QuotePosted by: sharpshot
« on: Today at 09:44 » Insert Quote
I would only make a collage if they could be sold for more.  I know they might one day reach a higher level but I'm afraid that doesn't make me want to sell several images as one when they're sold separately on other sites.  And they're always going to be available at full size for subs commissions.  That's just not on.

I also wonder what happens to the buyers that don't want a collage and aren't good with photoshop?

I absolutely agree with you. In my case I can't afford to make one collage with all my good sellers and make them available for subs. 

I just had a sub download today of one image with 6 full resolution objects in a collage.  These are very frustrating,  I am done with uploading collages unless they somehow change the policy that collages are a different price point.  In my case AT LEAST .35 x 6 = $2.10.

I'm not seeing any policy change regarding similars. Have had half a dozen rejected this week under this policy. I haven't yet bothered but I guess I could make a collage with the rejected ones?

I'm not seeing any changes in this so call new policy either.  Today I had 6 different poses of the the same subject and they all were rejected.  Talk is cheap!!

Quote from: oscarcwilliams on March 12, 2013, 07:35
I'm not seeing any changes in this so call new policy either.  Today I had 6 different poses of the the same subject and they all were rejected.  Talk is cheap!!

If they were all rejected then surely that isn't because of similars.   If it was similars that they didn't want then they would have approved at least one.

I know they take forever on reviews but it is 10 days since resub and no answer yet.

I don't think anyone has told the reviewers.

I just had one of two rejected for the "You already have several very similar images in your portfolio or approved within this batch" reason. As I don't have any of this particular subject in my portfolio, I can only surmise that two similars are still one too many.

Quote from: michaeldb on March 02, 2013, 17:24
........
I hope that the same changes in policy will also be applied to illustrations. I have created new images of new concepts using elements from previously submitted images, only to have them rejected as too similar. I never understood this......

Yes it is absolutely insane. I have also created new completely unrelated concepts using a few of the same elements as some of my previous work and had them rejected. No overlap in the target audience at all. They seem to just do it absolutely methodically without any thought.  I also hope the new policy applies to illustrations.

A policy like this, applied mindlessly, is just nuts.   It's the sort of thing that causes valuable contributors to just give up and leave.   I think they kicked this off with some sort of statement that this would actually benefit contributors.  Good luck convincing anyone of that today.

DT always kicks off changes with how they will benefit contributors (at least when telling the contributors about it). When I look at my DT earnings graph the general trend is a slow rise with drastic drops for the 2 big commission cuts that were to benefit contributors followed by a slow rise again (except it has been pretty stagnant lately).

The similars policy always seemed rather poorly implemented to me anyway, it would be nice if they actually accepted things that were different instead of rejecting them as similar. At least now they are finally admitting that maybe the policy wasn´t the best idea after all. It only took what? 2 or 3 years?

I think this has 1 real goal: reduce reviewing costs.  Every other stated reason is B.S.   The reviewer is told to pick the one image he thinks would make 80% of the sales, and dump the rest without even a close look, saving significant reviewing time.  They figure the cost savings outweigh any lost sales.  The contributor loses because he's already had to spend time on all the images, not just the one that ultimately gets in.

The stuff about increasing sales by reducing search fatigue etc. is baloney; 'search' is a software issue.  For example, 'similars' (their dismissive name for alternate poses, color variations etc) could be shown optionally, with a 'click here to see others in this series' feature on the UI.   

It's just a cold-blooded business decision. That's their right, of course, but they could skip the weasel words.

Quote from: fotografer on March 12, 2013, 09:30

Quote from: oscarcwilliams on March 12, 2013, 07:35
I'm not seeing any changes in this so call new policy either.  Today I had 6 different poses of the the same subject and they all were rejected.  Talk is cheap!!

If they were all rejected then surely that isn't because of similars.   If it was similars that they didn't want then they would have approved at least one.

sometimes I think they forget to approve even one. I've had that happen too, 3 images rejected as being too similar to each other, and then, oops, zero go through. you just have to laugh and move on, clearly they didn't like them enough in the first place. (a case of "we're just not that into you")

So I read this and thought I would try a few, you guessed it......they rejected some as being to similar and already have some that are from the same batch! So maybe only a selected few can get a whole batch accepted?