Had an image rejected for:

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Citting]}

And yes, it was my spelling error in the IPTC data, BUT there was no word in the CV and the image information, that I submitted. I couldn't have seen the spelling error, because there was no keyword that had "citting" instead of cutting. It never showed, and when I re-submitted, I looked and it wasn't there, anywhere.

Does IS reject for spelling now, in words that aren't used? Also a mystery, does the system search look at those phantom words?

I'm not going to waste the Scout systems time asking, but I'm hoping someone here understands how an invisible word, spelled wrong, causes a rejection?

So what I'm asking is this. Now we get rejections for an invisible keyword?

Yes if you add the word "citting" then it will be found when someone searches for that word.

? ? ?

The word wasnt there, thats the mystery !!

IS allows contributors to have words that aren't in the CV. You're allowed to have codes for models, for example, and species names for critters and plants. My guess is that what you had didn't look like a code or special name; independents can get keyword rejections.

It's a pain that they don't have a spell check like SS does, but if you use Deep Meta, it flags things in blue that aren't in the CV (it doesn't flag them as misspelled per se) so you have a chance to fix things before upload. Or you upload to SS first to get the spell check on your IPTC data

I think (and I may be incorrect) that what he's saying is that the word was only in the IPTC data (which iStock doesn't read) and not in his submitted keywords.

But iStock does read the IPTC data.

Who is the moron who -1 everybody in this thread, who seems to have some sort of opinion different to him/her? I +1 all of them again. If you do not agree, just say so! Everyone was referring to what RacePhoto said. 

Quote from: CD123 on December 27, 2012, 19:58

Who is the moron who -1 everybody in this thread, who seems to have some sort of opinion different to him/her? I +1 all of them again. If you do not agree, just say so! Everyone was referring to what RacePhoto said. 

That's kind of a big assumption isn't? How do you know it was all the same person? Sounds especially moronic to me to deliberately over-ride everyone else's expressed opinion because you want to make another point. Who really cares about the odd rejection or Istock's absurd CV anyway?

I also have a right to an opinion and mine was a heart to those contributors.  Very self opinionated of you to decide that other people would not care about what RacePhoto has to say, isn't it? Clearly the posters before you does. 

PS I have removed my +1 hearts, so the battle can continue.

I just added the word "citting" to a file in the IPTC and uploaded it, it shows up in the file after is uploaded.  I think you just missed it when you submitted and that's why your file was rejected.

I'm sure this happened to me too. I haven't uploaded in months but a few times early in the year I was rejected on keywords that were in iptc but I know weren't included in deepmeta.

Thought I'd seen somewhere that they don't reject independent  files for single keyword.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347107&page=1#post6741711

plenty of times single keyword rejection and no other reason given. Stuff that I then resubmitted and got approved.
I think it depends on the reviewer as some have notified keyword not appropriate, but they removed the keyword and approved the image.

Quote from: elvinstar on December 27, 2012, 17:39

I think (and I may be incorrect) that what he's saying is that the word was only in the IPTC data (which iStock doesn't read) and not in his submitted keywords.

But iStock does read the IPTC data.

Sorry! I haven't used anything but DeepMeta in so long that I didn't know.

this has happened to me before too; a random keyword that I didn't add causing a rejection. I figured it was part of the CV adding it in somehow without me seeing it.

Here's the continuing story and it's getting kind of funny. In a strange kind of way.

I fixed the keywords, correct the spelling of Cutting, and I get this rejection today. (and yes it's two reasons, not just one ketword issue)

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Cutting]}

++Focus is soft. You could try downsizing the file then review at 100% to see if that achieves a more acceptable level of sharpness.++


Let me explain, it's a SCAN at 2400 dpi, of a flat drawing, of a Wood Lathe which cuts wood! The other rejection was for "Metal Cutting Machine" saying the same things. So what's wrong with the word "Cutting"?

Apparently the once stable and consistent reviews at IS, which I always found to be reliable, and complimented. Have now become, something that needs to be explained in a note to the reviewer, for people who apparently don't understand English or what a wood lathe does? (not really I'll just drop the word, it's much easier to give up.) Or is it just a CV wall I'm up against? Past tense, cutting as in the machine actions and function, instead of the actual act being depicted?

This will be the 4th upload of the same images, because of nit picking and side issues. Once for spelling, once for the lost release, once because it contained a Mfg. logo, and this time for "Cutting and Soft Focus". I'm kind of wondering what the rejection will be the 5th time around? 

I'm amused by the file size making something unacceptable, because it includes too many details at full size. This was a series of ten and eight have been accepted, the last two are just going around and around for words and being an unacceptable level of sharpness.

Now downsized from 30MP to 10MP. I guess I have to learn to make things smaller. Remember that question, because people often ask, should I downsize all the time, and it's starting to sound like the answer is YES.