MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Can Resubmit" link better/different from "Upload" link  (Read 13498 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 14, 2007, 15:48 »
0
Frequently I get IS rejections that are trivial/minor. So, I correct the issue(s).
I have not found any advantage of submitting through the "Can Resubmit" link. Many times - more often than I would like - the new reviewer rejects the picture for a completely different reason. Very, very frustrating.
Do resubmits get a "resubmitted" - flag? I doubt it. It seems the new reviewer does not bother looking at the initial reasons for the rejection at all.

Does anybody have a different/same experience?
Any insights for resubmissions?

Thanks


« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2007, 16:09 »
0
Yes, I have that sometimes.  When I have two rejections on the same file, I either write to Scout, if I think they're just being picky, or I forget about the file.

I also had two images of one series rejected, one with the "can resubmit" because of some technical issue, the other with "no resubmit" because of possible copyright infringement.  I was going to resubmit the first, then gave up not to waste my time.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2007, 23:54 »
0
According to stuff I've seen posted on istock forums by admins, the inspectors get to see the reason that a shot was rejected when it's resubmitted .

This may be stating the obvious if you  are an experienced photographer, but make sure that you are redoing the original tiff or RAW files when re-editing for resubmission - if you go working on already worked over jpegs it's awfully easy to create artifacts that  weren't there in the original - and hence trigger a different reason for rejection. And rejigging lighting in Photoshop it's very easy to create artifacts that weren't there in the first version, whether it's a tiff or a jpeg you are playing with. And cloning out of logos etc has to be done cleanly or it can trigger an "overfiltered" rejection (which seems to be code for "your photoshop work sucks/is too obvious").

So the problems aren't necessarily in the first submission - fixing up one problem can create new ones. It's also the case that it's quite likely not everything would be picked up first time around - I know if I were an inspector, once I'd found one issue with a file, I suspect that the chances are  I wouldn't be quite as careful with inspecting it for other issues, if I know that I was going to reject it anyway.

If you are allowed to resubmit you are supposed to go through the "correct channels" ie the resubmit link. Resubmitting an already uploaded and rejected image through the general queue is frowned upon.

« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2007, 07:54 »
0
If the problem is indeed with the picture, I completely agree to go back the the RAW file. However, if the reviewers objection is with the description of the Picture or the keywords and I correct that and on the second go around the 2nd reviewer comes back with problems of a different nature, it takes at least 3 weeks to get a picture approved of which 2 weeks are wasted.

It IS just frustrating, especially since 2 of my top 3 pictures are resubmits.

Thanks for your inputs/insights though.

« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2007, 16:19 »
0
Susan,

What you wrote may be the case for many people, but I guess this is not the case for Read_My_Rights' images nor mine.

My images are shot of JPEG but the first thing I do is to convert them to TIFF when I choose some to edit.  Certainly sometimes the image edition introduces more artifacting or noise, but sometimes they see what's not there.  Along this year and so that I've been there, in some occasions I had an image rejected for "artifacting" or "hot pixels" when in fact what the inspector saw were speckles from reflection on texture - quite obvious to me in fact.  In such occasions a second inspection from Scout solved the matter (but it takes so long...)

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2007, 17:48 »
0
I've been caught by the texture that looks like artifacting too!  In the end (after a lengthy and animated correspondence with scout!) I decided to stop fighting that one - if it looks like artifacting to a third party without the actual object in front of them, then it might annoy buyers too. It's often possible to reshoot without the texture being so obvious and in the end that's what I did.

« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2010, 15:54 »
0
in my case, at the beginning, it appears that RESUBMIT is given priority for subsequent approval, once you corrected the rejection reason. eg.. a couple of irrelevant keywords.

as for redoing a rejected image due to artifacts, fringing,etc,.. usually i don't bother. or more so, it says NO RESUBMIT.

the only gripe i have with IS is the rejection due to one (or two) irrelevant keywords.
it would have been more "friendly"  (translated as to mean - if IS is really concerned  with contributors good faith and relationship), if it is approved with either the irrelevant keyword(s) removed, or a note to ask the contributor to remove it.
this way, the approval is instant, instead of pushing it way back the queque.

that is, of course, something IS would do, IF they were in fact "friendly".

but then again, IS does not  need to be " friendly"!  i suppose ,  LOL


ps. ok, i know it's an old link, but i wasn't there when this came out

« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2010, 23:01 »
0
You'll get that kind of "friendliness" from iStock if you go exclusive with them.
Put another way, iStock exclusive don't get rejections for bad/inappropriate keywords - the offending keywords are removed for them.

« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2010, 13:14 »
0
Talk about resurrecting old threads!  ;)

« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2010, 18:26 »
0
You'll get that kind of "friendliness" from iStock if you go exclusive with them.
Put another way, iStock exclusive don't get rejections for bad/inappropriate keywords - the offending keywords are removed for them.

oh how sweet. and they tell me there is no conspiracy in IS  ;D

Talk about resurrecting old threads!  ;)

oh bite me! why not?  i could have started a new thread and no one would say anything?
why do that?

« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2010, 18:31 »
0
No, it's not a conspiracy - it's just one of the benefits of being exclusive: no more keyword rejections.

« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2010, 18:59 »
0
No, it's not a conspiracy - it's just one of the benefits of being exclusive: no more keyword rejections.

well, i suppose that's fair. considering you're giving up a lot to be exclusive.

« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2010, 19:14 »
0
Quote
No, it's not a conspiracy - it's just one of the benefits of being exclusive: no more keyword rejections.

Even if they are bad keywords or spam keywords? That doesn't sound like a benefit to the buyers.

« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2010, 20:29 »
0
Umm ... I think you need to read what I wrote six postings up.

« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2010, 20:29 »
0
Quote
No, it's not a conspiracy - it's just one of the benefits of being exclusive: no more keyword rejections.

Even if they are bad keywords or spam keywords? That doesn't sound like a benefit to the buyers.

no, the irrelevant keyword(s) is / are removed by the reviewer(s).

still,  i don't even think the buyers even use keywords anymore. with subs, why would you bother with keywords, just take all the XL you see ...      ;)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2010, 20:31 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2010, 20:51 »
0
No, it's not a conspiracy - it's just one of the benefits of being exclusive: no more keyword rejections.
Given that you keyword correctly and minimally, in my (independent) experience, IS will not reject an image just for keywords. If they do so, you will often see that they reject the image at resubmit for other reasons.
As to the famous "distortion/overfiltering", I had a very borderline shot accepted recently because it was at a unique location regularly in the news.

« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2010, 21:25 »
0
No, it's not a conspiracy - it's just one of the benefits of being exclusive: no more keyword rejections.
Given that you keyword correctly and minimally, in my (independent) experience, IS will not reject an image just for keywords. If they do so, you will often see that they reject the image at resubmit for other reasons.
As to the famous "distortion/overfiltering", I had a very borderline shot accepted recently because it was at a unique location regularly in the news.

well, in my own (independent) experience, i have to disagree . in the past month alone, i had several rejections based on a single keyword or category pointed out by the reviewer as irrelevant. when i resubmitted they were ALL approved .
in fact, my rejections that were based on keywords with IS have never been rejected subsequently for another reason. 
the reason is that I am used to including conceptual keywords which are considered relevant by other sites, but not so by IS. or at least , a certain reviewer tends to nap me for this "offence".
but to be fair to IS, it's not true that the reviewer will find another reason to reject your image on the resubmit.

at least, in my case.

incidentally, of the 4 sites, i personally find IS reviewers to be the most consistent and most thorough.  i cannot say for the other 3 of the big 4.
perharps this may be due to the other 3 having some real looney tooney reviewers who , as i mentioned before, will approve something as imbecile as dog poop, horse poop, etc.. and then reject a seemingly stock image as "poor composition" or "no stock potential usage". especially when the other reviewers have already approved similar images from the batch .

this inconsistency is not found with IS reviewers.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2010, 21:30 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2010, 00:17 »
0
Given that you keyword correctly and minimally ...

Why on earth would you keyword minimally? Proper and adequate keywording is one of the cornerstones in getting good exposure - you are literally selling yourself short by spending a trivial amount of time with keywords. Like a lot of things, there's more to this than meets the eye.

« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2010, 00:57 »
0
Why on earth would you keyword minimally? Proper and adequate keywording is one of the cornerstones in getting good exposure - you are literally selling yourself short by spending a trivial amount of time with keywords.
I leave out most concepts (unless it's the focus) or emotions. Those are the ones that reviewers mostly reject. It's better to have it accepted with sparse keywords than not have it accepted at all.

« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2010, 14:35 »
0
Why on earth would you keyword minimally? Proper and adequate keywording is one of the cornerstones in getting good exposure - you are literally selling yourself short by spending a trivial amount of time with keywords.
I leave out most concepts (unless it's the focus) or emotions. Those are the ones that reviewers mostly reject. It's better to have it accepted with sparse keywords than not have it accepted at all.

there i have to agree with FDamateur.
of the times i get nabbed by IS reviewer for irrelevant keywords, there were all conceptual which are accepted by the other top 4. nowadays, i simply leave out the conceptual and / or emotions too.
sure, i sell myself short for leaving out those keywords. but if i do  and get a rejection, needing to resubmit would push my image to be delayed yet another 2-3 weeks.  so i play it safe now to get them approved first time.

« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2010, 15:18 »
0
Put another way, iStock exclusive don't get rejections for bad/inappropriate keywords - the offending keywords are removed for them.

I think that should be natural thing to do for everybody. It should take same amount of time (human or cpu time) to remove offending keywords. They must to do it anyway to generate email. I would gladly agree to make it happen by running a script. I got a feeling that in many case it's just an excuse to reject without give valid technical reason.

« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2010, 15:19 »
0
Does anybody have a different/same experience?
Any insights for resubmissions?

Takes on submission slot anyway so what's point of resubmit? It was not designed to smooth up submission process but slow you down.

« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2010, 15:52 »
0
Put another way, iStock exclusive don't get rejections for bad/inappropriate keywords - the offending keywords are removed for them.

I think that should be natural thing to do for everybody. It should take same amount of time (human or cpu time) to remove offending keywords. They must to do it anyway to generate email. I would gladly agree to make it happen by running a script. I got a feeling that in many case it's just an excuse to reject without give valid technical reason.

good point mela. the reviewer actually waste more energy writing the rejection email asking us to remove the offending keyword(s) or / and category.
then we waste another email to them, giving Support or the reviewer another job,
which then , in most cases, gets the images approved subsequently.
by this time, two, three, four weeks have past ...
and the loser would be the contributor, the buyer, and Getty ..
for potential sale delayed.

maybe some CEO at IStock can explain how this builds goodwill between independent contributors
or make a reviewer look "good"...
or maybe the reviewer gets paid twice?  not sure !!!

i am sure this is the work of only certain reviewers at IS.
at most times i get the appreciative reviewers who approve my work.
but 20% of the time,  i do get this "pig" who just loves to aggravate the issue ;)
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 15:56 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2010, 16:56 »
0
If I put together a upload process for IS for non-exclusives I get this (from two active topics):
- send only a few images you produce (because of the upload limits)
- downsize to 2mp to avoid artifacting
- keyword minimally to avoid rejection for keywords

No wonder exclusives are doing that well there!

« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2010, 16:57 »
0
Put another way, iStock exclusive don't get rejections for bad/inappropriate keywords - the offending keywords are removed for them.

I think that should be natural thing to do for everybody. It should take same amount of time (human or cpu time) to remove offending keywords. They must to do it anyway to generate email. I would gladly agree to make it happen by running a script. I got a feeling that in many case it's just an excuse to reject without give valid technical reason.
This is true to some extent but think about how many people would just spam the keywords until they had 50 and let the reviewers decides which are valid. That would take a lot more time and it would take even longer for images to get accepted.

« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2010, 17:29 »
0
Put another way, iStock exclusive don't get rejections for bad/inappropriate keywords - the offending keywords are removed for them.

I think that should be natural thing to do for everybody. It should take same amount of time (human or cpu time) to remove offending keywords. They must to do it anyway to generate email. I would gladly agree to make it happen by running a script. I got a feeling that in many case it's just an excuse to reject without give valid technical reason.
This is true to some extent but think about how many people would just spam the keywords until they had 50 and let the reviewers decides which are valid. That would take a lot more time and it would take even longer for images to get accepted.

Common how big is CV, 10K words? It's probably matter of milliseconds to get 50 keywords checked against it. And as I said previously they must be doing it already cause it's hard to believe reviewer is hand picking words to paste them into email.

« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2010, 17:31 »
0
Put another way, iStock exclusive don't get rejections for bad/inappropriate keywords - the offending keywords are removed for them.

I think that should be natural thing to do for everybody. It should take same amount of time (human or cpu time) to remove offending keywords. They must to do it anyway to generate email. I would gladly agree to make it happen by running a script. I got a feeling that in many case it's just an excuse to reject without give valid technical reason.
This is true to some extent but think about how many people would just spam the keywords until they had 50 and let the reviewers decides which are valid. That would take a lot more time and it would take even longer for images to get accepted.

Common how big is CV, 10K words? It's probably matter of milliseconds to get 50 keywords checked against it. And as I said previously they must be doing it already cause it's hard to believe reviewer is hand picking words to paste them into email.
Why would they compare keywords to CV? They are checking them if they are valid for the image. I imagine they click on the keywords that are not appropriate and the systems generates the email based on that.

PS: You can also add keywords that aren't in CV, however they won't be translated over to other languages, so only people using the language you use for keywords, will be able to find your pictures on those keywords.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 17:33 by LostOne »

« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2010, 17:44 »
0
Put another way, iStock exclusive don't get rejections for bad/inappropriate keywords - the offending keywords are removed for them.

I think that should be natural thing to do for everybody. It should take same amount of time (human or cpu time) to remove offending keywords. They must to do it anyway to generate email. I would gladly agree to make it happen by running a script. I got a feeling that in many case it's just an excuse to reject without give valid technical reason.
This is true to some extent but think about how many people would just spam the keywords until they had 50 and let the reviewers decides which are valid. That would take a lot more time and it would take even longer for images to get accepted.

Common how big is CV, 10K words? It's probably matter of milliseconds to get 50 keywords checked against it. And as I said previously they must be doing it already cause it's hard to believe reviewer is hand picking words to paste them into email.
Why would they compare keywords to CV? They are checking them if they are valid for the image. I imagine they click on the keywords that are not appropriate and the systems generates the email based on that.

PS: You can also add keywords that aren't in CV, however they won't be translated over to other languages, so only people using the language you use for keywords, will be able to find your pictures on those keywords.

So what's the difference between actions to generate email or deleting keywords? I would say generating email is more CPU intensive than deleting couple strings?

« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2010, 18:00 »
0
The problem is that the current state of the art in computers isn't able to figure out if keyword business is appropriate for an image. The reviewer has to click them. And if IS said "We will remove the bad keywords", everyone would spam the keywords until they had 50 of them. Then the reviewers would have to click a whole lot more. The actual removing isn't the problem, clicking is.

« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2010, 18:20 »
0
This is true to some extent but think about how many people would just spam the keywords until they had 50 and let the reviewers decides which are valid. That would take a lot more time and it would take even longer for images to get accepted.

not sure if i understand your gist to this argument.
are you implying that no IS exclusive would "just spam the keywords" but all independents would be prone ?
that is why IS exclusives get this benefit and the independents don't?

why is this?
do you think that exclusives are created differently ? or that independents are mental midgets?

« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2010, 18:36 »
0
No, I just think they tolerate it with exclusives doing it but aren't prepared to increase the queues  even more (or pay more inspectors) to do it for independents. They should have some benefits since they've put all eggs in one basket.

Besides maybe major offenders might get some kind of a warning about spamming?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 18:38 by LostOne »

« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2010, 18:49 »
0
No, I just think they tolerate it with exclusives doing it but aren't prepared to increase the queues  even more (or pay more inspectors) to do it for independents. They should have some benefits since they've put all eggs in one basket.

Besides maybe major offenders might get some kind of a warning about spamming?

ah, fair enough !
of course!.. i don't contend with that reasoning.  honorary badge of merit to  higher tolerance for rubbish in return fortheir putting all their eggs in one basket. sounds fair .
cheers for the quick clarify ;)

« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2010, 18:53 »
0
I just wonder if reviewers have to hand pick offending words? If CV is limited and each keyword must usually appear together with some other related keywords it must be possible to define rule that would some probability guess that if it can find words like apple, red, delicious, round, fruit, image could show apple and mark other words that are not often visible with these five mentioned. Something similar to Google's Page Rank so offending words would have lowest rank and appear last. If they can automate some thing it would be easier for them to use it for everybody.

« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2010, 21:58 »
0
- keyword minimally to avoid rejection for keywords

Just an update on this, as I was crawling through my "can resubmits" last night. My last reject purely for keywords was this:
Descr: Portrait of Korean punker pushing headphones to his ears, eyes closed, listening to music. Isolated over white.


IS:  ???
Quote
The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.
{[ Fine Art Portrait (Portrait), Human Ear (The Human Body), Human Eye (The Human Body), Closed (Physical Description), Pushing, Lifestyles]}
Some of the keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.
Under the new controlled vocabulary system that we now use, images need fewer keywords to do well in searches. The site automatically handles translations and synonyms, so you do not have to.
Please provide a set of simple, descriptive, focused keywords for this image before resubmitting.

So the keywords will be: one person, isolated (cut out), male, Korean (Asian ethnicity), listening, music.
But wait, maybe he is listening to a speech of Obama = music.
And who says he is listening? He was probably pondering how much his model fee will be = listening.
Is he really Korean? It wasn't mentioned on his ID, so Korean.

So the "focused keywords for this image" will be: one person, isolated, male.
Of course they will reject it then for "feathering" so I will save one round by applying my brand new 2MP-IS action: resize from 5616 to 1800 longest side (bicubic sharper), select #FFF (0 tolerance, non antialiased, not contiguous), feather this selection with 1.5px, edit>fill>white.
The final reject will then be because the Model Release has a dog-ear. ;D
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 22:12 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2010, 22:24 »
0
No, I just think they tolerate it with exclusives doing it but aren't prepared to increase the queues  even more (or pay more inspectors) to do it for independents.
Which makes no business sense at all because IS earns the most money per DL from independents, e.g. "Large  Regular  2.78" (10 credits).

KB

« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2010, 23:25 »
0
- keyword minimally to avoid rejection for keywords

Just an update on this, as I was crawling through my "can resubmits" last night. My last reject purely for keywords was this:
Descr: Portrait of Korean punker pushing headphones to his ears, eyes closed, listening to music. Isolated over white.


IS:  ???
Quote
The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.
{[ Fine Art Portrait (Portrait), Human Ear (The Human Body), Human Eye (The Human Body), Closed (Physical Description), Pushing, Lifestyles]}
Some of the keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.
Under the new controlled vocabulary system that we now use, images need fewer keywords to do well in searches. The site automatically handles translations and synonyms, so you do not have to.
Please provide a set of simple, descriptive, focused keywords for this image before resubmitting.

So the keywords will be: one person, isolated (cut out), male, Korean (Asian ethnicity), listening, music.
But wait, maybe he is listening to a speech of Obama = music.
And who says he is listening? He was probably pondering how much his model fee will be = listening.
Is he really Korean? It wasn't mentioned on his ID, so Korean.

So the "focused keywords for this image" will be: one person, isolated, male.
Of course they will reject it then for "feathering" so I will save one round by applying my brand new 2MP-IS action: resize from 5616 to 1800 longest side (bicubic sharper), select #FFF (0 tolerance, non antialiased, not contiguous), feather this selection with 1.5px, edit>fill>white.
The final reject will then be because the Model Release has a dog-ear. ;D

I'd probably include the word headphones, but that's just me.  ;D Also, wearing. And I see nothing wrong with music or listening -- those are obviously implied, and someone searching for music listening would expect to see images such as this one.

What makes this a fine art portrait in your view?

Human ear -- really? I don't see an ear. If someone is doing a search on human ear, do you really think they'll buy this? Maybe you should add nose, and brain, and lips, and hair, and face, and ...? (Actually, now that I mention it, the guy's hair probably is relevant ... ;D )

Human eye -- Read the current discussion on this very subject in the keywording forum (TOTW: Human Eye): http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=190141

Closed -- What's closed? His mouth? His brain? The headphones? Oh, his eyes! How about eyes closed then?

Pushing -- I would not describe his action as pushing, but even if you would, I don't think that's a very important term. JMO.

Lifestyles -- I don't know how useful this term is, either, but seems like it might be appropriate. But I'm not really familiar with it.

And of course, there's nothing wrong with Korean, either. Or Asian. Or Punk (Human Role). Or Young Adult (I'm guessing at his age -- but the point is, an appropriate age term would be relevant.)

« Reply #36 on: March 23, 2010, 00:37 »
0
Closed -- What's closed? His mouth? His brain? The headphones? Oh, his eyes! How about eyes closed then?
Thanks for your long reply to my rant. What I meant is "pushing ears" and "eyes closed" (the same discussion as in the DT flagging thread about compound keywords). I wasn't aware you could enter short phrases as IS keywords. Yepyep, it works well when you search for "Closed eyes". Thanks. I figure you will have to enter them between quotes. Useful rant anyways, also the link to the forum.  :P

"Fine art portrait" is imposed by the CV, where you have the choice between portrait as image orientation, and portrait as fine art portrait. I rather meant head shot. I always use portrait when an image is cropped around a person's face or the focus is on the face with not more than shoulders visible.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2010, 00:45 by FD-amateur »

KB

« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2010, 10:11 »
0
Closed -- What's closed? His mouth? His brain? The headphones? Oh, his eyes! How about eyes closed then?
Thanks for your long reply to my rant. What I meant is "pushing ears" and "eyes closed" (the same discussion as in the DT flagging thread about compound keywords). I wasn't aware you could enter short phrases as IS keywords. Yepyep, it works well when you search for "Closed eyes". Thanks. I figure you will have to enter them between quotes. Useful rant anyways, also the link to the forum.  :P

"Fine art portrait" is imposed by the CV, where you have the choice between portrait as image orientation, and portrait as fine art portrait. I rather meant head shot. I always use portrait when an image is cropped around a person's face or the focus is on the face with not more than shoulders visible.
This is an example of how the CV gets so complicated and confusing. Why did they decide to map portrait to fine art portrait -- isn't there a more clear definition? Well, I shouldn't criticize them, as I don't know all that's involved in it. But, you were 100% right; there's no reason that fine art portrait is an invalid term for your image. (If it is, then there are probably 50,000 other images that are wrong, too.) (Looking at some of the results for fine art portrait, there are many that do not qualify, IMO, for that term, but most do.)  I think the inspector was wrong to eliminate that on your image.

I see what you're talking about now regarding "pushing ears", but I really don't think many would search on that. That's a difficult one to keyword with the CV. Yeah, you could put the phrase in quotes, but I think the chances of a buyer doing so are pretty small. (I suspect most buyers don't search using quotes, except when the phrase is in the CV and the click on it to enter it into the search box.)

Good keywording, as I'm sure you know, is so darn important. I applaud IS for being the only site that gives us a chance to get it right via the CV, but it's such a difficult problem that the current implementation helps only a bit.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2010, 10:21 »
0
When I upload through DeepMeta I am very careful what keywords I keep. If I feel they are on the borderline I remove them. I keyword all my images before I upload to any of the sites, that's why I use DeepMeta so I don't have to go in and remove them after I have already uploaded them to the other sites. If I try to upload one with the borderline keyword...it usually gets rejected for it, so I don't bother even trying anymore. It's usually the concept keywords.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #39 on: March 23, 2010, 10:28 »
0
As far as the OT goes. I find it is usually easier to upload rather than resubmit. I usually will correct the problem and then change the file name and upload again. It seems when I resubmit it sits there forever waiting to be approved or rejected again.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
7380 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 05:33
by fotorob
4 Replies
5479 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
5398 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
28 Replies
9760 Views
Last post January 24, 2012, 20:28
by krilcis
8 Replies
3019 Views
Last post August 21, 2013, 23:16
by stockphoto-images.com

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results