 »
0
Follow the money.

1. Reviewers get paid per image, so if they reject everything in two seconds and then accept in two seconds when resubmitted they get paid twice.

2. If youre an established contributor, you make a higher royalty rate and SS keeps less of the money, so your work gets rejected more often and when accepted automatically gets pushed back in the search. That way new contributors can flood the site with images that get pushed to the top, and SS keeps more money by paying lower royalties.
Correct.And...something to consider.....Most of the really good "Original" Thinkers and shooters are gone. Try spending your time Trying to Help 9000 People on the critique forum do Better............In Vain. I have and will never again. I actually thought I was Helping.  I was Not...........................MY BAD!
« Last Edit: February 20, 2020, 00:50 by rinderart »

« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2020, 03:10 »
+1
Im now quite sure my photos are no longer reviewed by a human but by a digital programme.
I uploaded about 40 pictures over the last week, all in batches of 3 or 4 pictures, and they were reviewed within one (ONE!) minute or two minutes, but never waiting for more than two minutes for review.
And all got rejected.
Several reasons, always the same reason for the whole batch.
Im quite sure no human was involved in that process.
So I now stopped uploading. A rejection rate of 100 % makes me step out now.
And the other agencies (Bigstock, Dreamstime, Adobe, iStock, deposit) all had no problems with those pictures and accepted them.
Thats GOODBYE Shutterstock for me.

Oh I nearly forgot: I uploaded 4 editorial pictures (same settings as the non editorial, but with tourists in it I have no release for). Those pictures took about 3 days to be reviewed and were all ACCEPTED!!! - so there a human was involved I guess).
« Last Edit: February 22, 2020, 03:14 by Astrantia »

« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2020, 03:25 »
+1
They are rejecting with no logic.
I am 100% sure its AI system. They are making the system learn on their own to enhance their intelligence.

I have multiple times asked them regarding rejections but no one listens or takes action.

« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2020, 14:43 »
+1
Best Blogger On the Planet..
If your not , You should read this Blogger. He is the best of the Best ever.
http://blog.melchersystem.com/the-things-that-kill-themselves/

« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2020, 16:37 »
+2
It seems that weekends are not a good time to send photos either. We will wait for daily days. Last week on daily days, the reviews were quite sensible. Both weekends quite badly. Reviewers of photographs with little common sense during the two consecutive weekends.

« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2020, 04:58 »
0
Something VERY odd is going on with reviews at the moment.

I had a load of vectors rejected for "Similar Content"... they have no resemblance to anything else in my portfolio. Never happened before. It was after I forgot to tick the "Illustrations" box on another jpeg batch that were illustrations resulting in a (correct) mass rejection.

I wonder if they have some policy that if you get a certain ratio of recent rejections they suddenly start rejecting subsequent batches out of hand? Whatever it is, I'm p*ssed.

« Reply #43 on: February 24, 2020, 05:15 »
0
Sometimes my pictures go to AI. A few seconds and rejections. Sometimes go to humans. More time and almost no rejections, but they are helped by AI too.

No way to know how or when submit. It's random.

Point to AS, AL and IS.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #44 on: February 24, 2020, 09:56 »
+3
Sometimes my pictures go to AI. A few seconds and rejections. Sometimes go to humans. More time and almost no rejections, but they are helped by AI too.

Is that a fact? Then what happens when I get accepted in a few seconds, is that AI too?

Do you have an inside source at SS that gave you this information?

« Reply #45 on: February 24, 2020, 12:36 »
0
If the agency got a credit for the value of the company during the next 500 years, they might have the ability to start in AI. However, they would invest it in creating commercial vectors, not saving the money of the reviewers.


They do not have adequate software to convert the vectors to .jpg if they do not go to an enormous size, we should not talk about AI, when the owners of the land, google, fail and fail again with only one language in conversations. IA is far from the reach of microstock agencies.

« Reply #46 on: February 24, 2020, 12:48 »
+1
Something VERY odd is going on with reviews at the moment.

I had a load of vectors rejected for "Similar Content"... they have no resemblance to anything else in my portfolio. Never happened before. It was after I forgot to tick the "Illustrations" box on another jpeg batch that were illustrations resulting in a (correct) mass rejection.

I wonder if they have some policy that if you get a certain ratio of recent rejections they suddenly start rejecting subsequent batches out of hand? Whatever it is, I'm p*ssed.

Yes, it seems that the reviewer saw that you were coming from rejections and thought you were trying to upload again. Everything seems to indicate that they are altered, very tense, far from the love of agency and photography or multimedia material.

The same as the like causes satisfaction, I think they are causing some attention so that we are constantly alert in the reviews. A kind of psychological hitch.


In their official forum, weekend reviewers have been very bad. I am ashamed, but it seems that SS is not ashamed.

The comments of the contributors are devastating to the behavior of the weekend photo reviewers. It's a weird thing that SS doesn't do anything.

« Reply #47 on: February 24, 2020, 13:13 »
+1
It's a weird thing that SS doesn't do anything.

they don't care... they only see $$$. The same happened to istock. So I stopped uploading. After few years deleted the whole portfolio. Now dejavu is happening again.

« Reply #48 on: February 24, 2020, 16:10 »
+1
Sometimes my pictures go to AI. A few seconds and rejections. Sometimes go to humans. More time and almost no rejections, but they are helped by AI too.

Is that a fact? Then what happens when I get accepted in a few seconds, is that AI too?

Do you have an inside source at SS that gave you this information?

BS uses the same program. Same rejections at the same time in the same pictures with the same reasons.

In a few seconds.

Not humans there.

« Reply #49 on: February 24, 2020, 17:30 »
0
It seems that of all the extra examiners, hired for the February campaign and hearts, some archives supervisor wanted to leave, and it seems that he has succeeded, after the prominence acquired this weekend. revision times are not seconds, there is less working today. Some are going to collect their economic settlement and merry Christmas. Or they have taken the software that examines you to a recycling chores.



As someone said here months ago, there can't be such a silly AI. That nonsense is something human.
corporate boycott, bitterness, trade union struggle, anything. Artificial Intelligence no, they are big words.

I insist, a software capable of displacing a human with the themes of art, taste, and possibilities or not of sales, has more value to humanity than the stock file business.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 18:00 by Tenebroso »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
11064 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
957 Replies
141133 Views
Last post November 04, 2015, 14:39
by cascoly
22 Replies
5448 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
35622 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
212 Replies
20086 Views
Last post December 20, 2019, 10:08
by Snow

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle