What this time?

I do much better with istock reviewers than I do with DT at the moment.  For me is should be DT...arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggh!!!

er, thanks for asking. you know, the usual. i normally brush off these little annoyances like water off a duck's back, but when they start to accumulate, it really gets under your skin. i think their combination of rejection reasons are just too much and not that accurate either (mistaking a nondescript out of focus blob of blue for the samsung trademark). then, the best match change, etc. for a major stock company, they compare so poorly to ss performance...did someone say their reviewers are amateurs? i'm starting to wonder.

I would suggest Scout and or contributor relations. Any of the IS inspectors I know are highly skilled and competent.

..
I would suggest Scout and or contributor relations. Any of the IS inspectors I know are highly skilled and competent.

I personally have been waiting for Scout response for 31 days now.
Image was rejected because of use of the old MR, but the picture was taken in July 2009 so the old MR should be accepted.
I added the shoot date to the description field with: "..so the old MR is used and should be accepted". But no..
This is annoying because i have several images of the same batch waiting to be uploaded, but i don't want to waste my time for getting all of those accepted via Scout.

I always enjoy it when someone else posts their frustrations with IS.  I've quit submitting to them for now - no need to go into the reasons (again), they're the usual ones.  At this point I just enjoy hearing about the pain of others 

interesting topic which will never end, because in my opinion agencies change constantly, one week I got nice approvals at IS and bad at DT, the next it is the opposite and the pictures don't change that much...!

I've been a strong proponent of IS's inspection process. I've always felt it's one of the best. But based on what I've been reading lately, standards seem to have tightened up considerably over the last few months, to the point where silver & gold canister exclusives are complaining about multiple rejections they don't understand. To me, that is not a good thing. High standards are fine, but too high is almost as bad as too loose. 

I am quite new to this, but find this iStock rejection puzzling:

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.
{[aluminum, classic, drill, gimlet, isolated, metal, retro, tool]}

Makes it hard to take them seriously.



Product description from Amazon: Remember the old, reliable Black & Decker drill your dad kept in his tool shop all those years ago? Other tools would come and go, but he always relied on that shiny silver drill to get the job done, and it did. Well, Black & Decker has brought back that classic styling with its commemorative, polished aluminum, 14.4-volt cordless drill/driver kit. This 85th-anniversary drill ...

Thank you for clarifying. Though a long stretch, 'Gimlet' is a drilling tool. Only reason I included it is that I found it as a keyword for another iStock cordless drill image.

I agree Gimlet doesn't apply, and retro is a stretch for me, but if someone is searching for an aluminum drill, how else would they find it if it isn't in the keywords.

My biggest complaint w/ the IS keywords is that the keyword mapping is too specific or often doesn't include the meaning I want. They should have an option for allowing the keyword but not mapping it to the CV... and maybe a search for the keyword - not the CV option. Since they didn't do this from the start, it would be a horrible pain to implement now. oh well.

As far as their inspectors, they are the best at finding tiny obscured logos and stuff like that (like zipper pulls and that sort of thing), even when they aren't logos (like strength ratings). I think "artifacts" covers too many things and "pixel discoloration" or "distorted pixels?" They all look square to me.

Oh well. I just send them what I have and hopefully what passes sells. Rarely do I resubmit or send something to scout.

Sometimes I agree with the sentiment that they are like an abusive spouse that you can't quite bring yourself to leave.

--=Tom

Quote from: Fotonaut on May 04, 2010, 11:43

I am quite new to this, but find this iStock rejection puzzling:

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.
{[aluminum, classic, drill, gimlet, isolated, metal, retro, tool]}

Makes it hard to take them seriously.

Well, I know you used words from the description, but you have to not think in the old terms of describing an image. For instance, if I search for aluminum, do you think I am looking for a drill? Probably not, I am likely looking for sheets or rolls of aluminum, or aluminum at the mill, etc. and to see your drill, even though it's made of aluminum, is not what I would be expecting. I thought a gimlet was a drink. I have never heard any male in my family refer to any tools as a gimlet, but maybe I am wrong about that one. In other words, they want you to pare down your keywords to the most important ones that apply.

I'm not sure why isolated is included in a rejected keyword, as from your image above it does look isolated. This is where scout comes in. And where I agree a simple sentence explanation would help.

If the only rejection is for keywords, i.e. there isn't another reason, why not try the keyword forum? I understand what cclapper is saying, but if that drill is 'aluminium', then 'aluminium' is correct for that image.
According to "define: gimlet" at Google, a gimlet is a hand tool for drilling holes, so not applicable in this case. IMO your other words are fine. Try the keywording forum and maybe Ethan or Ducksandwich will chip in with a definitive explanation. Actually, even if there was another issue, it would still be worth getting clarification on these keywords.

why not try the keyword forum? ...

That makes sense, if you have an image that you think will eventually make some money on IS.   Otherwise it's just one more hoop to jump through, while chasing 30 cent sales.