Lets try this again:

K:  No offense, and please don't take this personally, but isn't that a conflict of interest? I would think it would be.

Let's face it, in order to make $7.50 an hour (min wage) you would have to review 189 images a minute, or 3 images a second.

I think what's happening is uploads are being rejected or approved on maybe 1 sample per batch.  Upload 50, 50 rejected or approved.

And we don't have to get into the turn-over rate for reviewers.  That's why many micro-stockers are looking for other outlets for their work.  Let's face it, with 1 million plus images on most sites, how many pages will a designer or consumer of these images look through? 

Particularly when most of the keywords don't match the image.   (that's a pet peeve with me, instead say 50 keywords, it should be limited to 7) In microstock, an image isn't worth a thousand words, rather, a single word may be worth a thousand images.

Well, let's see...I could chime in here since I've done 80-90k reviews at LuckyOliver.

We're lucky to have pasionate Bouncers on board (though I still do some reviewing).  We see our Bouncers as a part of the community...so we encourage Bouncers to both submit and review- it really keeps us in touch with the whole process.

It just depends on the submissions. We have our own system that I won't get into- but an established photographer that has a proven record is going to be easier to review...we don't need to write a whole bunch...they already get it (but then it can be slow because it's also fun to admire the craftsmanship).

In the end it's not about trying to reject images- it's about helping people create better ones (yeah, yeah...I know, we're idealistic).  Ultimately our technology will help filter images based on merit. We have a three tiered structure in which we can override any review, but we tend to trust the original gut call.

I think what's happening is uploads are being rejected or approved on maybe 1 sample per batch.  Upload 50, 50 rejected or approved.

Ian - my personal opinion is there is nothing wrong with looking at 1 sample per batch.  Have you ever submitted to Alamy? - as a point of reference, I had a batch of 94 refused because they didn't like 2 images.  It's a fact of life.  If you don't like it, try joining an agency like Getty or Corbis that painstakingly reviews and keywords every image for you (and refuses most of them).  Did you know that the commission rate for Getty RF is only 15-20%?  You get what you pay for (hidden costs actually).

I applaud Karimala for coming forward and telling folks she's a reviewer.  There's a lot of risk involved with that.  I reviewed for an agency for a while.  That agency is no longer around and, in the end, I didn't see a red cent from my efforts reviewing - compensation was based on an increased commission percentage and in 6 months, I never got to payout and the agency folded.  What people don't understand is the return is not in the money (unless you live in a country where the exchange rate is very low compared to the USD or the Euro), the return is in learning the business.  I previously did some work for another agency, and the benefit was again learning the business.  I've resigned that position because as you put it:

That's why many micro-stockers are looking for other outlets for their work.

It has nothing to do with how many images are online at the agency.  What it has more to do is understanding your return on investment and the value of your time.  Many get caught up in the argument of the micros vs. royalty free sales, vs rights managed sales.  The fact of the matter is if you are able to produce the volume of Andresr, Photoshow, PhotoEuphoria, Forgiss, etc., etc. then Royalty Free is the way to go no matter if it is a traditional agency or a micro.  If you can only produce a few hundred Royalty Free images a year, then your best bet is with a traditional agency selling rights managed in that you will get the same return on less efforts.  If you get to know some Getty photographers or some photographers that are even contributing to Alamy, you'll hear they are are earning upwards of $50,000 per year on a partfolio of 250 images.  Alamy will have 10 million online before the end of Spring.  These are the folks that don't shoot the ordinary stuff like brick walls or women on cell phones and, if they submit nature images, they are on the level of Galen Rowell's work.  They aren't the ordinary joe's of microstock like 90% of us (myself included).

A reviewer's job is thankless, but it's a stepping stone to greatness.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't think there is a conflict of interest, and neither does the company where I am a reviewer.  They also don't have a problem with me speaking up (just as long as I'm not revealing confidential company info!). 

I used to be an editor at a local newspaper, and was also simultaneously a reporter.  There isn't any difference between those roles and my new roles as a photographer and reviewer.  I approach my role as a reviewer the same way I did with my role as an editor. 

My interest is the same as both a photographer and reviewer...developing quality stock archives, whether that is with my photos or someone else's.  I'm also interested in helping people learn to be better photographers, and passing on all the great things I've learned from other photographers who once helped me.  In time, the other sites where I'm a contributor will benefit from the time I've spent helping all of these people through my reviews at the one site, because so many of them contribute to multiple sites.