Quote from: marthamarks on December 03, 2015, 00:01

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 02, 2015, 19:47
Why being afraid of some newbie competition?
Let everyone try it.

I don't think anybody is afraid of newbie competition.

The problem is... it was already hard enough to break through the cacophony of many millions of images vying for attention. Once it's several bazillion images, how will anybody's work stand out long enough to be bought?

ETA: As a contributor who got in on the first crack, I'm very disappointed in SS.

so you are actually afraid of competition.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Quote from: PixelBytes on December 02, 2015, 20:35
All our stuff gonna be buried under the garbage pile.

Yep. That's it.

Quote from: angelawaye on December 02, 2015, 21:01
I'm surprised they are doing this. I just applied to Alamy and they want 4/4 correct and I got accepted on the first time, I felt pretty good about myself. I can't imagine newbies feeling good about getting accepted with a 1/10 ... No confidence booster there ...

Yep.

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 03, 2015, 00:02
so you are actually afraid of competition.

If you say so, fine.

I don't see it as "fear of competition."  I see it as disappointment in a quality agency that has been good to me for years but now seems to have lost its way.

Quote from: marthamarks on December 03, 2015, 00:09

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 03, 2015, 00:02
so you are actually afraid of competition.

If you say so, fine.

I don't see it as "fear of competition."  I see it as disappointment in a quality agency that has been good to me for years but now seems to have lost its way.

The first 10 photos mean nothing.
If your real aim is an improved collection quality, then you want tougher review standards and a higher rejection rate, especially after being accepted.

However, as far as this forum is concerned, the main complaint against SS is the excessive rejection rate.

So, a high rejection rate is OK when applied to a beginner, but not OK when applied to an established contributor. Hmm.....

Why don't they just handle things like Dreamstime? What's the point of requiring 10 images now?

Quote from: stockastic on December 02, 2015, 22:31
It will end up as an all-you-can-eat buffet of junk food. All the lukewarm day-old French Fries you can eat, for one low price.  I haven't seen that business concept tried yet, but personally, I would not invest. :-).

You hit the nail right on the head! I don't think were afraid of competition, now our work will be "diluted" down in the search results ...

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 03, 2015, 01:47
...However, as far as this forum is concerned, the main complaint against SS is the excessive rejection rate.

So, a high rejection rate is OK when applied to a beginner, but not OK when applied to an established contributor. Hmm.....

I can't speak for anyone else, but my complaints are not about the quantity of rejections, but the inconsistency and ignorance (white balance rejections for sunrise or sunset shots, for example).

Shutterstock's review process is seriously flawed and it's the flaws, not the rejection numbers, that are the problem.

Quote from: sharpshot on December 02, 2015, 23:51
Does this mean they are going to lower their review standards or why would they let people that can only get 1/10 submit? 

Ding, ding, ding!  You are correct sir!!

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on December 03, 2015, 03:21

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 03, 2015, 01:47
...However, as far as this forum is concerned, the main complaint against SS is the excessive rejection rate.

So, a high rejection rate is OK when applied to a beginner, but not OK when applied to an established contributor. Hmm.....

I can't speak for anyone else, but my complaints are not about the quantity of rejections, but the inconsistency and ignorance (white balance rejections for sunrise or sunset shots, for example).

Shutterstock's review process is seriously flawed and it's the flaws, not the rejection numbers, that are the problem.

Fine, I get that.
But then what makes you believe that the same flawed rejections are not applicable to the first 10 photos, denying access to some really good photographers?
Following the same logic as in the previous post, are the flawed rejections only applicable to established contributors?

I guess not.

Then the talk should be about flawed rejections in general, be it for the first 10 or the next 990 and not about removing the admission test, which is flawed by your definition, therefore irrelevant.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I wonder what Oringer thinks about all this

I mean, the part of you as an entrepreneuer that conceived, and help build out and grow this company from a startup, to see what is happening, and guessing where thos will all lead to, must in some way be a very sad thing to witness

But i guess the other part, the billionaire business man part, might be saying, meh what happens, happens, im set for many lifetimes

Quote from: noodle on December 03, 2015, 03:29
I wonder what Oringer thinks about all this

I mean, the part of you as an entrepreneuer that conceived, and help build out and grow this company from a startup, to see what is happening, and guessing where thos will all lead to, must in some way be a very sad thing to witness

But i guess the other part, the billionaire business man part, might be saying, meh what happens, happens, im set for many lifetimes

^^ That.

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 03, 2015, 03:25

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on December 03, 2015, 03:21

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 03, 2015, 01:47
...However, as far as this forum is concerned, the main complaint against SS is the excessive rejection rate.

So, a high rejection rate is OK when applied to a beginner, but not OK when applied to an established contributor. Hmm.....

I can't speak for anyone else, but my complaints are not about the quantity of rejections, but the inconsistency and ignorance (white balance rejections for sunrise or sunset shots, for example).

Shutterstock's review process is seriously flawed and it's the flaws, not the rejection numbers, that are the problem.

Fine, I get that.
But then what makes you believe that the same flawed rejections are not applicable to the first 10 photos, denying access to some really good photographers?
Following the same logic as in the previous post, are the flawed rejections only applicable to established contributors?

I guess not.

Then the talk should be about flawed rejections in general, be it for the first 10 or the next 990 and not about removing the admission test, which is flawed by your definition, therefore irrelevant.

I don't know anything about the process of reviewing the initial 10, but I'm assuming that it is given more individual attention than the reviews of accepted content. I don't think it's any more logical to assume it's the same process (which at other agencies it isn't) that to assume it's different.

And as far as talking about the flawed review process, that's been done. Nothing will happen until Shutterstock decides to focus on something other than cutting costs.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on December 03, 2015, 04:49

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 03, 2015, 03:25

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on December 03, 2015, 03:21

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 03, 2015, 01:47
...However, as far as this forum is concerned, the main complaint against SS is the excessive rejection rate.

So, a high rejection rate is OK when applied to a beginner, but not OK when applied to an established contributor. Hmm.....

I can't speak for anyone else, but my complaints are not about the quantity of rejections, but the inconsistency and ignorance (white balance rejections for sunrise or sunset shots, for example).

Shutterstock's review process is seriously flawed and it's the flaws, not the rejection numbers, that are the problem.

Fine, I get that.
But then what makes you believe that the same flawed rejections are not applicable to the first 10 photos, denying access to some really good photographers?
Following the same logic as in the previous post, are the flawed rejections only applicable to established contributors?

I guess not.

Then the talk should be about flawed rejections in general, be it for the first 10 or the next 990 and not about removing the admission test, which is flawed by your definition, therefore irrelevant.

I don't know anything about the process of reviewing the initial 10, but I'm assuming that it is given more individual attention than the reviews of accepted content. I don't think it's any more logical to assume it's the same process (which at other agencies it isn't) that to assume it's different.

And as far as talking about the flawed review process, that's been done. Nothing will happen until Shutterstock decides to focus on something other than cutting costs.

Right, you don't know anything about the initial review and the whole debate is only based on assumtions and speculations.

My assumption is that the same reviewers review the first 10 as any other 10.
This is even in the spirit of cutting costs.

A more thorough review probably means that the first 10 are thrown once more in the reviewing pool, for a second opinion.

If we safely assume that the review process is flawed, the first 10 will have twice the chance to be badly reviewed than any other 10 photos from an established contributor.

Leaving aside the fact that this is double unfair for beginners, SS has probably observed that the admission control virtually stopped new blood from flowing into the system and decided to fully open the valves.
They probably even removed the second opinion requirement.

The first 10 are now treated the same way as the next 990.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 03, 2015, 01:47
So, a high rejection rate is OK when applied to a beginner, but not OK when applied to an established contributor. Hmm.....

I don't understand the need you have to distort what others are saying.

Getting upset for having a good image lost in the middle of tenths of thousands of poor quality images is not fearing the competition, like you said, because in fact we're not facing competition in that sense, just fighting an avalanche. Even the most experienced Everest and K2 climbers fear avalanches, since they have nothing to do with their skills, except for the fact that they may know that they should stay away from where they are more likely.

And I like many others, are not upset about the rejections since we dealt with them since day one. I only get upset when they are illogical, make no sense and especially for the wrong reasons.

I think that their next step will be to accept any crap, like did iStock about one year ago...

Quote from: StockPhotosArt on December 03, 2015, 06:17

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 03, 2015, 01:47
So, a high rejection rate is OK when applied to a beginner, but not OK when applied to an established contributor. Hmm.....

I don't understand the need you have to distort what others are saying.

Getting upset for having a good image lost in the middle of tenths of thousands of poor quality images is not fearing the competition, like you said, because in fact we're not facing competition in that sense, just fighting an avalanche. Even the most experienced Everest and K2 climbers fear avalanches, since they have nothing to do with their skills, except for the fact that they may know that they should stay away from where they are more likely.

And I like many others, are not upset about the rejections since we dealt with them since day one. I only get upset when they are illogical, make no sense and especially for the wrong reasons.

I'm not distorting. I'm trying to be impartial and objective.

Otherwise, I belive that good images make it to the top much faster on SS, than on any other agency.

The avalanche of mediocrity, is not caused by beginners, but by those established contributors who belive that volume matters more than quality.

Even if you don't want to admit it, that avalanche of mediocrity IS your competition.



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Their criteria are changing. Now not only in title of the image should not be "foreign" text, they rejected image of a church with latin text on the external wall. Which language is not foreign for this reviewer? In the same time they send e-mail that they want a free image and requested personal data from photographer. Thanks, ss, your e-mail is in trash.

Quote from: skyfish on December 03, 2015, 07:51
Their criteria are changing. Now not only in title of the image should not be "foreign" text, they rejected image of a church with latin text on the external wall. Which language is not foreign for this reviewer? In the same time they send e-mail that they want a free image and requested personal data from photographer. Thanks, ss, your e-mail is in trash.

Normally SS accept them as editorial images.

Thank you for your reply, but in editorial section such type of images has much less value, and reupload to them is just a waste of time. Others accepted and it will stay with them.

Quote from: Chichikov on December 03, 2015, 06:21
I think that their next step will be to accept any crap, like did iStock about one year ago...

You mean this crap?
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

It took me several attempts over 2 years to get on to ss . I guess the floodgates are open now.

Please vote in the poll at the link below on why shutterstock made this move.

Poll

Quote from: Karen on December 03, 2015, 09:47

Quote from: Chichikov on December 03, 2015, 06:21
I think that their next step will be to accept any crap, like did iStock about one year ago...

You mean this crap?
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

Until cannabis is legalised, users will risk brain damage...

One key question of debate is whether the new acceptance criteria is also a factor of a "new normal inspection process". This is to say that if they are easing contributor acceptance it is a good indicator that they might then ease daily content acceptance.  This is the real thing we must worry about because then many of these reasonable comments have more weight of concern in my opinion, such as having a good selling image get buried in a now taxed search engine around a cloud of mediocracy. 

I will also say that since mediocracy sells, the problem of being found is exacerbated.

Quote from: Karen on December 03, 2015, 09:47

Quote from: Chichikov on December 03, 2015, 06:21
I think that their next step will be to accept any crap, like did iStock about one year ago...

You mean this crap?
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

OMG. At first I thought that was broccoli. LOL.

QuoteI will also say that since mediocracy sells, the problem of being found is exacerbated.

Yes, it is just going to cause buyers to have to do more wading to find what they want. That is never a good thing.