0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
Having everything I produce approved is what I always wanted but I didn't want it for everyone else.
just because some seasoned photographers got %100 acceptance of a batch, it doesn't mean newbies will get the same treatment..
Quote from: cidepix on September 21, 2013, 06:16just 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.
...I am sure they are not that stupid....
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.
Quote from: ShadySue on September 20, 2013, 19:45Also, 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.
So what are you saying ?
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.
Though what use many thousands of irrelevantly-keyworded files will be to them, I couldn't begin to imagine
Quote from: ShadySue on September 22, 2013, 07:33Their 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.
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.
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.
the New search being so incredibly poor in many cases means that buyers won't use it.