MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: frustrated with SOME of the lazy reviewers at shutterstock w/100% rejections  (Read 3016 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 21, 2020, 21:35 »
+6
very frustrated with some of the reviewers who appear to just do an auto "100%" rejection because they are too lazy to do their job.

seems some of the reviewers shutterstock employs have figured out how to game the system, so are doing zero work, to get paid. (to be clear, not all of them - some do their job - I like those reviewers - it's the ones that don't do their jobs that I don't like).

seems the game is for those ones is - they wait as long as possible to review the items (i.e., say a week) - so it gives the "appearance" of being reviewed to the (semi-automated) metrics shutterstock uses - so they can paid for doing nothing. I'm all for reviewing & approving 'good quality' images & videos, and rejecting poor quality. But when you happen to land one of these reviewers who just wants money for nothing, so autorejects 100%, it's very frustrating.

Would be a great time now shutterstock to either weed out these poor quality reviewers - OR - a different company to do a better job than shutterstock.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 11:31 by SuperPhoto »


« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2020, 21:36 »
+4
sadly, not sure what the point in contacting their support is, because it seems to be a stock reply as opposed to looking into it further...
« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 11:18 by SuperPhoto »

georgep7

« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2020, 02:26 »
0
Apologies not contributing there,
but in other threads I read for sub sales and peanuts.

Why bother submitting to SS?

« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2020, 02:31 »
+6
Apologies not contributing there,
but in other threads I read for sub sales and peanuts.

Why bother submitting to SS?

Because 5 figures earnings/year, for me, is not 'peanuts' :)
« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 02:37 by MotionDesign »

« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2020, 02:39 »
0
The once so premiere agency have totally derailed and the future journey can only go downhill!

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2020, 02:47 »
+7
Any evidence to support any of this... other than you having all your videos rejected?

« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2020, 03:14 »
+3
In the past I have had video rejections, when I pushed it to the limit with tricks like speed change etc.
In the last reviews that are also taking long time for me, I got rejections for noise.
That was for home shots in low ISO (up to 400 in my case is like zero noise for Sony A cameras), using a tripod and LED lights for still studio like shots.
I had even taken care to denoise with Neat Video any hint of noise in the background, just to be sure.
I have been a Broadcast TV editor for over 25 years.
I say that because many times I had the responsibility of doing (not spot but full-time view) quality control at a finished video, prior of sending it to the master control to play on air. That is a big responsibility if you are paid for it and needs to be spot on.
I mean to explain I follow all broadcast safe levels and details as many other contributors here do and I am certain there is no problem in at least these rejected videos of mine.
The ironic approach would be to say they want to protect us from low earnings so they just do not accept them!
But as many contributors say, we get more rejections that do not seem to be just.
True, I am not using broadcast equipment for stock, just a Sony A camera, but all the work years at TV help me know, see and decide If I am wrong or not.
That is why I find it hard to accept these rejections, if someone and not AI sees our videos at a tablet or mobile phone while we spend time on a calibrated 4K monitor, checking vector scopes and all details.

« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2020, 03:18 »
+1
I uploaded an editorial clip shot handheld on iphone yesterday and it was accepted in a few hours.

I also uploaded a few photos done with iphone and they got accepted.

Maybe I got lucky, but I will start regular uploading of mixed batches and then I will see how it goes.

« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2020, 06:29 »
+4
So, your title mentions videos and images, but you are only talking about videos...

Regarding photos, however, I totally don't share your analysis, based on my experience.

 I just counted over the past two weeks. On the first submission, I usually get 20% rejection for these stupid noise and focus reasons. It's definitely more than before. However, after resizing the files, the final ratio is much closer to 1 or 2%, which has not changed a lot over the past few years. Even better, I have the feeling that the initial rejection rate is falling a bit.

So, in a nutshell, I have more the impression that SS is trying to limit the amount of files being put for sale using bogus reasons. If you insist, however, they end up accepting your photos, because, in the end, they don't want to lose opportunities. That being said, it looks like video submissions are a bit more problematic, indeed...

« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2020, 07:32 »
0
Any evidence to support any of this... other than you having all your videos rejected?

yes.

« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2020, 07:40 »
0
Any evidence to support any of this... other than you having all your videos rejected?

No not many rejects I am talking money! all that is important!

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2020, 08:31 »
+1
Any evidence to support any of this... other than you having all your videos rejected?

yes.

But you're deciding not to share it?

« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2020, 08:45 »
+1
Lots of threads about rejections on SS these days but I also don't share that experience, all seems normal. The only time I get rejection is when I miss some logo and that's totally valid and my mistake.

« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2020, 08:57 »
0
I'm sorry that happened to you, however today they have reviewed 14 videos that I uploaded about 7 days ago, with the result of 5 approved and the others rejected due to noise, similar, etc.

« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2020, 09:00 »
0
Any evidence to support any of this... other than you having all your videos rejected?

yes.

But you're deciding not to share it?

hi, sent you a PM. thanks.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 11:16 by SuperPhoto »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2020, 09:36 »
+3
No, currently on less than half what I'd normally make in a month from Shutterstock. The reason I'm questioning what you're saying is that "shutterstock has CLOSED acceptance of new videos/images..." is a big thing. Like massive... headline news. But unless you can provide some kind of evidence that they have, then it's just not true. Please tell me you're not basing such a claim just on the fact that you're having all your content rejected?! That would be like me submitting five videos, having five videos accepted and then starting a thread saying that "Shutterstock are now accepting 100% of all content submitted".

« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2020, 09:47 »
+7
Maybe you should take a look at your own videos and see why they are being rejected instead of putting the blame on the 3rd world. I have a 90 percent approval rate in the last 2 weeks and it doesn't seem to be an issue for many other contributors either. As for reviews taking time, of course they are. Don't you know what's going on in the world?

As for speaking English, some of us who live in the 3rd world can speak and write better English than some of you can. So maybe, just maybe, keep your racist diatribe to yourself?


Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2020, 09:54 »
+2
Ridiculous title, totally misleading. Shutterstock did not closed acceptance of new videos or images.

You make it sound as if Shutterstock released a statement to contributors to postpone reviewing, but the reality is this is just a bitter post from someone venting his frustration about rejections. Which is fine in itself, but don't make it sound like it's an official statement and needlessly scare contributors with misleading titles.

FYI, I got my uploads (both video and images) reviewed and accepted within 2-3 days.

« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2020, 10:34 »
0
Maybe you should take a look at your own videos and see why they are being rejected instead of putting the blame on the 3rd world. I have a 90 percent approval rate in the last 2 weeks and it doesn't seem to be an issue for many other contributors either. As for reviews taking time, of course they are. Don't you know what's going on in the world?

As for speaking English, some of us who live in the 3rd world can speak and write better English than some of you can. So maybe, just maybe, keep your racist diatribe to yourself?

as for 'racist', no, its not in fact you are being quite racist by labeling someone as racist simply because you disagree with them.

if you are not a native english speaker, then yes - you do speak very well & congratulations, not an easy feat!
« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 19:56 by SuperPhoto »

« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2020, 10:39 »
0
Ridiculous title, totally misleading. Shutterstock did not closed acceptance of new videos or images.

You make it sound as if Shutterstock released a statement to contributors to postpone reviewing, but the reality is this is just a bitter post from someone venting his frustration about rejections. Which is fine in itself, but don't make it sound like it's an official statement and needlessly scare contributors with misleading titles.

FYI, I got my uploads (both video and images) reviewed and accepted within 2-3 days.

Re: the title - no, it was not an announcement that shutterstock made (which is why I added the "because of sh** reviewers which I thought would make it obvious). But reviewing the actions they have been taking speaks louder then what they may or may not say. I didn't consider the title could be interpreted a different way, so thank-you, I've retitled it to be more specific.

As I mentionend - it seems particular reviewers (not all) just specific ones do a 100% rejection rate. I have had 'normal' reviews of uploaded images/videos - but it is very frustrating when I encounter one of these with the absurd rejection reasons. And I'm not the only one - many, many people are experiencing this - it just seems to be luck of the draw.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 10:59 by SuperPhoto »

« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2020, 10:41 »
0
No, currently on less than half what I'd normally make in a month from Shutterstock. The reason I'm questioning what you're saying is that "shutterstock has CLOSED acceptance of new videos/images..." is a big thing. Like massive... headline news. But unless you can provide some kind of evidence that they have, then it's just not true. Please tell me you're not basing such a claim just on the fact that you're having all your content rejected?! That would be like me submitting five videos, having five videos accepted and then starting a thread saying that "Shutterstock are now accepting 100% of all content submitted".

No, I'm not basing it on that. I did not consider the title could be interpreted that way - so have re-titled it. Thank-you.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 19:57 by SuperPhoto »

« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2020, 10:43 »
0
So, your title mentions videos and images, but you are only talking about videos...

Regarding photos, however, I totally don't share your analysis, based on my experience.

 I just counted over the past two weeks. On the first submission, I usually get 20% rejection for these stupid noise and focus reasons. It's definitely more than before. However, after resizing the files, the final ratio is much closer to 1 or 2%, which has not changed a lot over the past few years. Even better, I have the feeling that the initial rejection rate is falling a bit.

So, in a nutshell, I have more the impression that SS is trying to limit the amount of files being put for sale using bogus reasons. If you insist, however, they end up accepting your photos, because, in the end, they don't want to lose opportunities. That being said, it looks like video submissions are a bit more problematic, indeed...

I do agree with your analysis with respect to the photos. They do still seem to be getting a (semi) legitimate review moreso than the videos.

« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2020, 10:47 »
0
In the past I have had video rejections, when I pushed it to the limit with tricks like speed change etc.
In the last reviews that are also taking long time for me, I got rejections for noise.
That was for home shots in low ISO (up to 400 in my case is like zero noise for Sony A cameras), using a tripod and LED lights for still studio like shots.
I had even taken care to denoise with Neat Video any hint of noise in the background, just to be sure.
I have been a Broadcast TV editor for over 25 years.
I say that because many times I had the responsibility of doing (not spot but full-time view) quality control at a finished video, prior of sending it to the master control to play on air. That is a big responsibility if you are paid for it and needs to be spot on.
I mean to explain I follow all broadcast safe levels and details as many other contributors here do and I am certain there is no problem in at least these rejected videos of mine.
The ironic approach would be to say they want to protect us from low earnings so they just do not accept them!
But as many contributors say, we get more rejections that do not seem to be just.
True, I am not using broadcast equipment for stock, just a Sony A camera, but all the work years at TV help me know, see and decide If I am wrong or not.
That is why I find it hard to accept these rejections, if someone and not AI sees our videos at a tablet or mobile phone while we spend time on a calibrated 4K monitor, checking vector scopes and all details.

Yes, I 100% agree with you. I've done broadcasting too, among other things - so am familiar with the process of quality control/review/etc - so take time to make sure I use the right equipment, right lighting, right settings, etc - and even inspect frame by frame video to ensure their are no artifacts, etc especially at 4K levels. So it is frustrating when you get a beautiful picture/video that is rejected using an obvious non reason for rejection, such as  'low light' or 'noise' or something along those lines...

m

« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2020, 10:59 »
+1
there is plenty of evidence online that shutterstock uses reviewers from all over the world. You just need to look on linkedin
« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 11:02 by m »

wds

« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2020, 14:56 »
+1
My favorite rejections are the arbitrary "invalid model release" where they don't tell you what is "invalid" about the release...they're just too busy to be helpful I guess.  >:(


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
11824 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
957 Replies
143306 Views
Last post November 04, 2015, 14:39
by cascoly
22 Replies
5735 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
212 Replies
22771 Views
Last post December 20, 2019, 10:08
by Snow
78 Replies
7302 Views
Last post March 01, 2020, 02:46
by trabuco

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle