Author Topic: Poll: Who has the most incompetent Inspectors / Inspection process? (Read 34017 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #100 on:** February 25, 2013, 17:43 »

Quote from: bad to the bone on April 16, 2012, 19:10

DT owns the abillity to reject bestsellers and also make some profit out of nonsellers. That made me sometimes speechless and sometimes i wish i could tell them how much profit they had could earned by another policy, but they are Dreamstime ... different.

I recently got one of their notices about deletion of an older image that hadn't sold. That image had earned me an EL on SS not 2 days before. It would be nice if there was some appeal process. Somehow paying 60 cents for someone to redo my keywording, which works fine elsewhere, seems like a petty humilation.

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #101 on:** February 25, 2013, 18:06 »

Ridiculous!

I forgot how crazy their notices were until I read your post.

I have programmed my email to send all rejection and acceptance notices from istuck to the trash. There is not one iota of logic or methodology to their processes.

Quote from: Anyka on April 04, 2012, 10:42

Funny. I just had a rejection at Istock :
1. Overfiltered
2. keywords rejected
3. Model release rejected (signed before the shoot date, which is IMHO something that is not forbidden)

and then, the inspector added a "personal touch" : "nice image, please resubmit"

No way! If he/she wanted it in the istock collection, he could've deleted a few keywords and accepted the photo.
As TheBlackRhino said : it's their loss.

roede-orm · « **Reply #102 on:** February 25, 2013, 18:14 »

PM- after month they reject sometimes photos from me, which I can hardly remember

ShadySue · « **Reply #103 on:** February 25, 2013, 20:50 »

Quote from: Anyka on April 04, 2012, 10:42

Funny. I just had a rejection at Istock :
...
3. Model release rejected (signed before the shoot date, which is IMHO something that is not forbidden)

I thought that the signature had to be on the shoot date, and that was confirmed here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351695&messageid=6849001

That said, they don't seem to have updated the manual with that information:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/model-property-releases-model-releases

tickstock · « **Reply #104 on:** February 25, 2013, 20:53 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #105 on:** February 26, 2013, 04:26 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 25, 2013, 20:53

Quote from: ShadySue on February 25, 2013, 20:50
Quote from: Anyka on April 04, 2012, 10:42
Funny. I just had a rejection at Istock :
...
3. Model release rejected (signed before the shoot date, which is IMHO something that is not forbidden)

I thought that the signature had to be on the shoot date, and that was confirmed here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351695&messageid=6849001

That said, they don't seem to have updated the manual with that information:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/model-property-releases-model-releases

I read the "shot date on model release to match the shot date of the photo". Nothing about a signature.

True.

Tantoon · « **Reply #106 on:** February 27, 2013, 00:55 »

I had many files accepted at Istock via the "Scout" thing due to inspector mistakes but in general they are unbiased maybe a little bit picky but they know what they are doing. anyway the most ridiculous rejection I've ever seen came from Dreamstime, I don't know about their photos inspection but they sure know #hit about vector illustration; not to mention their annoying uploading system (for vector), daaah.

Maxal · « **Reply #107 on:** February 27, 2013, 01:47 »

Just for fun:
Today iS has rejected one of my photos of cuscus in a little plate.
Reason: The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.
{[ Agriculture, Dieting, Dinner, Dishware, Meal, milling, Refreshment]}

( I asked them if "Are you joking? Or you just don't know what is cuscus???" )

tickstock · « **Reply #108 on:** February 27, 2013, 01:51 »

Maxal · « **Reply #109 on:** February 27, 2013, 02:04 »

^
Maybe Refreshment is not relevant, and maybe Dinner can be considered as spam, not the other.

And they have accepted a similar image (just changed the main product), but with bulgur instead of cuscus, with exactly the same keywords, except "cuscus" that I did not use for the bulgur image.
So, where is the coherence?

And, btw, you don't reject a photo when 2 keywords on 30 or 50 are not absolutely right…

tickstock · « **Reply #110 on:** February 27, 2013, 02:09 »

Maxal · « **Reply #111 on:** February 27, 2013, 02:12 »

^^
Are you paid by iS??
You've sold your soul to the devil

knorre · « **Reply #112 on:** February 27, 2013, 03:50 »

IS inspection, although being professional regarding image quality failed with "The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject". Recently they remove few most relevant keywords from 3d illustration.

gillian vann · « **Reply #113 on:** February 27, 2013, 04:58 »

Quote from: Maxal on February 27, 2013, 02:12

^^
Are you paid by iS??
You've sold your soul to the devil

ah no, you are hurting all of us when you keyword spam.

we had couscous tonight, with chicken, my 8yo loves it, but that doesn't mean child, children, chicken, kid, parent, school lunches is relevant, even if in my world it makes sense.
we had couscous last Christmas... but that's also irrelevant

ShadySue · « **Reply #114 on:** February 27, 2013, 05:04 »

Quote from: Maxal on February 27, 2013, 02:04

^
Maybe Refreshment is not relevant, and maybe Dinner can be considered as spam, not the other.

And they have accepted a similar image (just changed the main product), but with bulgur instead of cuscus, with exactly the same keywords, except "cuscus" that I did not use for the bulgur image.
So, where is the coherence?

And, btw, you don't reject a photo when 2 keywords on 30 or 50 are not absolutely right…

Actually, iStock say they do reject for poor keywords. Unfortunately most of the inspectors don't seem to look at keywords, and in your case, the problem was that your bulgur image was accepted with poor keywords.
That said, there are some bizarre keyword removals.

gillian vann · « **Reply #115 on:** February 27, 2013, 06:37 »

true. and I don't understand why they reject the whole image, why not just delete those keywords?

ShadySue · « **Reply #116 on:** February 27, 2013, 07:00 »

Quote from: vannphoto on February 27, 2013, 06:37

true. and I don't understand why they reject the whole image, why not just delete those keywords?

To teach us to keyword better first time.
If they just did it, everyone would just spam leaving the inspectors having to waste time deleting inappropriate keywords. (a slightly odd exclusive perk is that they get their keywords deleted)
After a few keyword rejections, people should learn fast.
If only the inspectors were consistent on this. There is still far too much spam getting through. (I know that some people add the spam after acceptance.)
Though I must admit some of my very few deletions have been controversial, e.g. Ecuador from a photo shot in Ecuador [i.e. not a random object which just happened to be shot there) (actually got a really nice apology for that one).

Maxal · « **Reply #117 on:** February 27, 2013, 10:26 »

Well, I will be more careful next time.

I am sorry if these poor reviewers will have too much work before of me.

tickstock · « **Reply #118 on:** February 27, 2013, 10:55 »

Maxal · « **Reply #119 on:** February 28, 2013, 04:43 »

^
Maybe my english is not so perfect as your, but your arrogance is surely to the highest level, and your sense of humor to the lowest…

leaf · « **Reply #120 on:** February 28, 2013, 04:58 »

maxal and tickstock need to lay off eachother. Whoever continues the little spat after this post will be given a little break.

aly · « **Reply #121 on:** March 06, 2013, 01:47 »

DT is by far the worst for me, rejecting almost everything now whereas in the past they accepted . It is very disheartening and confusing.

dingles · « **Reply #122 on:** March 06, 2013, 12:09 »

One thing that happened recently at iStock really ticked me off. I submitted a video and waited the 3-4 weeks inspections time. They came back an said there was an extra frame in the beginning and to correct and resubmit and it will be accepted. So it turns out there was an extra frame so I removed it and resubmitted...3-4 weeks later it was rejected for market saturation or something along those lines...what a waste of time. They could of added that from the start and not offered the promise of it being accepted. It really made me mad. First they should have a shorter queue if fixing a quick error and resubmitting, and second they should have a log of the submitted clip to see they all ready stated they would accept it so the 2nd inspector could at least take that into consideration.

enstoker · « **Reply #123 on:** March 06, 2013, 13:36 »

Quote from: dingles on March 06, 2013, 12:09

One thing that happened recently at iStock really ticked me off. I submitted a video and waited the 3-4 weeks inspections time. They came back an said there was an extra frame in the beginning and to correct and resubmit and it will be accepted. So it turns out there was an extra frame so I removed it and resubmitted...3-4 weeks later it was rejected for market saturation or something along those lines...what a waste of time. They could of added that from the start and not offered the promise of it being accepted. It really made me mad. First they should have a shorter queue if fixing a quick error and resubmitting, and second they should have a log of the submitted clip to see they all ready stated they would accept it so the 2nd inspector could at least take that into consideration.

Who cares about IS, at all?

tickstock · « **Reply #124 on:** March 06, 2013, 13:55 »

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Who has the most incompetent Inspectors / Inspection process?

Author Topic: Poll: Who has the most incompetent Inspectors / Inspection process? (Read 34017 times)

stockastic

Tryingmybest

roede-orm

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

Tantoon

Maxal

tickstock

Maxal

tickstock

Maxal

knorre

gillian vann

ShadySue

gillian vann

ShadySue

Maxal

tickstock

Maxal

leaf

aly

dingles

enstoker

tickstock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors