pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Frustrated with Shutterstock reviewers  (Read 9875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 16, 2019, 05:51 »
+7
Just look at this https://www.shutterstock.com/video/search/countdown?sort=newest

At the same time I still got many rejections for dumb reasons of cool video backgrounds accepted anywhere else than on SS
 >:(

admin edit: edited subject for wording.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 07:25 by leaf »


« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2019, 10:20 »
+1
What do you expect they pay reviewers peanuts and recruit anyone with minimal oversight  :(

Pay peanuts what do you get ?  ;D
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 16:45 by Bad Robot »

« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2019, 12:32 »
+4
For fun a few months ago I sent SS a request that I was interested in becoming a photo reviewer.  They responded back to me in a couple of weeks . I didn't not save their email but it went something like this. It was a very nice and polite letter. Thank you for your interest in SS. At this time you just don't have the experience we are looking for as we have other applicants that fit our requirements better. Thank you from SS.  So I guess my dream job will be on hold. Now for my background. I have been doing stock photos since Mosses came down form the mountain. I have a small site on SS and most all the other top sites. I get small sales from most of the sites daily. I have sold/published over a million photos in my time on earth as a photographer ..again over a long time in the business. So maybe someday I can get my dream job as a reviewer. I can only hope and pray....W.Scott McGill 

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2019, 13:22 »
+5
Unbelievable. They clearly favor some contributors over others, even though all these should have been rejected for being too similar.

But Shutterstock is going down the drain anyway, if they continue this way.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2019, 16:53 »
+2
For fun a few months ago I sent SS a request that I was interested in becoming a photo reviewer.  They responded back to me in a couple of weeks . I didn't not save their email but it went something like this. It was a very nice and polite letter. Thank you for your interest in SS. At this time you just don't have the experience we are looking for as we have other applicants that fit our requirements better. Thank you from SS.  So I guess my dream job will be on hold. Now for my background. I have been doing stock photos since Mosses came down form the mountain. I have a small site on SS and most all the other top sites. I get small sales from most of the sites daily. I have sold/published over a million photos in my time on earth as a photographer ..again over a long time in the business. So maybe someday I can get my dream job as a reviewer. I can only hope and pray....W.Scott McGill

You are probably over qualified, that's the line I used to get. Seems counter intuitive that someone who is better qualified, can't get a job. But what they are saying is, you are too smart and they couldn't mold you into the person they wanted.  :) Or you are too experienced and you wouldn't follow their limited and restrictive standards.

Of course the usual reminder, they make the rules, even when they are legally going their own way.

https://careers.shutterstock.com/jobs/openings/



« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2020, 02:44 »
+3
Unbelievable. They clearly favor some contributors over others, even though all these should have been rejected for being too similar.

But Shutterstock is going down the drain anyway, if they continue this way.

The income from selling images from shutterstock is getting worse.

« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2020, 06:54 »
0
What do you expect they pay reviewers peanuts and recruit anyone with minimal oversight  :(

Pay peanuts what do you get ?  ;D

How much do they pay?

« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2020, 08:39 »
+1
I'm not sure what's going on with video reviews. Probably half of my submissions get rejected, usually for noise/pixillation/compression. I then resubmit it and they take it. If I didn't have such a high upload bandwidth it wouldn't be worth it, especially with these occasional $1.50 video sales.

« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2020, 12:12 »
0
What do you expect they pay reviewers peanuts and recruit anyone with minimal oversight  :(

Pay peanuts what do you get ?  ;D

How much do they pay?

Peanuts ~ why? looking for a job? ;D

« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2020, 16:15 »
0
Not all file reviewers are stupid. Obviously, someone has stable sex. This affects being focused on work or being bitter in life. When the company realizes that spam is swallowed and they do not have the full quality collections, they will wonder what is failing.

They have many eggs, but the eggs must be held in the large brain, above the head. I have not seen so much irresponsibility in a company ever. Hopefully Adobe will overcome them soon.

« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2020, 06:22 »
0
I agree  :)

I submitted 2 pics of Easter eggs as editorial. Twice I got the rejection reason "Non-Licensable Content: We cannot accept this image into our commercial or editorial collection, or we are no longer accepting this type of content." Third time was lucky. So the thread should be called "Yes, some Shutterstock Reviewers Are fxckxng Idiots!"

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2020, 07:23 »
+3
Pretty certain they're using AI on first submission. How else can someone explain that images are reviewed often a few seconds after submission?

Rise of the machines!

« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2020, 11:28 »
0
I am fully convinced that they are human. You mean images, not vector or illustration. They have several waiting bored someone send them pictures. The rest, we must wait. AI is something that has an incalculable value in this sector.

An AI of images, which dares decide what it sees, is worth more than Google and Facebook together. There is no AI that sees 3D perspective letters. He will tell you that they are macaroni.

Its software of similar images, is retouched by humans, since in similar its software sees an African dog and car keys as similar files.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2020, 11:45 »
+1
Pretty certain they're using AI on first submission. How else can someone explain that images are reviewed often a few seconds after submission?

Rise of the machines!

Humans, aided by software that tells them analysis of the images or video. Still stupid human tricks behind the flawed rejections.  ;)

« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2020, 11:52 »
0
They see that the income of new customers decreases, or they see that they lose customers. They dedicate money and effort in hiring survey and market analysis companies. They decide that they have spam, that the client has a hard time deciding once they don't look for what they consider the trend files, which everyone should put on their websites, news and blogs.

When they observe that there are customers who are looking for, because they do not settle for dandruff placed in relevant 70s, they decide to delete spam files. And they lose entire collections and keep spam, the finger against the virtual screen, the doctor, the viruses they like, etc.

Clients leave, and they keep dandruff and spam. They look like the modern ones in the galaxy and are old and very classic. They create a company that influences the world and the world turns its back on them.

They have google indexing their advertising as it helps them a lot. They have departments that work very well. And they have some brains that must retire.

It is better that they pay a lot and well to the reviewers, it is the most important thing of the company. People with common sense.

Adobe focuses on its image editing software. And Shutterstock focuses on attracting customers in any corner of the world. Lots of publicity. The same thing that keeps 123RF, advertising, then, customers when they look and also see, they leave.

« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2020, 12:16 »
0
Nearly all of my submissions over the past week were rejected for "visible sensor or lens dust".
Those were new pics I took last weekend but also older pictures from a year ago.
Those have been accepted by all other agencies with no problems.
At normal 100 % I cant even discover any dust. Just at even higher resolutions and a very harsh contrast I was able to discover very few and small spots.
Never had that before. There must be somebody out there with a magnifying glass searching at 600 % on altered pictures.
If this continues Ill stop uploading to SS.

« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2020, 07:29 »
+1
I defenately give up with SS for now.
My 95 % approval rate changed to 95% rejection rate over the last 10 days.

Most images were rejected for "lens dust" and I removed every oh so small spot I could discover, uploaded the images for a second time and then got a rejection for poor quality instead ( "using auto-focus or poor camera sensor"). Well , I work with a Sony A7RII with a 42 MP full frame sensor. If this is a poor sensor I simply give up with SS.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2020, 12:20 »
+1
I defenately give up with SS for now.
My 95 % approval rate changed to 95% rejection rate over the last 10 days.

Most images were rejected for "lens dust" and I removed every oh so small spot I could discover, uploaded the images for a second time and then got a rejection for poor quality instead ( "using auto-focus or poor camera sensor"). Well , I work with a Sony A7RII with a 42 MP full frame sensor. If this is a poor sensor I simply give up with SS.

Downsize 10MP and upload again.

Do you have sensor dust? Doesn't matter how big or what camera if you have a dirty sensor. Of course then why are the others accepting them? I don't know...

Anyone here would need to see full size image to guess why they are rejected. I suppose you could link to accepted versions on other agencies?

« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2020, 14:02 »
0
I defenately give up with SS for now.
My 95 % approval rate changed to 95% rejection rate over the last 10 days.

Most images were rejected for "lens dust" and I removed every oh so small spot I could discover, uploaded the images for a second time and then got a rejection for poor quality instead ( "using auto-focus or poor camera sensor"). Well , I work with a Sony A7RII with a 42 MP full frame sensor. If this is a poor sensor I simply give up with SS.



Thanks for sharing your experience. I understand you perfectly. For 20 days, revisions in illustrations went well. Over the weekend, the examiner left, or the entire team. I have had to go back to photography until this character, the current illustration examiner, leaves the agency. Illustrations, two rectangular, look similar. Strike of illustrations for 15 days.

I do not believe that the current examiner of illustrations can last more than two weeks. For now, photographs. There is some tension in the photo exam, but they are a bit more human. Logically far from the professionalism of Adobe examiners, but still, the current photographers, have some common sense. In the illustrations, the current reviewer sees ghosts, if two are rectangular, he sees them Similar Content.

The current examiner of illustrations, to bitter the existence to another. I escape from him.

« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2020, 15:25 »
0
Thanks for sharing your experience. I understand you perfectly. For 20 days, revisions in illustrations went well. Over the weekend, the examiner left, or the entire team. I have had to go back to photography until this character, the current illustration examiner, leaves the agency. Illustrations, two rectangular, look similar. Strike of illustrations for 15 days.

I think I met the same reviewer!? Beginning last week, every illustration I uploaded was rejected for similar content. I don't know what the reviewer's issue was - they were all new concepts. I have over 700 illustrations at shutterstock and never ran into this problem before. For now, I have stopped uploading. I need a holiday from shutter...

« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2020, 08:29 »
+1
Here are a few of my theories, after some disastrous months in terms of review:

-reviewers are still humans, but are blindly following the advice from an AI. The work they perform in terms of intellectual property detection or just people detection can't be conducted solely by an AI (they were for instance able to reject a picture that had a Louis Vuitton logo hidden in the background of a picture, half hidden by cables and branches, that did not appear in the keywords nor in the title). However, it seems they don't even consider to challenge the AIs quality analysis, explaining why we get bogus rejections.

-there are probably KPI and staffing issues with the reviewers. I am receiving bulk rejections for absurd reasons (for instance a batch of 10 files that will all have the same rejection reason, generally the title is not in English or the image is underexposed, while actually my batches are made of totally different pictures and topics). In the meantime, while commercial pictures are reviewed extremely fast, it can take up to several days for an editorial picture to be reviewed. It's still not 123RF, but it can be a pain in the ass while covering topics like the Coronavirus, that are really hot at the moment. My interpretation on this is that they are put under pressure to reduce the amount of approved files, while being understaffed. It can explain why they are actually not doing a real job at some time (like rejecting 10 pictures in a row based on a one second appreciation of one picture or approving in 30s pictures that don't have any interest but don't raise any red flag from their AI).

-when it comes to photos, their policies can be easily bypassed. As I previously wrote, I reopened a folder called "shutterstock rejects" where I copy all the rejected photos. On first submission, I can have a rejection rate of around 50%. I re-sbumit the next day the same files with no modifications, there are already chances for 50% of these previously rejected files to be accepted. Then, for the remaining ones, I will decrease the resolution while applying some light noise reduction and clarity adjustments and resubmit. Most of the files will be accepted at that point. For the last ones, I will continue progressively decreasing the resolution till it reaches the lowest resolution authorized. At that point, the initial batch got an acceptance rate of around 98%. I'm still losing a bit (up until now, I was around 99% acceptabce), and I'm wasting my time, but at least I am partially saving my ass.

-last thing: they are not very good at rejecting similar content. I am conducting a strategy to re-upload in commercial pictures that I had a long time ago uploaded in editorial. I discovered that, all over those years, my editing techniques have greatly improved, thus enabling me to better delete intellectual property elements, people, while providing a much better overall processing. I can therefore provide quality files on topics where there are currently a lot of demand (like Iran). Normally, such files should be flagged as similar. However, if you simply mirror the file, it become accepted. I did it as a standard on this category of pictures, at I have an acceptance rate of around 99%...

To summarize, my interpretation is that they are struggling to improve their review process while being cheap, which is doomed to fail. Their system is so cheap, however, that it is still possible to get around it. It's totally stupid, because it can force you to decrease the quality of files that were just fine, but did not fit their AI requirements in terms of focus and noise (especially in editorial), but it works.

« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2020, 11:28 »
+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.

« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2020, 14:26 »
+2
I agree  :)

I submitted 2 pics of Easter eggs as editorial. Twice I got the rejection reason "Non-Licensable Content: We cannot accept this image into our commercial or editorial collection, or we are no longer accepting this type of content." Third time was lucky. So the thread should be called "Yes, some Shutterstock Reviewers Are fxckxng Idiots!"

reviewers sometimes reject these as 'original art' (same with any graffiti on an old wall)

« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2020, 14:27 »
0
I defenately give up with SS for now.
My 95 % approval rate changed to 95% rejection rate over the last 10 days.

Most images were rejected for "lens dust" and I removed every oh so small spot I could discover, uploaded the images for a second time and then got a rejection for poor quality instead ( "using auto-focus or poor camera sensor"). Well , I work with a Sony A7RII with a 42 MP full frame sensor. If this is a poor sensor I simply give up with SS.

Downsize 10MP and upload again.

Do you have sensor dust? Doesn't matter how big or what camera if you have a dirty sensor. Of course then why are the others accepting them? I don't know...

Anyone here would need to see full size image to guess why they are rejected. I suppose you could link to accepted versions on other agencies?

I've had images w  real sensor dust accepted by other agencies - SS is by far the strictest

rinderart

« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2020, 17:56 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
13465 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
957 Replies
149405 Views
Last post November 04, 2015, 14:39
by cascoly
22 Replies
6067 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
212 Replies
25885 Views
Last post December 20, 2019, 10:08
by Snow
48 Replies
4268 Views
Last post May 07, 2020, 09:46
by DigitalPro

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle