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

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.

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

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

Talk about resurrecting old threads! 

No, it's not a conspiracy - it's just one of the benefits of being exclusive: no more keyword rejections.

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.

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 ...     

Quote from: sharply_done on March 21, 2010, 18:31

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: sharply_done on March 20, 2010, 23:01

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

Quote from: sharply_done on March 20, 2010, 23:01

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.