pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: no point in submitting to shutterstock right now unless you want 90-100% rejects  (Read 2910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 30, 2020, 22:40 »
+7
seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.

the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.

I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.


« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2020, 22:43 »
+1
This just came out from SS. It makes no sense as reviewers work in their homes on computers and no computer has ever given anyone a virus.     "PLEASE NOTE: Our review teams are taking the necessary steps to continue operating safely and at full capacity. However, you may experience longer than usual wait times for review due to the global impact of COVID-19."

« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2020, 23:36 »
+7
This just came out from SS. It makes no sense as reviewers work in their homes on computers and no computer has ever given anyone a virus. 

Unless they have in fact outsourced a large chunk of reviews offshore to somewhere like India which is on 100% lockdown nationwide.

« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2020, 03:29 »
+1
That's not my experience. Yes you still get weird and seemingly unfair rejections for focus noise or pixelation, but apart from that, most of my images are accepted just fine. It only takes a bit more time nowadays.

« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2020, 04:38 »
+7
This just came out from SS. It makes no sense as reviewers work in their homes on computers and no computer has ever given anyone a virus.     "PLEASE NOTE: Our review teams are taking the necessary steps to continue operating safely and at full capacity. However, you may experience longer than usual wait times for review due to the global impact of COVID-19."

I think that's garbage. It may be just for video - but I suspect:

a) It is outsourced in India/Phillipines
b) By SOME reviewers (not all) - A combination of laziness, probably reviewing on their cellphone while watching t.v. (so don't feel like using data) - so just go through the 'motions' of reviewing so they get paid when in fact they are doing nothing at all. (I've actually hired/outsourced workers from those area - and it's been my experience unless you really watch what is being done - that is precisely what happens. Had some data entry/review jobs outsourced where I could "see" what they were doing - and it varied from doing it 100% incorrect to simply waiting 10 seconds per item, then clicking 'reviewed & accepted' without actually doing any work).

It's just *really* annoying. But it seems to be some (not all) reviewers are just automatically rejecting 100% of items.

« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2020, 05:44 »
+4
This just came out from SS. It makes no sense as reviewers work in their homes on computers and no computer has ever given anyone a virus.     "PLEASE NOTE: Our review teams are taking the necessary steps to continue operating safely and at full capacity. However, you may experience longer than usual wait times for review due to the global impact of COVID-19."
There's enough people getting sick now reviewers could just bee too ill to work.

« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2020, 05:53 »
+3
This just came out from SS. It makes no sense as reviewers work in their homes on computers and no computer has ever given anyone a virus.     "PLEASE NOTE: Our review teams are taking the necessary steps to continue operating safely and at full capacity. However, you may experience longer than usual wait times for review due to the global impact of COVID-19."

I think that's garbage. It may be just for video - but I suspect:

a) It is outsourced in India/Phillipines
b) By SOME reviewers (not all) - A combination of laziness, probably reviewing on their cellphone while watching t.v. (so don't feel like using data) - so just go through the 'motions' of reviewing so they get paid when in fact they are doing nothing at all. (I've actually hired/outsourced workers from those area - and it's been my experience unless you really watch what is being done - that is precisely what happens. Had some data entry/review jobs outsourced where I could "see" what they were doing - and it varied from doing it 100% incorrect to simply waiting 10 seconds per item, then clicking 'reviewed & accepted' without actually doing any work).

It's just *really* annoying. But it seems to be some (not all) reviewers are just automatically rejecting 100% of items.

I'm holding off for now too. Ive gone from a 99.999% approval to 50% at the most. All for noise artifacts where there is 0 noise or artifacts. Shooting in 4K RAW on a professional Sony cam. Editing them in Pro Res. I've even tried submitting the 4K as HD - still get rejected. If I re-upload them I might get 50% through but it's wasting my time too much. Sales have tanked since COVID-19 so putting my time into other creative digital areas.

The only thing keeping me afloat at the moment is template making on membership sites (only upload templates) Without these sales I'd be finding it difficult. I'm a full time stock producer.

I wish shutterstock could make it easier for us in these troubling times....

« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2020, 08:28 »
+3
This just came out from SS. It makes no sense as reviewers work in their homes on computers and no computer has ever given anyone a virus.     "PLEASE NOTE: Our review teams are taking the necessary steps to continue operating safely and at full capacity. However, you may experience longer than usual wait times for review due to the global impact of COVID-19."

I think that's garbage. It may be just for video - but I suspect:

a) It is outsourced in India/Phillipines
b) By SOME reviewers (not all) - A combination of laziness, probably reviewing on their cellphone while watching t.v. (so don't feel like using data) - so just go through the 'motions' of reviewing so they get paid when in fact they are doing nothing at all. (I've actually hired/outsourced workers from those area - and it's been my experience unless you really watch what is being done - that is precisely what happens. Had some data entry/review jobs outsourced where I could "see" what they were doing - and it varied from doing it 100% incorrect to simply waiting 10 seconds per item, then clicking 'reviewed & accepted' without actually doing any work).

It's just *really* annoying. But it seems to be some (not all) reviewers are just automatically rejecting 100% of items.

I'm holding off for now too. Ive gone from a 99.999% approval to 50% at the most. All for noise artifacts where there is 0 noise or artifacts. Shooting in 4K RAW on a professional Sony cam. Editing them in Pro Res. I've even tried submitting the 4K as HD - still get rejected. If I re-upload them I might get 50% through but it's wasting my time too much. Sales have tanked since COVID-19 so putting my time into other creative digital areas.

The only thing keeping me afloat at the moment is template making on membership sites (only upload templates) Without these sales I'd be finding it difficult. I'm a full time stock producer.

I wish shutterstock could make it easier for us in these troubling times....

Yes - that seems to be the same message for me.

I have super high quality (very high end *cameras*), mechanical shutter (which most hobbyist photographers don't even know the difference), great lighting conditions - and get stupid inaccurate things like "noise" when there is 0 noise, etc, etc...

It's annoying that *some* of these reviewers without direct supervision abuse the work at home policy.

« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2020, 09:24 »
+4
No point in submitting period and full stop! I'm sorry but I can't see any light in the end of the tunnel with SS. They are nursing the Eastern blocks and thats that. I know a couple of members from there with no more then 700 pictures in files and they are completely over the moon when earning four, five dollars a day. In London thats just about a Pint in the Pub! :)

« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2020, 07:39 »
+3
100 % rejection today.

Submitted 27 pictures over the last three days, all different subjects, taken over a period of several weeks.
They were reviewed today- 100 % rejection for "noise". All of them.

Not one single pic made it through review..... ( iStock and Adobe had no problems with the same pics- all approved over there).

Edit: I just discovered that two og those pics are already online- I submitted them a few weeks ago already. In those days they were approved ok.
So they should have been rejected for beeing doublettes- but not for noise.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2020, 08:20 by Astrantia »

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2020, 08:19 »
+2
Shooting outside on a sunny spring day with ISO 200 and still getting noise rejection...what?

« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2020, 08:23 »
+7
Shooting outside on a sunny spring day with ISO 200 and still getting noise rejection...what?

I can see the grain....... sand grain  ;D :P

(sorry its april first and SS is driving me mad)

« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2020, 08:33 »
0
This just came out from SS. It makes no sense as reviewers work in their homes on computers and no computer has ever given anyone a virus.     "PLEASE NOTE: Our review teams are taking the necessary steps to continue operating safely and at full capacity. However, you may experience longer than usual wait times for review due to the global impact of COVID-19."


single, living on your own, no person stuck in isolation that you have to help ? 

« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2020, 15:35 »
+6
seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.

the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.

I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.

yes please, stop submitting, and I also suggest to delete your portfolio! :-D I hate competition!


miaoulis

« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2020, 09:24 »
+1
hello
Brasilnut, I had the same problem with the image of a sandy beach, noise noise noise !!!! their machine are badly adjusted! I also have refused images for example of old mosaics refused as street art! 

« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2020, 01:17 »
0
I must say, i've not experienced unusual rejections during all this. Had one rejected, in the last 2 months, and after looking at it closer, i agreed with them.

Also Mar 20 sales were above average for the year. Im expecting April to possibly take a hit, i will know by the 15th  April, as i record averages and totals every 2 weeks, for many years.

« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2020, 13:24 »
+3
I had 166 clips pending for a few days now. Then they managed to review all of my files in less than 20 minutes and around 20 get accepted. So I immediately resubmitted all rejected files and I'll do that until they accept at least 50%. Or they can easily ban me and I would be happy with being just on Adobestock, since they are much better at selling my clips.

Also, I hope that Indian guy that is rejecting my clips on his phone chokes while watching tv.


« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2020, 13:45 »
0
I know somebody who submitted 20 pics of a stocbrokers dealing-room but they all came back with all sorts of excuses. He then gave these to an Rm agency ( not Getty) after a week or so somebody bought 12 of them with copyright and everything. I dont even dare to think what he got paid for this. Just goes to show doesnt it.

« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2020, 16:55 »
+3
Theyre afraid of accepting images that might contain Covid :P

« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2020, 06:25 »
0
Over the last two weeks I tried submitting only one or two pics at a time, only the best, during daylight, full frame sensor, in my opinion no technical problems.

All rejected for noise.
I give up with shutterstock.
At least for the moment.

« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2020, 16:11 »
0
Over the last two weeks I tried submitting only one or two pics at a time, only the best, during daylight, full frame sensor, in my opinion no technical problems.

All rejected for noise.
I give up with shutterstock.
At least for the moment.

Does seem to be strange on SS lately. Now bar code and QR rejections are showing.

« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2020, 16:15 »
+1
All right, it is getting ridiculous.  I just had a photo of the US Capitol rejected.  Not for noise or focus, but because I did not include a property release.  I have never needed a release for an exterior shot of the Capitol. 

And besides, who do I get to sign the release from?  I am a US taxpayer, therefore, I am technically an owner.  Can I sign the release?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2020, 19:18 by scribble »

« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2020, 16:25 »
0
I do not experience rejections is such an amount. In fact, it seems that they are less strict than they used to be few weeks ago. Nevertheless, there are still very strange rejections sometimes (the sharpest images from batch are rejected as not in focus).

« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2020, 17:53 »
+3
i submitted a picture of a ufo i shot in new york couple of years ago.
i wanted to see  the outcome ;D
REJECTION REASON
A MODEL PROPERTY RELEASE
a PROPERTY RELASE??
FROM A UFO???
where can i get it from???
ET? :o

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2020, 11:23 »
+1
All right, it is getting ridiculous.  I just had a photo of the US Capitol rejected.  Not for noise or focus, but because I did not include a property release.  I have never needed a release for an exterior shot of the Capitol. 

And besides, who do I get to sign the release from?  I am a US taxpayer, therefore, I am technically an owner.  Can I sign the release?

I'm a taxpayer, I own that building, I'll sign a release for you?  ;D

« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2020, 11:52 »
+1
. . .
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 12:01 by pics2 »

« Reply #26 on: April 13, 2020, 07:17 »
+2
seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.

the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.

I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.

Sorry, no one from us like rejections, but to me this sounds like good news from Shutterstock, the better news can be to start removing some existing crap.

There are black clouds coming over this business after COVID-19, and if this is true and they apply rigorous review this will improve the revenue per photo accepted.

The old experienced contributors knows very well the value of acceptance, this is not a routine process.

P.S. I don't mention your rejections or someone's particular, I focus my thoughts as a whole about the collection.


« Reply #27 on: April 13, 2020, 07:18 »
+5
If they were only allowing quality items in - I'm all for that.

That's not the case. They are just mass rejecting because the reviewers - whomever they are - just don't feel like working.

seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.

the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.

I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.

Sorry, no one from us like rejections, but to me this sounds like good news from Shutterstock, the better news can be to start removing some existing crap.

There are black clouds coming over this business after COVID-19, and if this is true and they apply rigorous review this will improve the revenue per photo accepted.

The old experienced contributors knows very well the value of acceptance, this is not a routine process.

P.S. I don't mention your rejections or someone's particular, I focus my thoughts as a whole about the collection.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #28 on: April 13, 2020, 11:43 »
+2
If they were only allowing quality items in - I'm all for that.

That's not the case. They are just mass rejecting because the reviewers - whomever they are - just don't feel like working.


Sure looks that way much of the time. I can stand a real or honest rejection, but when 30% are rejected for "focus", it just seems like that's not standards but lazy reviews. When someone is taking photos and panning, the background is going to be out of focus and blurred.


Sorry, no one from us like rejections, but to me this sounds like good news from Shutterstock, the better news can be to start removing some existing crap.

P.S. I don't mention your rejections or someone's particular, I focus my thoughts as a whole about the collection.

I doubt if they will be removing much, except people with hundreds of similar images, patterns and that. Going through 320 million images for someone who has two similar shots isn't going to happen. People with hundreds, might happen. As for quality, and reviews, if it's accepted, I doubt they will be removing for that reason.

But still, how about consistency and realistic rejections? Focus is being used just to hit a button and move on. Either that or as absurd as Microstock was with everything must be tack sharp and in focus, they have raised that another level. There should be some leeway for useful an marketable content. Of course maybe they have enough of everything and are starting to only accept super sharp content.

I don't know if I want to play their game and start downsizing just for SS. How much should I care if they are mostly selling sub now?

« Reply #29 on: April 13, 2020, 14:13 »
0
Could this be AI?

« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2020, 14:17 »
+2
I have had a lot of review problems with SS too, but they do sell.

A week ago out of the blue I was contacted by SS Premium.  In the end one of my images sold for 2,000 to 3,000 and I made 1,000 for that one sale.

This is the first time it has happened to me, but it is another reason to persevere even with the ridiculous rejection reasons.

« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2020, 15:00 »
+2
There must be someone, a team, that is responsible for the reviewing process and is accounted for all this. If there is a team that now reassigned the work, lets assume that an initial screening is done by AI and then a human might see our photos-videos etc.
If he/she is working from a remote location in a distant country where we would need to change 3 flights and travel 23 hours to get there, chances are he is not having a big 4K calibrated monitor.
Lets assume again this real, not AI, person sees a photo in a 15-inch laptop or a video on a PC with no decent video card. Even if he is an honest worker, he cant see DOF properly or judge background noise or see a panning scene without stutter.
Why do we care about that? We dont, because we need our work to be reviewed but we should care because we get rejections we dont accept as valid ones.
Just now I had one of three videos accepted, with two rejected for focus (not valid) and noise (denoised with Neat video and not blurred or pixelated).
If they need slow apertures lets just tell us that they do.
Lets just tell us we should not need cinematic fast lenses and they need all focused focus and videos.
Its simple. They could say, from now on etc.
Also, they need to make clear what the rejection reason is.
If this person who sees that, has some preset buttons to press, lets give him more options that make it clear.
Also, since they have such a big amount to review, they could simply add a tab with the option we add comments. That is always under the assumption that a person and not a machine reads them.
As things are, it is a continuous fight couples that are bored of each other have, with ironies and shouts.
If they want, they can do some small steps to improve reviews and keep the interest in the relation alive.
Do they?

« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2020, 03:16 »
0

Even I had most of my content rejected (vectors) for "irrelevant keywords" since last week. In more than ten years it's the first time I have this "keywords" issue, sounds more like a random reason to reject my content.

« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2020, 03:42 »
0
This week SS reviewed my 108 Clips and accepted closed 70 or so. Every agency has some preference levels and the kind of content they want.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
31 Replies
9692 Views
Last post December 27, 2007, 18:46
by vphoto
14 Replies
5266 Views
Last post December 05, 2010, 10:47
by lagereek
29 Replies
8917 Views
Last post February 23, 2013, 11:36
by Sadstock
38 Replies
6250 Views
Last post October 04, 2016, 03:23
by gyllens
16 Replies
9174 Views
Last post August 08, 2019, 20:22
by Sion

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle