Author Topic: Image Inspectors on MSG (Read 3192 times)

WarrenPrice · « **on:** December 04, 2012, 15:51 »

I wonder how many of our members work as reviewers/editors/inspectors for an agency -- any agency?

And, if there are any, does what an individual has to say on this forum about said editors/reviewers affect the review of that individual's images?

$:-\$

Poncke · « **Reply #1 on:** December 04, 2012, 15:52 »

I think reviewers are not supposed to say they are reviewers. Non disclosure etc

tab62 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 04, 2012, 16:05 »

I feel that even if a reviewer reads what you have written here they will not go after you on their site. At least in my personal experience...

click_click · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2012, 16:07 »

I used to work as a reviewer for one of the Middle Tier agencies.

And I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase?

CD123 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 04, 2012, 16:08 »

Won't hold it against you....

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #5 on:** December 04, 2012, 16:26 »

Quote from: click_click on December 04, 2012, 16:07

I used to work as a reviewer for one of the Middle Tier agencies.

And I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase?

Do you think what you say about an agency or its reviewers affects the results of your image reviews?

click_click · « **Reply #6 on:** December 04, 2012, 17:13 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 04, 2012, 16:26

Quote from: click_click on December 04, 2012, 16:07
I used to work as a reviewer for one of the Middle Tier agencies.

And I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase?

Do you think what you say about an agency or its reviewers affects the results of your image reviews?

I can only speak for myself and during the time I was reviewing for an agency I did not participate on any independent forums.

Besides MSG I pretty much only participated on the SS forums but never had an interest to "investigate" who uploads what to said agency so I could take advantage of my powers.

At the time, producing and reviewing took a significant chunk of my time. I simply had no time to follow up on who complains about which agency and keep a mental note not to approve someone's images because they opened their mouth on some forum.

I think it would require a really big mouth over an extended period of time to become so "famous" for "criticizing" an agency or its reviewers that at some point a reviewer may take offense to that. Of course the reviewers are not supposed to take such things into consideration but again, as I can only speak for myself, I never felt that way and did my best to be objective.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #7 on:** December 04, 2012, 18:09 »

Thanks, Click, for the response. I realize my question must sound a bit paranoid. It was a serious thought but I probably should have let it stew a bit longer before asking.

I was thinking about some of the things that have happened in the past -- censorship in forums; banning from forums; threatening PMs from admins, etc.

I've even heard of people having accounts canceled due to comments in this forum --MSG. I think FT has done this in the past?

I'm pretty sure that most inspectors are objective. There is room for doubt, however.
The paranoia extends to inspectors protecting their own portfolios -- rejecting images that could affect their sales.

Was there, or do you remember, any checks and balances -- someone to monitor the inspectors' reviews?

Pardon my paranoia. And, I honestly thank you for your response. I do hope everyone is honest and objective. Not going to push my luck any further. There is very little that contributors could do anyway.

click_click · « **Reply #8 on:** December 04, 2012, 19:33 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 04, 2012, 18:09

... Was there, or do you remember, any checks and balances -- someone to monitor the inspectors' reviews? ...

Oh yes, very much so as a matter of fact.

Random checks were made in my account and I've been asked for reasons why I accepted and rejected certain images.

Also, as I mentioned before, I would be contacted if a contributor sent in a complaint for an image I reviewed for further clarification.

I cannot give names but I can assure you that some smaller agencies do NOT have such procedures.

I also used to review for an agency that folded years ago and they didn't check up on me like I mentioned above.

CD123 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2012, 01:40 »

Might differ with the smaller agencies where you might say something to upset the "owner", who might also be the reviewer (or one of them). Depends on how big/small the personality of the "owner" is and how sensitive/insensitive the remark was I guess. $:-\$

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Image Inspectors on MSG (Read 3192 times)

WarrenPrice

Poncke

tab62

click_click

CD123

WarrenPrice

click_click

WarrenPrice

click_click

CD123

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors