MicrostockGroup
Microstock Footage Forum => General - Stock Video => Topic started by: StockStudio on June 17, 2017, 04:57
-
Hi all.
For a long time I noticed a steep decline in the level of, how to call it... basic understanding - of video reviewers working on our clips.
And this applies to all agencies.
I had my share of stupid rejections in the past, no debut about it. But it seems to me that the agencies had to recruit many new reviewers to keep up with the huge volume of submissions - and they just went out and hired totally incompetent people for the job.
Some recent examples:
This clip marked as editorial only in Depositphotos: https://depositphotos.com/156530762/stock-video-slow-motion-shot-of-the.html (https://depositphotos.com/156530762/stock-video-slow-motion-shot-of-the.html)
A content team member in Fotolia claiming this clip has no commercial value (just days before it turned out to be one of my best sellers):
https://us.fotolia.com/id/131518395 (https://us.fotolia.com/id/131518395)
Shutterstock rejecting timelapse shot with slow shutter at night of a huge square with people tiny as ants, due to "missing model release"
And the list goes on...
BTW - the most "liberal" agency for now seems to be VideoBlocks... With review time that is quite long - but way better decision making.
To be honest - after investing sooo much time, money and efforts shooting these clips, uploading, tagging - just to face ridiculous rejections from minimum wage reviewers.... just makes me wanna quit.
-
Yeah, it's unavoidable. once a company grows, the chance that incompetent people are hired grows as well. Especially when outsourcing low wage jobs, such as reviewing clips or images. The reviewers may get trained and drilled in their job, but it's always prone to human error.
-
Simply resubmit, they generally get accepted the second time.
Don't try to make any sense about reviewers, resubmit a second time and move on.
I must say that for video in the last months I get 100% acceptance rate everywhere.
But for still images it seems like most reviewers must refuse about 20% of batches, otherwise they are afraid of being punished for laziness, so they just pick them at random. If you resubmit again 80% of them are immediately accepted
-
Today it seems the main quality that sites ask to become inspector is incompetence.
So, why should we be surprised to have incompetent inspectors?