It's always great to brainstorm new ideas. When it comes to the review process everything has to be presented to the agency and not the inspectors. Regardless of which agency we are talking about the reviewers follow the guidelines and memo updates that are decided on by the agency. You use your judgement within a pre-defined set of rules. So if an inspector reads an awesome idea of how things should be done they cannot take it on their own to do it .. unless they want to get fired in a hurry. Just like any job in the world ... you do what the boss tells you to do not what you think is right. The company policy must first be officially updated with the new idea. With that said, I wouldn't count on accomplishing anything here because the odds of IS watching this forum over their own for ideas is pretty slim. If they were interested in discussing new ideas they would promote it on their forums.

1. This is standard practice for any agency. The title, description, category and keyword fields are always suppose to be checked.

2.a. Implement this idea and I'm guessing pending times will jump to 6 months within 24 hours. Plus you can forget your commission because company profits are going to be redirected to the admins otherwise they would all quit and the company would shutdown.

2.b. Same problem as above. Photographers have no clue to the amount of photos that are submitted everyday that do not come even close to being acceptable. People with no training whatsoever submitting shots from $50 point n shoots .. people who think you can take a 1MP shot with their camera phone in extreme low-light resize it to 4MP then submit it .. the point is an inspectors job is in quality control .. not educational training.

3. If you are referring to taking an isolated subject and increasing the canvas size to create copyspace ... why would you do that? The buyer is going to be able to do that themself to the exact ratio that they require in a matter of seconds. All this is doing is creating a thumbnail that wont get a buyers attention. Plus you are increasing inspection times with no benefit to the community.

4. I'd need to see an example of what you are talking about exactly. However, in any case a inspector should not ever have to consider if an isolation was accomplished in photoshop or with lighting .. if the subject is really an isolation it's either done right or it's not .. there is no grey area .. well there is but it's called a reject. 

If you want to try to make serious changes you are going to have to represent them to the agencies in the way they want it represented (if they want it represented at all). You will also need to come up with extremely well thought out ideas that improve the company, decrease inspection time (not increase it), etc. Efficiency and profitability is what will get their attention. They are in the business to sell quality images to buyers ... not train people how to take quality photos.

Another thing people do not consider is the design of the administration features of an agency. They are all custom and they are all different. A simple idea might be a quick implementation for one agencies structure and be a massive expense and nightmare for another.

It seems to be popular lately to say that there are also inspectors rejecting quality images to eliminate competition. I'm sorry but this is just a bit stupid. Let's say you own an agency .. an admin rejects a bunch of awesome images because they honestly believe that those images (out of millions) will somehow give them a better chance of selling their own images. What are you going to do? You're going to fire them immediately .. I would personally fire them and close their contributor account just because they tried screwing with my business. There is no competition elimination conspiracy going on .. sorry people.

I'm sure that people do get rejects that should have been passed. Especially if a growing company is in the process of training new inspectors to help knock down the pending times that contributors are complaining about. It's going to happen from time to time .. just a fact of doing business.

... and I doubt you have to worry about Leaf locking the thread .. it's pretty open here  .. I will say that there are better things to discuss though. A more productive method to solving the problems you stated would be for people to place more effort into studying photography and less effort into asking the agencies to spend more time teaching them how to use their cameras.

Like I said in the forum, this does come across as an inspection rant.  Like I put something in the field they didn't notice, so I'm going to make a point to say they should read it.  They do read it.  They're humans, so sometimes it gets missed.

Same for the rest, thumbs are not a requirement - this isn't photography school, but sometimes the occasion calls for it.  As long as the white space isn't overdone, native resolution images are fine.  You can't put 50% content into an image, and expect to get away with 50% white, native or not.  I don't know what #4 means, so I can't comment on that.

Trying to tell them how to do their job when the process works 99% of the time just won't fly.

Some people say the microstocks can't do a better job of reviewing, or of giving meaningful feedback, because of the vast number of junk images they're taking in.  Well didn't they approve those submitters in the first place? And if they're submitting huge numbers of images with no stock value, or of poor quality, why not redline them, stop reviewing them and spend time doing a better job on images that might sell?

Oh wait, I just noticed that DT is offering an IPod to the person who submits the 9 millionth image... guess we can't look for sanity to prevail just yet...

It's always great to brainstorm new ideas. When it comes to the review process everything has to be presented to the agency and not the inspectors. Regardless of which agency we are talking about the reviewers follow the guidelines and memo updates that are decided on by the agency. You use your judgement within a pre-defined set of rules. So if an inspector reads an awesome idea of how things should be done they cannot take it on their own to do it .. unless they want to get fired in a hurry. Just like any job in the world ... you do what the boss tells you to do not what you think is right. The company policy must first be officially updated with the new idea.

- Hi Randy, I agree in part with you here and certainly inspectors have to follow rules as employees, but  some things posted here can be taken by their own without braking policies, actually some of the actions are the actual policy that has been missed. So, some are not new ideas.

With that said, I wouldn't count on accomplishing anything here because the odds of IS watching this forum over their own for ideas is pretty slim. If they were interested in discussing new ideas they would promote it on their forums.

- I doesn't mean that isn't read by them and also it isn't only for IS. It's also for the community.

1. This is standard practice for any agency. The title, description, category and keyword fields are always suppose to be checked.

- Yup, "supposed". It has been missed several times. I know they're humans, so sometimes it gets missed. So, if it is happening a lot, why iStock don't create an exclusive input field to communicate with inspectors? It isn't hard to be implemented.

2.a. Implement this idea and I'm guessing pending times will jump to 6 months within 24 hours. Plus you can forget your commission because company profits are going to be redirected to the admins otherwise they would all quit and the company would shutdown.

- Nope, IMHO if this action was taken it would decrease the pending times e mainly the queue line! It will avoid contributors losing their times by fixing images that they would not try to fix again if had a better information, so this way wouldn't upload it again or if uploaded inspectors wouldn't lose their times again by checking the same image that the contributors tried to fix something that they don't have idea what inspector saw!

2.b. Same problem as above. Photographers have no clue to the amount of photos that are submitted everyday that do not come even close to being acceptable. People with no training whatsoever submitting shots from $50 point n shoots .. people who think you can take a 1MP shot with their camera phone in extreme low-light resize it to 4MP then submit it .. the point is an inspectors job is in quality control .. not educational training.

- I agree with you that there are this group of "over resize" people, but as posted in part by stockastic, there's no need to send a clip of the problem area or post a better info if the image falls in this case or they see the image has a poor isolation. I'm talking about inspectors sharpen eyes, that rejects images that won't harm any off-seft/print or screen use. So, for an isolated shot with clear value, in which the inspectors feels there's a small area that needs retouching - please tell me why IS can  NOT be bothered to attach a clip and inspector can't tell what they SAW once they are aware of all issues caused by over-the-top "too feathered or too rough" rejections. As said before IMHO if this action was taken it would DECREASE the pending times e mainly the DECREASE the queue line once It will avoid inspectors to check images again that the contributors tried to fix something that they din't have idea what inspector saw and will reject again because fixing the wrong area, and the contributor will try to fix again in a guessing because he/she got the SECOND rejection on the same subject and allow to submit again with no cropped area and with no comments from inspector of what areas inspector saw wrong: "This one next to X is rough, that one aroung Y is soft!". Regarding not educational training, it isn't educational training. It was a rejection from inspector and won't teach how to fix, will just point what areas they saw a problem, so it isn't any educational training at all.[/quote]

3. If you are referring to taking an isolated subject and increasing the canvas size to create copyspace ... why would you do that? The buyer is going to be able to do that themself to the exact ratio that they require in a matter of seconds. All this is doing is creating a thumbnail that wont get a buyers attention. Plus you are increasing inspection times with no benefit to the community.

- Nope, read the item again. It's not about increasing the canvas size. It's about an original image with original resolution size has been rejected due not native resolution/white increased.

4. I'd need to see an example of what you are talking about exactly. However, in any case a inspector should not ever have to consider if an isolation was accomplished in photoshop or with lighting .. if the subject is really an isolation it's either done right or it's not .. there is no grey area .. well there is but it's called a reject. 

- I'm sorry, but I don't agree. If you think this way, I would say "Photographers should not ever have to consider to make an isolation with Photoshop or very 'cut' ", they are photographers, not designers, or image treaters. ;0)

If you want to try to make serious changes you are going to have to represent them to the agencies in the way they want it represented (if they want it represented at all). You will also need to come up with extremely well thought out ideas that improve the company, decrease inspection time (not increase it), etc. Efficiency and profitability is what will get their attention. They are in the business to sell quality images to buyers ... not train people how to take quality photos.

Well, as I said before, it is your point of view that it wouldn't decrease time and all is about training and it isn't the case, but I respect it, each one has your opinion and point of view and I appreciate your reply.

Another thing people do not consider is the design of the administration features of an agency. They are all custom and they are all different. A simple idea might be a quick implementation for one agencies structure and be a massive expense and nightmare for another.

- What agency do you run? :0) Well, until now in the first post, none of the items request any new implementation. All is already in their system. They are only action behaviors. :0)

It seems to be popular lately to say that there are also inspectors rejecting quality images to eliminate competition. I'm sorry but this is just a bit stupid. Let's say you own an agency .. an admin rejects a bunch of awesome images because they honestly believe that those images (out of millions) will somehow give them a better chance of selling their own images. What are you going to do? You're going to fire them immediately .. I would personally fire them and close their contributor account just because they tried screwing with my business. There is no competition elimination conspiracy going on .. sorry people.

- I have never heard about it. IMHO it doesn't make sense, as you said, "is just a bit stupid".

I'm sure that people do get rejects that should have been passed. Especially if a growing company is in the process of training new inspectors to help knock down the pending times that contributors are complaining about. It's going to happen from time to time .. just a fact of doing business.

- I agree, but when you see that the same problem persists frequently for thousand of members and was already informed by the community, something may be wrong and something need to be done.

... and I doubt you have to worry about Leaf locking the thread .. it's pretty open here  ..

- Good to know. ;0)

I will say that there are better things to discuss though.

- I'll repeat again, it is your point of view, maybe it isn't relevant for you, but it is for me. Once you always mention that agencies are business and so on, I'm also as contributor and it affects my daily work. Not all contributors are basic, junk image senders or hobbyists. ;0)

A more productive method to solving the problems you stated would be for people to place more effort into studying photography and less effort into asking the agencies to spend more time teaching them how to use their cameras.

- I agree that a lot of member would study a little more, but again, at any moment I've mentioned to teach how to use their cameras and so on. As posted on the very beginning of the 1st post, there are already hundred of articles and training manuals. ;0)

Thanks for participating and have a nice day.

Maybe some of you have (like me) worked in manufacturing, testing and quality control.

The way you achieve quality is by telling your suppliers exactly what you want.  If they deliver parts that don't pass your tests, you communicate the problems to them specifically and precisely, answering any questions they have.  As the suppliers adapt and get better at meeting your standards, your need for inspection and testing is reduced.  Eventually, you only need to inspect a statistically valid sample of that supplier's output - not 100% - as long as he stays on track.  You save time and money.

The way you achieve failure is by telling your suppliers "sorry, guess again".

If you have lots of vendors all offering you the same parts, and they have no place else to sell them, and you don't mind inspecting everything, forever, then I guess you don't need to bother explaining the failures, but it's a very inefficient way to do things, for both you and the suppliers.  

This discussion is pointless. You cannot argue with facts:
1. Agencies already got enough images so they do not really need new supply
2. There are more suppliers everyday so they also do not care if you stay there or not there are hundreds who can take your place if you quit
3. It's no longer true that you can grow from nothing to something and earn money at they same time. Now you have to start from something and keep growing but there is no guarantee that you actually earn enough to justify time spent.
4. Better make sure you got some other source of income to pay your bills. For pros it would be place to sell their leftovers. Amateurs will have to change to pros or die here. Anyway times where you can have full time income from this are over.
5. If it's not your major source of income just face the facts, relax cause rejections across the board will rise. You need to improve your skills rather than spent time ranting :-)

Quote from: melastmohican on March 24, 2010, 12:14

This discussion is pointless. You cannot argue with facts:
1. Agencies already got enough images so they do not really need new supply
2. There are more suppliers everyday so they also do not care if you stay there or not there are hundreds who can take your place if you quit
3. It's no longer true that you can grow from nothing to something and earn money at they same time. Now you have to start from something and keep growing but there is no guarantee that you actually earn enough to justify time spent.
4. Better make sure you got some other source of income to pay your bills. For pros it would be place to sell their leftovers. Amateurs will have to change to pros or die here. Anyway times where you can have full time income from this are over.
5. If it's not your major source of income just face the facts, relax cause rejections across the board will rise. You need to improve your skills rather than spent time ranting :-)

That's all true of course, but it doesn't mean things can't change.  Ok maybe the big 4 can no longer change, but new sites could do things better, and I expect they will in time.

Wait - did I just say something optimisitic? Someone please tell my wife...

oh come on Stockastic, my old friend, don't make me laugh.
can you believe what you say yourself? lol..
new sites could do things better, and I expect they will in time.

like how?
- pay you to upload xxx images
-promise bigger commissions
-approve everything you send
-put garbage images (over exposed, flare,etc) on front page
but reject much better images saying "lighting restricts stock sale potential"
-
and oh, before my oldsenile  pensioner's mind forgets,
shut down the site after two , three years, and then say "not to worry, we 're starting a new site"
etc etc etc..

you make me laugh, friend ! 

slightly OT.

you know, I find it interesting to note that IS, as inflexible and strict as many people like to make known, is the only site that has an appeal mechanism (Scout).
all the other "friendlier" sites have a hands-off rejections approach , with Support always saying they really don't get involved with questioning reviewers .

also, as already stated , IS is also the only one who allows opt out choice on subscription.

seems like IS is the most democratic. ,maybe it's because it's Canadian  

This discussion is pointless. You cannot argue with facts:
1. Agencies already got enough images so they do not really need new supply

Well said, considering some subjects, BUT apart from the popular and obvious, there are a lot of uncovered themes. A lot.

...
5. You need to improve your skills rather than spent time ranting :-)

Yes.
As said, microstock is not a school so don't expect detailed rejections.
Microstock is a school, please learn from the bunch of rejections, sacrifice your images to learn, what an agency likes/dislikes. Anyway, ONE agency rejects the image, not all of them. OK, if all of them, that image really sucks.

Oh, I always get a reply, sometimes a month later, sometimes ten weeks later ...

That must feel good