MicrostockGroup
Illustrators Corner - Microstock Illustrators Forum => Illustration - General => Topic started by: daveh900 on December 13, 2011, 15:18
-
I get more images rejected at DT than anywhere else.
I created a rubber stamp style graphic for each of the 50 states.
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/700705/700705,1310328026,4/stock-vector-florida-state-usa-distressed-stamps-80756098.jpg)
These have been selling fairly well at SS. I uploaded a couple of them to DT to test the waters and they were accepted.
When uploading the designs for the other states, I get the following rejection:
"- Too many photos/illustrations on the same subject or from the same series. Your submission should not duplicate content already in your portfolio or content which you plan to upload separately in the future (ie. collages based on your images). Please be more selective and choose only the best shots or illustrations. Avoid submitting simple variations on the same subject or duplicating content already in your portfolio (including from collages). You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system. "
So something with a California theme, is the exact same as an Alaska or New York theme?
Another image that features the entire USA, was rejected and given the following reason:
"Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented. The primary goal of a stock image is to be generic and match as many usage types as possible. Your image is not generic enough and will not generate significant sales. Please try to recreate/rephotograph the scene differently and/or use this info for more generic images in the future. "
Apparently, the United States of America is to specific of a niche and I should be more generic. Why would anyone was a USA specific graphic? I should stick with just "Earth" instead. ::)
If they don't want my images, that's fine. They're selling elsewhere. I'm taking a break from DT.
-
I had the same issue when I got back to doing stock (computer got fried in a lightning strike) so I was totally unaware of the can't have too many similar things of the same subject type. I uploaded a font I made all 26 letters. All were rejected and that killed my percentage of how many I'm allowed to upload per week. Took well over a year to scrape back up to just under 70%.
And it would be terribly difficult to put all 50 in one file just for the sake of DT and getting them up on there and sell them as a set which is what I did with my font set. It could work for you too just with that many in one file may make the large raster impossible to use for something other than for the web.
-
You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image).
That's they key for us to understand what they want. Sets. Give them more at the same price.
That happened to me too, but I choose not to, so DT is the last site where I upload new stuff and I upload much less.
Hasta la vista, DT!
-
These guessing games can be infuriating. What is needed is a 2-tiered approval process. We should have the option of uploading something just for the purpose of finding out whether they'd approve the subject matter - in other words, does this image even have a chance? If yes, you submit it for full inspection. If not, you don't submit it and your approval percentage isn't affected.
-
DT and DT once more.. pile all the 50 states on one big collage or you wonīt have one online unless you are a newbie or a DT favorite.. one day we will sell all portfolio for a 35 cents sub!
-
I too have stopped uploading to DT for nonsensical rejections with the 'too many' excuse. Some were of subjects which I have never covered before and of which they have virtually nothing in their entire collection. The last batch I uploaded had only a 17% approval ratio although my average at DT, since I started, is 90%. Needless to say the same batch were accepted 100% at SS, IS and FT. Getting rejection hits like that could actually damage your overall sales too if approval ratio is a significant factor in search order placement. What's the point?
-
me too ... and it was editorial.
Covered a motorcycle race ... submitted several different riders ... rejected for being similar even tho it was different riders on different motorcycles finishing in different positions.
ridiculous.
-
This is part of the reason I opened my own shop. I was sick of these types of rejections.
-
me too ... and it was editorial.
Covered a motorcycle race ... submitted several different riders ... rejected for being similar even tho it was different riders on different motorcycles finishing in different positions.
ridiculous.
Completely ridiculous. A photo of a rider on a Yamaha is going to potentially have different appeal to a buyer than a rider on a KTM or Honda.
-
I though they would make this policy more sensible by now but unfortunately that hasn't happened. How many of us have been put off uploading? How many buyers have had to look at other sites to find the rest of a series that interests them? The policy relies on reviewers being perfect and contributors having lots of patience with rejections. Not a surprise that its a disaster. DT is a really good site that has so many things going for it, they just need to adjust this policy so it works, instead of destroying contributors motivation to upload new images.
-
I only send them a batch every few months or so, and then I get pissed off with their "too similar" bull$hit and I take some other few months break. My approval rate was 90-something, now it's below 80 and I firmly believe that DT is not worth the time to try-and-guess what might be rejected for similarity and to make selections out of the uploads sent everywhere else. Not to speak of obvious signs of favoritism which is sick inducing.
I think they're somehow on a constant line regarding sales and any ideas of how to push the agency forward and make more money eludes them.
-
Some of these stories about 'similars' make me wonder how much inspection is now done by remote contractors who don't even really understand what's in the image.
-
Good to see that some of us take action against their strange rejection rampage.
I recently dared to upload an improved version of one of my best sellers and they (they rejected it and) seriously asked me to remove the old one so they can approve the newer one.
All other agencies including iStock took my new version (and the old one is still with all of them - and still selling...).
It's like telling Yuri to remove his first 10,000 images because his newer images are basically showing the same happy people like 3 years ago.
It's not going to happen as he would stop uploading to them (as he did before). He got them by the ball$ and they felt it.
I have less and less respect for DT due to their irritating reviewing policy. Not to mention the massive drop in earnings over the last year.
-
Bottom line - it seems to me that the only way to make money in microstock is to do 'variations on a theme' - if you find something that sells, try to exploit it - not with cookie-cutter shots but with more photos of the same subject matter.
-
Without question, it's a stupid policy, but it's their site, and they are free to be as stupid as they please. I just create material that I think will sell, with enough variety of the same subject to satisfy a client's potential need for such variety, upload all of it to DT and let them keep what they will and reject what they will. I really don't care about my acceptance ratio on such a site because they are such low priority for me. I have a significantly higher acceptance ratio on the other sites, and buyers who want more choices will eventually figure out which site(s) give them the best variety. I'm comfortable with this approach until something better presents itself.
-
If they dropped the link between acceptance ratio and search placement, I would upload more. I just don't see the point in getting more rejections that could hit sales of the images I already have on the site. So they get very few uploads and buyers have to look elsewhere for more of my portfolio. It's their site and they can do what they want but its nice to complain about a site other than istock and FT :)
-
I don't really produce much in the way of similars, so it doesn't affect me.
When I do, I find that they'll take 'similars' if they're a portrait version; landscape version; plus a couple of very different angles.
-
I don't really produce much in the way of similars, so it doesn't affect me.
When I do, I find that they'll take 'similars' if they're a portrait version; landscape version; plus a couple of very different angles.
Not really. They sometime don't take 'similars' at all, even if they are landscape/portrait, different angles or even different color backgrounds.
This DT behavior is very annoying. They should somehow understand the difference between excessive flooding of 'similars' and submittng a few different takes on a subject.
I'm almost 100% sure that if DT would accept all my similars, my (and their) sales would be up about 20-30%.
-
Not really. They sometime don't take 'similars' at all, even if they are landscape/portrait, different angles or even different color backgrounds.
Well hey I'm not making it up. :D Just reporting my own experience, which is as I described. If others have a different experience, then perhaps I've just been luckier with the reviewers I've had.
-
Although I have some of my photos at DT, most of my work is vector. They have rejected more of my illustrations today because they were done in the same style, even though the subject matter has nothing in common and there were no common elements between the files.
I used to have a job where I was a buyer of stock photos, and having multiple shots to choose from is key. You need the right perspective and the right angle for your project. Only having one or two shots of the same subject to choose from is stupid.
-
The real problem for these agencies is that their search functions aren't sophisticated enough to deal intelligently with 'series'. For example - the 50 state set referenced above: I can see they don't want to deliver 2 full search pages of these very similar images. What should happen is, they show one, with some sort of highlight box around it indicating it's part of a series, which you can optionally view in its entirety. Rather than pay to develop that level of site software, they're just rejecting images that could have sold.
-
Apologies from me. I only just realised this was an illustration thread. That would make my comments redundant. Sorry about that.
-
The real problem for these agencies is that their search functions aren't sophisticated enough to deal intelligently with 'series'. For example - the 50 state set referenced above: I can see they don't want to deliver 2 full search pages of these very similar images. What should happen is, they show one, with some sort of highlight box around it indicating it's part of a series, which you can optionally view in its entirety. Rather than pay to develop that level of site software, they're just rejecting images that could have sold.
The search functions are only that feeble at DT, everywhere else the individual image's popularity would largely dictate where it appeared in the sort-order. Anyway, if someone wanted a stamp for Florida then they'd probably search for 'stamp+florida' so why should stamps from other states appear?
-
1. upset the designer
2. lower DT sales
3. screw our earnings and stock in general!
-
The real problem for these agencies is that their search functions aren't sophisticated enough to deal intelligently with 'series'. For example - the 50 state set referenced above: I can see they don't want to deliver 2 full search pages of these very similar images. What should happen is, they show one, with some sort of highlight box around it indicating it's part of a series, which you can optionally view in its entirety. Rather than pay to develop that level of site software, they're just rejecting images that could have sold.
CanStock was the first to have a series feature - user controlled, so it could have been better if it were automatic with the ability to edit if it made a goof. BigStock added one after that. StockXpert used to have one - if Stockfresh does I haven't used it as I'm trying to keep the time I spend tailoring for any site to the bare minimum unless the sales are great. In other words, handling series isn't particularly hard or a new idea.
Dreamstime's similars policy is utterly nuts, but they seem to have been unmoved by the many suggestions and complaints about it. The only hope for change is that enough buyers complain to them about going elsewhere for the rest of a series. But Dreamstime seems to be very happy being #3 - where they've been for most of us ever since they started.
-
Also irritating: "Illustration is too simple" rejection for pics of cartoon eyeglasses and cartoon underwear. Glasses. Underwear. How complex are they going to be??? >:(
-
Also irritating: "Illustration is too simple" rejection for pics of cartoon eyeglasses and cartoon underwear. Glasses. Underwear. How complex are they going to be??? >:(
Excellent! Less competition for my cartoon underwear. ;D
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-underwear-smiling-image10630522 (http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-underwear-smiling-image10630522)
-
The reason Dreamstime keep pushing this no similars angle is the level based sales they have. Prices go up the more they sell.
I can understand some of the reasoning behind this. If you had almost identical illustrations/photos then buyers will buy the cheaper one. If you have a level 5 that selling really well and you upload a "new and improved" copy then buyers will buy the cheaper one. Less money for Dreamstime and less money for the contributors.
I believe (like everybody) that they are taking this reasoning too far and their rejections for too similar are over the top as explained by many of the example here and in other threads. I wish that they would take time to actually review if the images are too similar and accept them if there are differences. eg different subjects, allow some different angles of the same subject.
There is a sensible middle ground between too few and too many photos and it looks like they've haven't found it yet.
-
Unfortunately I have been pinning more of my future hopes on DT, having given up on IS.
-
Also aggravating is the fact that this stupid policy isn't applied equally.
Here's what I found with the first search that popped into my head, sorted by age (so these are all new ULs):
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-controller-image22041060 (http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-controller-image22041060)
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-controller-image22030862 (http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-controller-image22030862)
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-controller-image22030854 (http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-controller-image22030854)
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-controller-image22030847 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-controller-image22030847)
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-controller-image22030839 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-controller-image22030839)
I think 4 of 5 of these are substantially different and should've been approved. However, given the rejections mentioned in this thread, I suspect most who have been subjected to DT's policy might wonder how all of these were approved.
Here's one more set. Again, I think they're fine, but it does seem to contradict what others are experiencing:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-smiling-console-gamer-image21740308 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-smiling-console-gamer-image21740308)
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-smiling-console-gamer-image21740298 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-smiling-console-gamer-image21740298)
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-gamer-sitting-on-couch-with-controller-image21740256 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-gamer-sitting-on-couch-with-controller-image21740256)
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-gamer-sitting-on-couch-with-controller-image21740206 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-gamer-sitting-on-couch-with-controller-image21740206)
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-gamer-sitting-on-couch-with-controller-image21740186 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-gamer-sitting-on-couch-with-controller-image21740186)
-
KB thats a very easy one, DT loves "newbies" I am not saying that those pics arenīt done well but they are from very new contributors..
I will never understand really, they reject because of their levels (I dont agree but.. ok)
BUT then approved the exact same type of pictures done by new contributors.. they really want "old" contributors to stop working and want "newbies" to sell level 0 :D
p.s: what I am saying is that if a new contributor upload some of our work it would certainly go in easily..
-
KB thats a very easy one, DT loves "newbies" I am not saying that those pics arenīt done well but they are from very new contributors..
I will never understand really, they reject because of their levels (I dont agree but.. ok)
BUT then approved the exact same type of pictures done by new contributors.. they really want "old" contributors to stop working and want "newbies" to sell level 0 :D
p.s: what I am saying is that if a new contributor upload some of our work it would certainly go in easily..
I have noticed this occurring at more than a few sites, some are more blatant than others.
-
DT admins read posts on this site so I wonder what they think of contributors being so ticked at their policies. Personally I'd just like to see consistency. A while ago they announced they would be going through the catalogue and weeding out images that went against their similar policy. I had a couple from my port deleted at that time. And yet:
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-paradise-in-sunset-image17810294 (http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-paradise-in-sunset-image17810294)
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-pleasure-of-the-sunset-image17775177 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-pleasure-of-the-sunset-image17775177)
My understanding was that any image you could simply flip to place the subject on the other side of the frame would be considered too similar. I guess they missed the above.
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-woman-makes-heart-by-hands-at-sunset-image17888981 (http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-woman-makes-heart-by-hands-at-sunset-image17888981)
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-woman-makes-heart-by-hands-at-sunset-image17888987 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-woman-makes-heart-by-hands-at-sunset-image17888987)
Maybe models are exempt. Or finger placement is enough to make it completely different.
http://www.dreamstime.com/silhouette-at-sunset-image16064673 (http://www.dreamstime.com/silhouette-at-sunset-image16064673)
http://www.dreamstime.com/silhouette-at-sunset-image16064602 (http://www.dreamstime.com/silhouette-at-sunset-image16064602)
This one really got me. Maybe the photographer is Serban's cousin. I don't have a problem with the shots or the photographers but it would be nice if they applied the rules fairly with everyone.
-
I know your trying to prove the point that its inconsistent but I wouldn't be too happy if it was more portfolio you were using as examples.
-
several reviewers seem to think similar TITLES is enough to reject, even though content is completely different
-
DT admins read posts on this site. [] Maybe the photographer is Serban's cousin.
Ouch. Not very clever, isn't it? ;)
-
DT admins read posts on this site. [] Maybe the photographer is Serban's cousin.
Ouch. Not very clever, isn't it? ;)
You're not afraid of DT admins are you? I have no fear or reason to watch what I say when the big bad scary admins might read it. I've said far worse. They need to know when their contributors have issues with them. I would not have guessed you'd be so frightened of them. Not clever. Better than being timid. Grow a pair. ;)
-
I know your trying to prove the point that its inconsistent but I wouldn't be too happy if it was more portfolio you were using as examples.
Yeah. That's kind of why I said, in plain english no less, that I had no problem with the shots or the photographers. It's not the photographer's problem it's the reviewers. I can't think of how I could say that clearer. Would smaller words help.
Me no have bad thoughts of picture takers or pictures. You get now?
-
I would not have guessed you'd be so frightened of them. Not clever. Better than being timid. Grow a pair. ;)
A few of my issues is that I grew far more than a pair. ;)
The similars problem could be solved by designating a series as such and only the blanket image would show up in searches with a special icon. As for now (and that goes for all sites) the DB is linear. That's really unsustainable in DB'es of over 10M. Canstock made an attempt with its series editor. This would also solve OP's particular problem that is very real.
-
I don't really see the point of a series editor when there are subs or cheap XS sizes on a site. Every time I see a whole series of my images downloaded for a few bucks, I feel ripped off. I'm not sure why I'd organize them, so it would happen more often. I'm just saying.
-
I don't really see the point of a series editor when there are subs or cheap XS sizes on a site. Every time I see a whole series of my images downloaded for a few bucks, I feel ripped off. I'm not sure why I'd organize them, so it would happen more often. I'm just saying.
Well you're attacking the subs system then or the prices, not the fact that the search engine is overloaded with similars and that my solution of a blanket image would address this issue. By the way, I'm just thinking in a tech way.
Now let me play the advocate of the devil for a moment. Imagine that OP combined all his 50 state stamps on one image. That image would be downloaded a lot by all folks needing just one. It would rise rapidly in the levels, giving him much more total revenue than 50 level 0 images rising to level 1.
-
I don't really see the point of a series editor when there are subs or cheap XS sizes on a site. Every time I see a whole series of my images downloaded for a few bucks, I feel ripped off. I'm not sure why I'd organize them, so it would happen more often. I'm just saying.
Well you're attacking the subs system then or the prices, not the fact that the search engine is overloaded with similars and that my solution of a blanket image would address this issue. By the way, I'm just thinking in a tech way.
Now let me play the advocate of the devil for a moment. Imagine that OP combined all his 50 state stamps on one image. That image would be downloaded a lot by all folks needing just one. It would rise rapidly in the levels, giving him much more total revenue than 50 level 0 images rising to level 1.
Achilles?
::)
-
I don't really see the point of a series editor when there are subs or cheap XS sizes on a site. Every time I see a whole series of my images downloaded for a few bucks, I feel ripped off. I'm not sure why I'd organize them, so it would happen more often. I'm just saying.
Well you're attacking the subs system then or the prices, not the fact that the search engine is overloaded with similars and that my solution of a blanket image would address this issue. By the way, I'm just thinking in a tech way.
Now let me play the advocate of the devil for a moment. Imagine that OP combined all his 50 state stamps on one image. That image would be downloaded a lot by all folks needing just one. It would rise rapidly in the levels, giving him much more total revenue than 50 level 0 images rising to level 1.
thats might be true and makes sense but it doesnīt work always, I do have some collections and time to time sell on DT but I never had a high RPD there which in my case means that most of my sales are level 0 or 1, so I am better with 50 files than 1, I am not wasting much my head on DT, of course I will continue to support them but they are my 5th agency :/
-
I was just being grumpy. It just seems like there are so many things to fix with some of these agencies. If you fix one problem, then another one springs up.
Oh well, I'll stop complaining and just get in line for my monthly check. ;D
-
Here's a new DT rejection for me:
"Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented. The primary goal of a stock image is to be generic and match as many usage types as possible. Your image is not generic enough..."
Got 2 this morning. One is a country church hidden in woods and the other is a double iron door with a wreath on it. I don't know what they want anymore.
-
..
"Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented..."
I don't know what they want anymore.
Neither do I. And neither do they. Gee I thought "specific and niche-oriented" was, well, a huge part of the stock photo market - call me crazy. But don't worry, next time the rejection will be "your image is too generic, we need images that meet buyers' specific needs".
These agencies all know they have mountains of keyword-spammed junk, and want to change, but without spending any money actually cleaning up what they already have. I'm guessing they have their reviewers totally confused, each one having his own interpretation of the latest "guidelines".
DT is particularly creepy because they tie your search rank to how well you play their acceptance guessing game.
-
Here's a new DT rejection for me:
"Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented. The primary goal of a stock image is to be generic and match as many usage types as possible. Your image is not generic enough..."
Got 2 this morning. One is a country church hidden in woods and the other is a double iron door with a wreath on it. I don't know what they want anymore.
Yep, I got one of those for a graphic that featured the entire USA... too specific I guess.
-
..
"Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented..."
I don't know what they want anymore.
DT is particularly creepy because they tie your search rank to how well you play their acceptance guessing game.
Agree. I would have accepted that they were LCV or improper lighting or something that wasn't so individually opinionated or controversial.