MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 100% Upload Acceptance Rate: Not A Good Thing Is It?  (Read 8704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 19, 2013, 02:49 »
+3
I know a lot of people aren't uploading much to iStock anymore, but I uploaded a bunch of stuff this month and I was amazed how most of the pictures I uploaded got inspected within just a couple of hours. On top of that, everything I uploaded was accepted, including some stuff that would have perhaps never passed inspection before.

From this I draw 2 conclusions; Inspectors don't have a lot of pictures to review these days (because uploads are down so much) such that when you upload something it gets inspected right away. Secondly, they have dropped their standards of quality tremendously to encourage people to start uploading again and that is why I have a 100% acceptance rate now. They also aren't nearly as concerned about duplicate images from a shoot as they were before.

The fact that they will pretty much accept anything though is a dangerous double edged sword. Sure, it makes life a lot easier for contributors. For one they don't have to work as hard as before to achieve a certain standard of picture to get something up on iStock and they can add to their portfolios faster by throwing up lower quality images which are easier to snap quickly. The bad thing though is that the buyers are not being offered the same standard of quality as before.

What always set iStock apart from other pixel peddlers was that they had a more discriminately curated, high quality collection and buyers recognized that. Now the standards of quality are all over the shop. This has to start hurting sales further at some point though when buyers can no longer tell the difference in quality between pictures on iStock and other sites. And if there is no difference in quality, then why will buyers pay more for pictures on iStock at all?

The fact that there are no upload limits, combined with the fact that they will accept just about anything now, makes the whole situation much scarier.


« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2013, 03:08 »
+7
iStop?

you sound more like iStart...  :D

B8

« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2013, 03:33 »
0
I think what is also disturbing are the "Similar stock photos" that appear on most image close-up pages now. I have looked at many images where the suggested Similar stock photos are so far off from the original image. It seems the way the site works isn't effective. It takes keywords out of context and throws up images which are often very different from what the buyer is looking at. The buyers must see that and think W*F? And then the buyers lose more confidence in the search results when the system is suggesting similar stock photos which aren't similar at all.

« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2013, 04:09 »
+8
Yes, the lowering of inspection standards is a big step backwards.

One of iStock's great advantages was the quality of the inspection process. It made for a better collection and better photographers.

I'd understand if they were loosening the standards to accommodate aesthetically pleasing but technically dubious images, but it seems to be a much broader remit than that.

The entire object is to build the biggest, hugest, most humungous pile of images possible. That's not a sustainable way to develop and nurture photographers or the business, because soon enough the lack of sales volume for individuals will make professional quality images uneconomical to produce so buyers and artists will have to move to places like Stocksy.

« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2013, 05:11 »
+1
No, not a good thing at all.

I presume that their intention, once they have built a humungous pile of images as mentioned, is to demote non-sellers from Signature and Plus collections down to the Main collection (and possibly on to subs in the PP) while, hopefully, promoting good sellers from the Main collection to Signature, and thereby hope to cover a whole range of quality standards in a one-stop shop. 

I don't like it much myself either but I can see that they may see it as a way forward in a world where images are getting more and more plentiful, and cheaper, all the time.  It remains to be seen how well it will work though...

« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2013, 05:19 »
+2
It will be very soon a niiice base of free pics.
So, donators, hurry up.
NOT JOKE !

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2013, 08:03 »
0


From this I draw 2 conclusions; Inspectors don't have a lot of pictures to review these days (because uploads are down so much) such that when you upload something it gets inspected right away. Secondly, they have dropped their standards of quality tremendously to encourage people to start uploading again and that is why I have a 100% acceptance rate now. They also aren't nearly as concerned about duplicate images from a shoot as they were before.


Istock stats
Total files 15896921
Waiting approval 183230 

« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2013, 08:36 »
+1
I think what is also disturbing are the "Similar stock photos" that appear on most image close-up pages now. I have looked at many images where the suggested Similar stock photos are so far off from the original image.

Agreed.... in most cases, this feature is not working well at all. The images usually don't resemble the original in any but a minor way.... Example: Beneath a photo titled something like "Modest Home" were "Similar stock photos" of modest women .... sheeeeeesh.

Also, these "Similar stock photos" are located above the description, which means the viewer may never see the description. Many of us cross-sell our other images which are indeed similar, often from the same shoot.

My hope is that they'll do away with this feature.

« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2013, 08:44 »
+6
when first they begin to accept everything, it is the same as saying that all the hard work from previous years is lost, both theirs and their contributors.
Which is a very drastic thing to do. Its a change of paradigme.

They so to speak, bury the old istock under a pile of "***". They bury the exclusives under a pile of image factories and newcomers.

They change the luxury cruiser to a bulk carrier.

It would certainly be the right time for symbiostock and stocksy to add some competition.

« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2013, 09:08 »
+9
Having everything I produce approved is what I always wanted but I didn't want it for everyone else.

« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2013, 09:15 »
+1
In the early years, I learned a lot from my rejections.... and am grateful for them.....

« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2013, 09:47 »
0
Having everything I produce approved is what I always wanted but I didn't want it for everyone else.

Ha! Me too!

« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2013, 13:05 »
+1
Having everything I produce approved is what I always wanted but I didn't want it for everyone else.

Nice try!

I don't upload to iStock any more but I too learned a ton at the beginning  about technical quality. I think there could be some reasonable choices other than super-strict and bring your poor, your tired, your out-of-focus, overexposed snapshots yearning to be a stock photograph...

After you have sold a certain amount, I think more leeway on composition and filtering would make a lot of sense, for example

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2013, 13:37 »
0
I can't decide whether it's good or bad. Many of my best-selling files at SS were rejected at iS for one reason or another, one of the most annoying (until changed recently) being complete exclusion of text of any kind, even hand-drawn lettering. Or "not suitable as stock," which they applied to one of my fonts that's consistently in the first page of best-sellers at SS.

« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2013, 14:57 »
0
I honestly believe that there was always less judgement involved than at other sites but they could ferret out the slightest technical flaw and, now that this has been relaxed they seem to have no clue about good or bad.  Regardless of agreeing or not with the standards they did have standards, and I guess buyers could make a judgement call based on a preview - now there are none other than checking for model / property releases and I doubt they even look beyond the thumbnail. 

« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2013, 18:20 »
+1
My initial (possibly naive)  reaction was that the relaxation of standards was a really "bad thing'...  [losing a perceived 'quality' perception, and tarnishing the existing tightly-curated collection, with the addition of dross]....   

After reflecting on the possible commercial rationale behind this (unexplained) decision on iStock's part (in combination with the removal of upload limits), I am still somewhat unsure whether trying to play a numbers game with SS is a winning strategy... (if indeed that was the commercial driver..)

Thinking again as a contributor, I am still convinced that this is indeed not just bad, but a horrendous decision...  istock has just reduced my very labour-intensive quality image collection to the same level as mass-produced dreck... 

I am not a buyer, but nevertheless I cannot see why this development would attract more custom - maybe someone more enlightened could proffer some rationale?

Regards






ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2013, 18:47 »
+3
I'm sure there is an Evil Plan which will be revealed to us when they choose.

Sure, the previous standards were too high, but now ...

Like I've said before, I can speculate on what they might be up to, but the reality will almost certainly be worse.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2013, 19:45 »
+3
Also, I don't understand their almost total abandonment of checking for accurate keywording. Almost every search you sort on 'New' is full of the most awful irrelevances, mistagging and deliberate spam.

« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2013, 20:42 »
0
I also have mixed feelings about this.

It may not be a bad thing, especially for seasoned photographers because it gives us more room to explore the creative and artistic side of photography. In the past, it seemed only the inspectors could try those approaches.

Ultimately, it is the buyers' call. They are not stupid.

« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2013, 06:16 »
-2
I don't know why you people complain?

istock may very well be giving a special treatment to accomplished photographers with good sales and track record..

just because some seasoned photographers got %100 acceptance of a batch, it doesn't mean newbies will get the same treatment..

I am sure they are not that stupid..

after all, any seasoned pro will know about the business just as much as any reviewer..

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2013, 07:30 »
+2
just because some seasoned photographers got %100 acceptance of a batch, it doesn't mean newbies will get the same treatment..
Oh, they do, they soooo do.
It's been discussed here already with re someone who got 803 images accepted in a week with dubious image quality and nightmarish keywording.
And I've seen several since - which I found easily by searching on the 'new' filter and looking at the ports of some of the more egregious keyworders.

« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2013, 07:51 »
+2
just because some seasoned photographers got %100 acceptance of a batch, it doesn't mean newbies will get the same treatment..
Oh, they do, they soooo do.
It's been discussed here already with re someone who got 803 images accepted in a week with dubious image quality and nightmarish keywording.
And I've seen several since - which I found easily by searching on the 'new' filter and looking at the ports of some of the more egregious keyworders.

Check out the critique form - all queries seem to be about copyright.  As I said, I don't think they are looking beyond the thumbnails or I wouldn't have a bunch of people renders awaiting model release.

« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2013, 07:59 »
+5
...I am sure they are not that stupid....
It is hard to believe but unfortunately all the evidence seems to point to them being that stupid.

« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2013, 08:14 »
+1
It seems to have worked for DP and has allowed them to build a library of nearly 14m files in four years. And we humans do seem to like going to places that have more stuff for sale.

One of my top 100 images is a background of crumpled, brown parcel paper. Okay, the thing is sharp and evenly lit but its still a sheet of paper. As creative people we are rightly concerned about aesthetics and quality but we/I sometimes overlook utility.

« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2013, 08:26 »
+1
Also, I don't understand their almost total abandonment of checking for accurate keywording. Almost every search you sort on 'New' is full of the most awful irrelevances, mistagging and deliberate spam.

One more try at explaining my personal opinion about this again although we have been around this debate before: From their point of view (and therefore ultimately for us too) it probably doesn't matter provided that over time keyword relevancy can ultimately sort the wheat from the chaff. The images which get clicked and bought gaining relevancy over the years.

And so-what if search by New seems like the unregulated Wild West to the pedants - provided that the best match and Most Popular searches are good. Indeed the unregulated nature of a new images search may sometimes offer a positive randomness.

The way I see things - iStock is going to be like a sorting house. Some stuff will end up at GI or in higher priced collections. Some stuff will sink without a trace. Two ends of a spectrum. And what goes for keywording also pretty much applies to quality. Why not accept everything and see what floats to the top  - and then, perhaps, handpick from that later ?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2013, 15:00 »
+3
Also, I don't understand their almost total abandonment of checking for accurate keywording. Almost every search you sort on 'New' is full of the most awful irrelevances, mistagging and deliberate spam.
: From their point of view (and therefore ultimately for us too) it probably doesn't matter provided that over time keyword relevancy can ultimately sort the wheat from the chaff. The images which get clicked and bought gaining relevancy over the years.

OK, I accept that that's your opinion and we'll have to agree to differ.

If that's what their policy now is, why haven't they told us? They did announce that their acceptance criteria were going to be relaxed.

Anecdotally, I uploaded a photo earlier in the week and by the time it hit the database it was blow position 1000 on its most important keyword, which was in the first position. It will hardly have any chance to rise. Of course there are modifying keywords, but they have said that most buyers don't modify their original search.

The system of 'rewarding' and 'punishing' keywords seems to be extreme. I'm not the only one to have noticed that any file uploaded in the past so many months seems to have punished in the best match when they get any number of sales under ten. I discovered something yesterday. I posted already that I had a mystery sale which came through with the GI sales as PP, although I have no images in the PP (and have taken out a ticket to query it). Anyway, that pic had had over 300 views but only one sale. The night the sale was announced, I looked at it, and noticed a 'surprising' collection of similars, which I think was a result of a spammed series by one person. I noticed that what I would consider the 'most important' keyword phrase was in position 1. The next morning, I noticed that the 'similars' were totally different - and found that that same keyword phrase was now in position 10 of 16. As it happens, the top two keywords are still relevant, but it seems like a huge punishment on just one sale.

Of course, it can be argued that with a better-selling file, that sort of thing will be evened out, but still, it seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and of course any file so affected will sink far lower in best match.

Of course, it may be that someone who searches on apple will find that they actually wanted a photo of a spanner (imaginary example, but based on some equally bizarre examples), but it's more likely that someone making a search by 'new' or even 'popular' will just be hacked off by irrelevance.

That's just my opinion of course. If they want contributors to throw in some random group of keywords with any image, they should tell us. Not that I'd do it anyway.

« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2013, 15:54 »
-3
So what are you saying ?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2013, 07:33 »
+3
So what are you saying ?
Their system is broken [1], has been for virtually a year, and they show no inclination to fix it, meaning there is no incentive to spend money, time or effort on producing new imagery, other than newbies who don't know any better.

It's a very odd scenario, but I'm prepared to accept that it could be part of some Plan. Though what use many thousands of irrelevantly-keyworded files will be to them, I couldn't begin to imagine.

[1] i.e. how they say it's supposed to work, with proper keywording and best match.


« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2013, 08:30 »
0
Their system is broken has been for virtually a year, and they show no inclination to fix it,.. i.e. how they say it's supposed to work, with proper keywording and best match.

But the Best Match results are very good. I thought was more or less agreed now. And they have clearly been working hard to improve the search results. Now they just need to get the speed issues sorted out (which clearly they will over time).

I thought you were complaining about search by New Images which is why (above) I tried to explain how I believe that does not necessarily matter. The point is that keyword relevancy data (ie the buyers provide that data over time with their clicks) possibly makes much more sense (and certainly from a cost perspective) than some pedantic, prescriptive and labor-intensive inspection process. A similar but different system works very well at Alamy where poor keywording works against us - as I suspect it also will at iStock.

In a world of collections, different Getty sites and different price points, a fairly cursory initial inspection gets the image live. Later on it can presumably be hand picked for promotion, demotion, migration etc.

Though what use many thousands of irrelevantly-keyworded files will be to them, I couldn't begin to imagine
Really? The vast majority of files are mostly fairly relevantly keyworded. Yes we can all find examples of poorly keyworded images if we have the time to waste. But irrelevance is a subjective thing. Many times I have read people bitterly whining that their keywords were deleted for being overly tangential. Letting the buyers vote may very well be the best solution.

« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2013, 08:41 »
0
If it was a small boutique collection with a few hundred contributors then it would make sense to build it around a much more intensive and detailed inspection process. But iStock is much more like Flickr with thousands of people uploading huge quantities of just about anything. Lots of it probably irrelevant. As at Alamy I don't believe it can make sense for the inspection process to be labor-intensive.

It gives them a pool of content all of which can be quickly on sale and from which they can further choose content to promote. It's not stupid.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2013, 08:54 »
0
Their system is broken has been for virtually a year, and they show no inclination to fix it,.. i.e. how they say it's supposed to work, with proper keywording and best match.

But the Best Match results are very good. I thought was more or less agreed now. And they have clearly been working hard to improve the search results. Now they just need to get the speed issues sorted out (which clearly they will over time).

I thought you were complaining about search by New Images which is why (above) I tried to explain how I believe that does not necessarily matter.

The best match search isn't bad in many cases, poor in others. When one buyer's purchase can demote a very relevant search term from position 1 in 'relevant keywords' to position 10, it's clearly not perfect.

Also the New search being so incredibly poor in many cases means that buyers won't use it. Again, with new files falling down now to about 50% in the best match on acceptance, and lower if they get a sale, it's a total disincentive to supply new files. Sure, there is a huge surge of newly acceptable images - but is that what the buyers want? There is no visible evidence to suggest so.

As I said above, we'll need to agree to differ about this.
Keywordzilla must be crying him/herself to sleep every night. They correctly corrected my stupid tick on Photograph (art and craft) instead of Photography (image) as a generic keyword. I have no issue with that.

Alamy is another case in point. Although their relevance search is much better than their search used to be, there are still bizarre anomalies. A search I conducted recently on a particular person's name, as in 'Joe Bloggs' had a very few photos of him in the top couple of lines, followed by a lot of images where either there was no indication that Joe Bloggs was in the title, esskeys or caption, or where there was some mixture in the esskeys/caption of e.g. Joe Smith and Jean Bloggs. And under that lot, the main selection of actual photos of the person concerned, with his name either in the caption, the esskeys or both. This is not as grumpily indicated in an official Alamy post in another thread here.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2013, 09:13 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2013, 08:56 »
0
If it was a small boutique collection with a few hundred contributors then it would make sense to build it around a much more intensive and detailed inspection process. But iStock is much more like Flickr with thousands of people uploading huge quantities of just about anything. Lots of it probably irrelevant. As at Alamy I don't believe it can make sense for the inspection process to be labor-intensive.

It gives them a pool of content all of which can be quickly on sale and from which they can further choose content to promote. It's not stupid.

If they are about to drop all their prices, then saving money on almost all admin functions makes some sort of sense.

The comparison with Flickr is irrelevant IMO. I upload pics to Flickr I'd never expect to be on sale anywhere, and I'm sure thousands of others do too. Most relevant people know the difference between a photo sharing site and a stock agency.

« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2013, 09:22 »
0
I believe it is a sheer numbers game. Strategic corporate financial valuation of the main (bottom tier) collection. Seemed to coincide with the increase of upload limits. Has nothing to do with contributor relations or increasing short term sales (1 year or less)...

« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2013, 11:05 »
+1
Keywordzilla must be crying him/herself to sleep every night. They correctly corrected my stupid tick on Photograph (art and craft) instead of Photography (image) as a generic keyword. I have no issue with that.

I doubt they care even slightly. People learn from a thing, learn what works and does not, earn a wage and move on. What they probably learned from trying to fix the keywords was that it was a never ending uphill task. It was presumably useful even if only perhaps to show that it was not the best way of doing things.

Trying to manually fix the keywording spam in millions of images, with thousands more arriving every week, is maybe stupid and pointless. Perhaps it was the wrong solution.

Perhaps that is why they now seem to have gone with a solution which seems to be about keyword relevancy in which the buyers decide over time and contribute to the pool of data with their clicks and buys. I hope so - because that makes sense. And that seems to be the message.

There is no suggestion that keyword spamming gives anyone an advantage and every reason to assume that accurate keywording is to everyone's best advantage still.

the New search being so incredibly poor in many cases means that buyers won't use it.

You have no evidence to support this statement. Perhaps we can assume it will be used less but without stats we can only guess. Also - in many cases it will not be so incredibly poor. Granted it may be more erratic - but it will also be fresher. And it may sometimes provide an element of randomness which some searchers appreciate. We cannot make assumptions and we have no data.

« Reply #34 on: September 22, 2013, 12:38 »
+2
With Liz.  The search is hugely important and an accurate search depends on accurate keywording.  The spam on ALL sites is horrendous - imagine trying to buy a camera on line and your search keeps showing dishwashers - MS keywording is THAT bad.  Dot is probably not quite as bad as the rest because they were more anal about checking and gain some benefit from the controlled vocab - but only some.  Reviewer monitoring is resource intensive, software checking is also expensive, prone to error and restrictive in a bad way like a newspeak dictionary.  The cheapest and most effective approach is to make the thing self-policing.  15 keywords max or 10 if one of them is "isolated" .

« Reply #35 on: September 22, 2013, 13:52 »
+1
Captain, weve hit an iceberg, were sinking and dont have anything like enough lifeboats, what are we going to do?
How about we rename the ship Titan and put a big dot at the end

Love it!

« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2013, 15:05 »
0
Customer: I'd like to buy a photo.

Istock: Here are some exquisite photos from our highly valued exclusive contributors. You can't get images (exactly) like these anywhere else.

Customer: Holy schmoly, those are expensive. Do you have anything cheaper?

Istock: Well, you can look in that incredibly massive pile of mixed images out back. You might be able to find what you need if you can stay afloat.

Customer: Here, take my wallet.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors