MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: ap on May 04, 2010, 01:02
-
nuff said. >:(
-
???????????????
What this time?
-
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 do much better with istock reviewers than I do with DT at the moment. For me is should be DT...arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggh!!! :)
-
I do much better with istock reviewers than I do with DT at the moment. For me is should be DT...arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggh!!! :)
yeah, but with is, it's one image after another, sometimes a few hours or days apart, that's dripping (i mean, driving) me mad. at least with dt, it comes all at once.
-
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 really cannot agree about reviewers - their consistency was one of main factors that made me considering exclusivity (though best match change threw away all considerations).
I do not always agree with IS reviewers, but at least they can err on some photos in the batch, as opposite to SS that errs on whole batches and has no scouts.
-
..
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.
-
They just rejected some images of a red heat-shaped thing because I had includeded word 'Love' in the keywords. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
-
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 :)
-
I think they're pretty consistent and it's great to have scout to fall back on.
They are tighter than shutterstock, but then have you seen the overall quality of the SS collection lately?
When I buy I always start at IS there's a lot less crap to sift through.
-
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...!
-
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 agree with you on that. They all go through stages where the reviewing is inconsistent and rejects are for silly reasons.
-
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. >:(
-
... multiple rejections they don't understand ...
That's the whole problem. Just one short line of explanation would make it all work. They can't be bothered.
-
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.
(http://static2.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/5/5/7/large2/7559980.jpg)
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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Gimlet_-_tool.jpg/220px-Gimlet_-_tool.jpg)
-
The rejection of 'drill' obviously makes no sense. Maybe it's another CV limitation and they only accept "drill" as a verb, meaning you'd have to show the drill in use.
A gimlet is a hand drill, not a power tool. 'Aluminum', well yes I guess it's made of aluminum, but...
It's a modern rechargable tool, not 'retro' unless you understand that B & D intended it's style to be retro-inspired. The reviewer would not know that.
-
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
-
There's no allowance for the fact that the photographer submitting the image might know more about what it is, and what it represents, than the reviewer. One of the big reasons I've given up on IS is the futility of submitting 'concept' images. It's like telling jokes to C3PO.
-
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.
-
I think they're pretty consistent and it's great to have scout to fall back on.
They are tighter than shutterstock, but then have you seen the overall quality of the SS collection lately?
When I buy I always start at IS there's a lot less crap to sift through.
i haven't really compared the different agencies' collections but at least it's crap that sells at ss. when i have exactly the same photos at both agencies, they just do much better at ss. fyi, i don't have any crap in my own portfolio, only the highest quality stuff. ;)
-
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.
-
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.Actually, even if there was another issue, it would still be worth getting clarification on these keywords.
it's lovely that there is scout to fall back on when you have an intransigent inspector to deal with or to go directly to the keyword forum for clarification. however, this all takes a lot of time better spent elsewhere.
i've never had a rejection based purely on keywords but it's always thrown in as an afterthought or additional proof. but the rejection always had something quite physically visible in the photo, like animal ear, leg, etc. for a dog bouncing around. but the ironic thing is that a photo with only the torso of a real nurse (trying to control the rambunctious dog) visible is rejected for the keyword "real people", while also requesting a model release at the same time.
is may have a method to their madness, but most of the time they are splitting hairs and wasting our time (and quota).
-
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.
But like most other things (but not the bizarrely random bad light rejections I get, of course ;) ;)) once you 'get' keywording, you get it.
Also, it's an area where some inspectors aren't too hot, so often wrong. For example, just look at the most recent acceptances for 'commercial kitchen'. Almost half of the first page sorted by 'age' shouldn't have that keyword. It's disheartening.
-
..
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.
case solved (they must be reading this forum :D). \o/
-
[Almost half of the first page sorted by 'age' shouldn't have that keyword. It's disheartening.
Disheartening is the word. And it's the same at the other big sites. Check the 'most downloaded' images for the subject you're considering and you'll usually find that the big money makers are outrageously keyword-spammed.
-
They (IS) just rejected an image (no complete reupload just requesting new MR).
+++photographer information missing++
Incomplete information (addresses, phone numbers etc.) Please have a new release filled out and uploaded.
These fields are not existing anymore even on their own release form :) LOL.
-
Also, it's an area where some inspectors aren't too hot, so often wrong. For example, just look at the most recent acceptances for 'commercial kitchen'. Almost half of the first page sorted by 'age' shouldn't have that keyword. It's disheartening.
You can't really blame the inspectors, the primary responsibility for keywording has to be with the contributor. If you were to sort by best match then the wrongly key-worded images should over time be pushed well down the results as they wouldn't be viewed or bought via incorrect words.
If you think IS is bad then try a few searches at FT. The keyword abuse there is horrific and there isn't any 'relevance' factor to promote correctly keyworded images in the results, as there is at IS and SS.
-
They (IS) just rejected an image (no complete reupload just requesting new MR).
+++photographer information missing++
Incomplete information (addresses, phone numbers etc.) Please have a new release filled out and uploaded.
These fields are not existing anymore even on their own release form :) LOL.
I just uploaded an MR last week and the photographer info is at the bottom of the left column. Not sure what you mean.
-
They (IS) just rejected an image (no complete reupload just requesting new MR).
+++photographer information missing++
Incomplete information (addresses, phone numbers etc.) Please have a new release filled out and uploaded.
These fields are not existing anymore even on their own release form :) LOL.
I just uploaded an MR last week and the photographer info is at the bottom of the left column. Not sure what you mean.
http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/modelrelease.pdf (http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/modelrelease.pdf)
address? phone?
-
Sorry about that, I see what you mean now.
I used the same MR you linked to and did not get a reject...just another mis-rejection from IS, I guess. It is getting old, isn't it?
-
If you think IS is bad then try a few searches at FT. The keyword abuse there is horrific and there isn't any 'relevance' factor to promote correctly keyworded images in the results, as there is at IS and SS.
Very true - instead they prefer to promote their "infinite collection" which are usually less relevant, and quite frequently badly composed, poorly exposed and full of trademarks.
Judging by this collection what you really should be doing at FT is uploading all your rejects there and selling them at premium prices.
-
How they even can call them 'MAJOR' stock site when they can't overwhelm Shutterstock?
What is so 'MAJOR' there? Number of contributors? Well... I think Not. 55000 - 60000 is so small number! Shutterstock has almost 5 times more contributors and still makes better for all than iStock.
Is iStock 'MAJOR' for exclusives? Well - that was true in the past. Now they are merely covering 30% of market.
Their PROFIT? That for sure is MAJOR.
Well... I won't upload there, but I will be interested in shares of iStockPhoto for sure!
Why bother with them anyway?
-
which way is the wind blowing....? as was said, and I agree 101%... one day this one is great and that one sux and the next day it's the opposite....which way is the wind blowing?
there is no ryhme or reason... on rejections, I have said it a gazillion times. IF ( and that is important), IF the shot really has no tech problems and it is a good shot, and the rejection was a moronic one (not stock material, not focused where we think it should be, too many now no thanks, etc)...... I just wait a few weeks, submit it again, it is accepted and starts to sell and everyone is happy. Sux you have to waste your time.. but, that's the nature of this biz. 8)=tom
p.s. i feel your pain on the keyword rejection... we have all suffered that one. I had a picture of the mountain Half Dome in Yosemite Natn'l Park... it was rejected because the words half dome were not relevant.
-
p.s. i feel your pain on the keyword rejection... we have all suffered that one. I had a picture of the mountain Half Dome in Yosemite Natn'l Park... it was rejected because the words half dome were not relevant.
I agree it's really annoying when that happens, but on a case as clear-cut as this, you can sitemail emyerson or ducksandwich directly to ask for it to be reinstated (much quicker than Scout). With less clear-cut examples, you can post to the keywords forum - Ethan and Duck often look into threads there anyway.
You have to remember that inspectors are from all over the world, and although Half Dome might be iconic for Americans, it may be unheard of elsewhere. Many of the inspectors are mainly studio workers, with no interest in landscape photography. I'm sure I'd never have heard of Half Dome if it weren't for reading Ansel Adams books.
-
Ok who are these "emyerson or ducksandwich" guys and how is a contributor supposed to know about them?
-
Ok who are these "emyerson or ducksandwich" guys and how is a contributor supposed to know about them?
They're the members of Team Metadata who post most often on the Keywords forum, which is the place to hang out if you're having keywording issues.
-
"Team Metadata"? Huh?
Why can't IS just be a straightforward business instead of ... never mind. Obviously some people there enjoy all these games.
-
"Team Metadata"? Huh?
Why can't IS just be a straightforward business instead of ... never mind. Obviously some people there enjoy all these games.
Seriously, though, if you have issues with keywording at iStock, wouldn't it make more sense to spend your time posting on iStock's keywording forum, which was set up especially for that purpose, than posting here, where you can vent, but can't achieve anything useful, like getting your keywords reinstated if appropriate or at least getting an explanation of why you're not getting them reinstated (and even then, you still have recourse to Scout).
Your shout, of course. ;-)
-
Actually IS reviewers in all fairness but they are in a class above the rest able to spot the creative values in shots, etc, Ive seen it many times. Its not an easy job, Ive been invited myself a few times over the years to judge professional photo contests and believe me, it isnt easy, also you got to be neutral and objective which makes it even harde.
-
[wouldn't it make more sense to spend your time posting on iStock's keywording forum...
Yeah but first you have to know about all these mysterious "players", and forums where you you're supposed to "hang out" etc. Why can't it just be between contributor and reviewer?
-
Ok who are these "emyerson or ducksandwich" guys and how is a contributor supposed to know about them?
they are both really helpful and knowledgable guys, who have provided support and advice anytime I have asked despite being answerable to thousands of contributors everyday. a contributor can know about them by being active in the forums, or simply by reading about the iStock admins and staff members in the articles.
I have been through a particularly bad patch of rejections recently due to experimenting more lately. despite the rejections, I value the inspection process at iStock immensely and consider it a huge factor in my improvement over the years.
-
[wouldn't it make more sense to spend your time posting on iStock's keywording forum...
Yeah but first you have to know about all these mysterious "players", and forums where you you're supposed to "hang ou" etc. Why can't it just be between contributor and reviewer?
I guess that would be too personal and open to abuse. Besides,these are the guys with the keywords expertise.
If you can work your way around the msg forums, you can work out the iStock forums too. If you want to. ;)
-
[wouldn't it make more sense to spend your time posting on iStock's keywording forum...
Yeah but first you have to know about all these mysterious "players", and forums where you you're supposed to "hang ou" etc. Why can't it just be between contributor and reviewer?
I guess that would be too personal and open to abuse. Besides,these are the guys with the keywords expertise.
If you can work your way around the msg forums, you can work out the iStock forums too. If you want to. ;)
I'm an exclusive on IS, know my way around the forums and know the people involved but I can see where this user is coming from.
The keywording process is convoluted and suffers from major problems, some of which are even acknowledged by IS including the very existence of the keyword forum and initiatives such as wikiing, and the recent removal of the keyword privileges from some exclusives. And as I recall you yourself have been a critic of keyword spam on many occasions ....
-
[wouldn't it make more sense to spend your time posting on iStock's keywording forum...
Yeah but first you have to know about all these mysterious "players", and forums where you you're supposed to "hang ou" etc. Why can't it just be between contributor and reviewer?
I guess that would be too personal and open to abuse. Besides,these are the guys with the keywords expertise.
If you can work your way around the msg forums, you can work out the iStock forums too. If you want to. ;)
I'm an exclusive on IS, know my way around the forums and know the people involved but I can see where this user is coming from.
The keywording process is convoluted and suffers from major problems, some of which are even acknowledged by IS including the very existence of the keyword forum and initiatives such as wikiing, and the recent removal of the keyword privileges from some exclusives. And as I recall you yourself have been a critic of keyword spam on many occasions ....
Absolutely and that is still my position; but my point is that it's better to work to try to resolve the problems on iStock than to shout into an effective vacuum here. (Though I know it's good to vent!). I still contend that iStock's search is usually best, but that there's still a way to go. The more I understand the process (and I'm only a smidgen out from the starting post on that), the more I see it would be difficult to get 100% results every time, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to have the best possible search. Personally, I think both the keyword forum and the ability to wiki are extremely positive. There isn't another site I've visited where my wiki finger doesn't constantly twitch with frustration. However, the keywording team is really overworked and don't 'reach' the wikied files as quickly as I would like, but every company has to decide where to prioritise their resources, with every department shouting, "Us, Us ..."
-
but my point is that it's better to work to try to resolve the problems on iStock than to shout into an effective vacuum here. (Though I know it's good to vent!).
this is actually the venting thread for all things istock. so, go ahead and vent...if you actually want to get things resolved (which i also highly encourage), maybe someone can start a much more rational thread on "wiki points and keyword wisdoms to guide you around is".
i just don't think it'll be a lot of fun though, unless there are many erudite photographers on board, which i hope one day to be. ;)
-
I'd like an article or a wiki entitled "How The Game At IS is Actually Played."
I was once a cab driver. A new driver had all the rules and ordinances explained to him by both the company and the city cab inspector. You then went out and followed those rules carefully, and made $2.30 on your first day. You'd spend hours sitting at a lonely stand somewhere, wondering how anyone could make a living as a driver. After a few 40-hour weeks of no money you began to understand how the game was really played, and that the drivers making the money had thrown most of the rules out the window, and were madly dead-heading around town, running empty out to the airport, then over to the bus station when the bus was arriving from Chicago... while pretending to be out of range if the dispatcher was trying to sell a grocery run in a poor part of town.
-
How 'bout this?
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/ (http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/)
-
Interesting.
-
How 'bout this?
[url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/[/url])
Sean you shouldn't be encouraging the competition ;-)
-
How 'bout this?
[url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/[/url])
Sean you shouldn't be encouraging the competition ;-)
maybe it's misinformation. ;)
actually i'm sure it's all good, but what we really want to know are more details on the best match changes which they are keeping under lock and key.
-
How 'bout this?
[url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/[/url])
Excellent and covers it all. Nice work.
-
I to hate their review process and the rejections for keywording, but I make the most money off this site. I haven't uploaded to them for quite awhile or any of the sites and when I last did it wasn't much, but they keep generating income more so than the rest of the sites.
-
They just rejected some images of a red heat-shaped thing because I had includeded word 'Love' in the keywords. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
yes, i would love to be the reviewer too - one of the main reasons is rejecting of keyword-spamming images.
*if this is some object, heartial-shaped, and in red color = keyword "love" has nothing to do with this. this is "object" "single object" "heartial shape" etc... = what is not-is not love ("human feeling"). - so reviewer was right.
** i met one reviewer from istock personally -and believe me -that person is really excellent - photographer -and photo shop operator.
-
They just rejected some images of a red heat-shaped thing because I had includeded word 'Love' in the keywords. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
yes, i would love to be the reviewer too - one of the main reasons is rejecting of keyword-spamming images.
*if this is some object, heartial-shaped, and in red color = keyword "love" has nothing to do with this. this is "object" "single object" "heartial shape" etc... = what is not-is not love ("human feeling"). - so reviewer was right.
** i met one reviewer from istock personally -and believe me -that person is really excellent - photographer -and photo shop operator.
Why would IStock include conceptual keywords in the system if they are not be used in this sort of instance? Clearly you cannot photograph "love", as you point out it isn't an object, so when would it be appropriate to add it as a keyword?
Following your reasoning it would be equally inapplicable to a photo of two young people starring longingly into each other's eyes "love has nothing to do with this. This is "people""couple""two"etc."
-
if love is "human feeling" - this has nothing to do with ONLY objects. objects are dead things. with no heard and hot blood inside.
-so your parallel is not good. -image of two people from the other hand can produce differ feelings. love is one of these feelings.
if you have image with people for example are giving a present each to other - this heartial object for instance - then "love" is o.k. keyword.
or try to think "from the end" - if you are buyer, and you need a little red glass heart image for your design, for i don't know.. st.valentine's day... - you are going to try search with : red, glass, single object, heart shape, ...... i am pretty sure that you are not going to type word "love" for this. -you guess -you need image of object.
another buyer who needs "human feeling ->love" is going to have a bunch of images which does not have anything to do directly with the term "love"
reviewers few times deleted some right kwds from my files - and i complained to support, and kwds. were back.
but in this specific case - i have to say that i agree with reviewer.
*why is istock most sucessful agency in a business? fiwe years ago - all the agencies had pretty similar number of pretty the same images - but istock rised up from the crowd? even if the prices on is. are actually the biggest in a business? i am sure that a number of new buyers turned on istock also because search/keyword policy
-
In that case could I ask why it was appropriate for you to have the keyword "love" on this image:
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5718918/2/istockphoto_5718918-sunflowers.jpg)
or this one:
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1747375/2/istockphoto_1747375-voyage.jpg)
???!!!
-
because these images were sent BEFORE istock anounced it's plan to avoid keyword spamming with both non-relevant, and half relevant kewords. AFTER this site mail - which every single one member received - i think that i had two (2) images rejected with keywords reason.
2.nd is back from 2006. -this is a 2010. now ;)
anyhow, thanks for pointing on these images. -please check these images in a few hours or tomorrow, and tell us here what happened. (i do not know how quick is update of editing images ).
*can we see please problematic image from the start of thread, and date of uploading please? thanks.
but the main fact that you are missing here is :
these two (mine) images that are accepted (under the rules in the time these were sent to microstock sites) -would not, and should not be accepted today - because there are new rules about keywording. -but these images with no matter which are images's keywords, or whatever with this images - does not make any change to the image we are talking here.
this is what my mailbox says:
iStockphoto Tip of the Week - 10.14.2008 - Keyword Crackdown ......
so... cool down, and play by the rules, or don't play ;)
-
Thanks for answering the question; many would have been too embarassed to. I'll leave it at that, people can reread the thread including what you had said to Perry and make up their own minds.
-
I had sales at DT where the search term was love, and they were illustrations of hearts and stuff like that. I suppose the buyer liked that I had this "inappropriate" keyword.
-
yes. i agree - on dt. i had also.. let's say maybe 5% of images bought with less relevant kwds, but, this is on d.t. dt is not is, and is is not dt. these are two different companies, with different policies, and different customer
-
ok, now i've seen everything.
this is the latest rejection reason at is:
"Please provide a focused description for this file. The description should include how the file was created, its subject, location and any valuable technical information regarding the file that may be helpful to the client who may be interested in purchasing your image. Thank you."
it's like they want to limit our keywords but be as verbose as possible in the descriptions. what the?...
-
ok, now i've seen everything.
this is the latest rejection reason at is:
"Please provide a focused description for this file. The description should include how the file was created, its subject, location and any valuable technical information regarding the file that may be helpful to the client who may be interested in purchasing your image. Thank you."
it's like they want to limit our keywords but be as verbose as possible in the descriptions. what the?...
That's usually (always?) used if there's something in the image which might be subject to copyright, e.g. a statue, carving, fancy detail on a building, etc. The bit you quoted isn't the 'rejection reason' - that will be given in your rejection email; it's advice on how to resubmit, should you choose. Not knowing what the image is I can't be specific, but for example it could be proving that the contentious item is out of copyright.
-
i appreciate your trying to help but there were no other rejection reasons other than for keywording. it's a photo of a movie marquee with the headliner, 'love, love, love' and they rejected these following keywords:
{[ Film Industry, Movie (Entertainment Event), Movie Theater (Entertainment Building), Movie (Entertainment Event), show, Romance]}
if this is the case, then they've really gone too far. why should i explain everything in the description when they won't allow it in keywords?
it's double arrrrrgh!
-
with no intention to offend you, i think that i would reject these kwds too.
can you put here a thumbnail? -> go to rejected image, and right-click on it , and "copy image lotcation" - and paste it here. i'll give my best honestly - because i know how this is frustrating, and can be frustrating - just to save you nerves and time. - i had let's say some... 5 rejections regarding keywords , and 3x they were right once half-right, and once this was not acceptable, so i made a complaint to scout, and kwds were back.
-
to be really honest, i'm not sure it's in our best interest to reject keywords by association. those keywords are definitely associated with the image without being literally it.
for example, i just had a sale on dreamstime where the buyer searched for "santa barbara". guess what? it's an image of a pair of very tall palm trees i took in santa barbara. obviously palm trees can be representative of santa barbara, just as beach is to hawaii.
so, anything to do with the movie industry can be associated with a cinema marquee. i just feel it's so limiting the way it currently is and the buyer obviously agrees.
other agencies encourage a goodly # of keywording. ie, you can't upload without at least 10 keywords at dt. veer offers even more keyword ideas for the ones you already have. i think it's really common sense vs. spamming and we both know which one it is.
-
i really hate when i have not to take side to my colegue - contributor in this case.
try to look things from the angle of buyer. o.k. this your buyer did type "santa barbara" in search, and he liked image, so -he bought one.
but to be honest - imagine on example that you need your previous image:
it's a photo of a movie marquee with the headliner, 'love, love, love' and they rejected these following keywords:
{[ Film Industry, Movie (Entertainment Event), Movie Theater (Entertainment Building), Movie (Entertainment Event), show, Romance]}
and he needs it. what for sure, regarding the fact these terms are connected with image - terms that will never be used for reaching your image is: romance (it's not romance(human relationship) - it's an object right?), nor film industry (again - it's an object), neither movie teather (it's not entertainment buildint, right?it's an object), nor movie (it's not a movie right?).
what buyer is going to type is: "love" (single word), electronic display (or bilboard). the end.
*please, take this my post with reserve, i'm not 100%sure that i understand correctly from the description fi this is on your photo? -this would be much easier with image to look on.
thing that i am trying to say is that istock really have best search machine in a business. -one of the reasons that i quit other sites - i was really bored when i try to find some of my images and have a tons of spamming images before mine.
*article on istock about keywordint (on the rejection mail/message, there is a link on kwds. article) -is really really useful. i read it twice or even three times, i can't remember any more - but as i said - after a site mail (every contributor got one) with "please take one more look on your keywords" i had maybe three images rejected with keyword reason.
-
Im sure they have some summer-reviewers or trainees. My latest experience with an oil-industrial shot, well?? blimey, even the knowledge of English was questionable. Im waiting for autumn to upload any special photography, dont want to go through all that again.
-
^ but have in mind that images on hard drive earns nothing, and costs - at least that part of memory space on hard drive. from the other side - images that are online are fighting in between others to earn you some money ;).
what i am tryin' to say is - this is not smart deceision. o.k. i can agree with reviewers being wrong. but, i can't agree that reviewers are too often wrnog. but, let's say that i agree - o.k. - it's a human person. even a high professionals in any business makes a mistakes. Senna died in F1 car, regarding the fact he was the best driver in the world...
-so o.k. -you have a scout to complain - why don't you complain? after all one image here or there does not make any big difference, right? (wow, ... i'm writing like i am a is p.r. stuff, i'll link 'em this topic, and ask for +2% royalities to be razed to me lol).
no honestly -reviewer who made a mistake can not be a reason for anyone to give up. if we give up every time we have a problem, and not trying to resolve the problem - we would be still in baby bed with pampers in between our legs :)
-
^ but have in mind that images on hard drive earns nothing, and costs - at least that part of memory space on hard drive. from the other side - images that are online are fighting in between others to earn you some money ;).
I have to agree with Christian. Timing of when you upload can be an important factor in the success of an image. If you upload an image during a particularly slow time (or a seasonal one when demand is lowest for that subject) you run the risk of it sinking into the oblivion of the search engine. Initial sales and interest in a file when you first upload can cause it to have a much longer and more productive life.
Of course I am not suggesting game the system (wouldn't even know how to do that) but timing your uploads to give the best chance to an image may seriously affect its long-term success.
-
yes, i agree also with this. but i might mistakenly concluded that kristian did not want to re-upload/or upload images because he think that "real" inspectors are on let's say vacation, and that "reviewer students" are doing job currently. (which i disagree 100%)
-
i appreciate your trying to help but there were no other rejection reasons other than for keywording. it's a photo of a movie marquee with the headliner, 'love, love, love' and they rejected these following keywords:
{[ Film Industry, Movie (Entertainment Event), Movie Theater (Entertainment Building), Movie (Entertainment Event), show, Romance]}
if this is the case, then they've really gone too far. why should i explain everything in the description when they won't allow it in keywords?
it's double arrrrrgh!
Again, this would be much easier if we could see the actual image, but it looks like they would need to know that you had just put in the words 'Love, Love, Love' youself, and that it isn't the name of an actual movie. Also, I think that your keywords are too loose for iStock. Depending on the actual image, 'movie theatre/cinema' might be OK, but not the others.
What works on Dreamstime is irrelevant to what will be accepted at iStock, and probably vice versa.
-
I know reviewing is a human process and sure! anybody can make mistakes, quite acceptable but in this particular case it was a bit too much, it was like being told to remove spaghetti from a plate of spaghetti and after all any reject no matter how wonky, it shows up on your acceptance percentage and if the shot in question demands extensive PP, model-release, etc, well then it aint fun.
Reviewers must learn to look further then noise and keywords, thats just the very basics of being a professional picture-editor or Art-buyer.
-
Im sure they have some summer-reviewers or trainees. My latest experience with an oil-industrial shot, well?? blimey, even the knowledge of English was questionable. Im waiting for autumn to upload any special photography, dont want to go through all that again.
I totally agree. My previous batch had 100% acceptance. My last batch got rejections that made me think some mentally challenged person was reviewing the images. It's probably trainees or summer students or whatever. I've noticed too it happens every summer. The question is why is Istock allowing that. It's very time consuming to submit to them, so assigning unqualified people to review images is a huge waste of our time. If they don't care about us wasting time, maybe they should care about rejected images that are good sellers and frustrated photographers who'd quit submitting because of this crap.
-
well, all i can say is that everyone is free to found his own www.my-stocksite.com (http://www.my-stocksite.com) microstock site, and to make a rules he thinks are o.k. e.t.c.
o.k. that is true that for let's say... (2010. -1983.....=...) 27 years, i had no image "rejected" with any of microstock rejection reasons. my customers do have only one criteria: i like (or dislike) image i need. and that's it. no counting pixels, no finding noise, no looking at 200% (or re-examining big print form the film).
these standards are well... we can discuss about this. -but - these are rules. anyone can take it, or leave it.
i had this image rejected with out of focus:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/13131124/2/istockphoto_13131124-aquarium-snails.jpg (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/13131124/2/istockphoto_13131124-aquarium-snails.jpg)
and this snapshot is online:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12787053/2/istockphoto_12787053-helix-pomatia.jpg (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12787053/2/istockphoto_12787053-helix-pomatia.jpg)
do i think mine is better/ nice/... -yes.
will i quit sending images on is? - no.
why? - i like $.
*of course, i am not questioning a tehnical skill, and experience of an author, or equipment used for the second one. -i just picked it up on random search.
the main thing that i am trying to point here is that i do agree that reviewers do make mistakes, and i agree that buyers always look on to the image, and never look onto the pixels/etc... -but these mistakes - made by humans - not machines -are much more rarely done, than the contributors are boo-hoo-hoo-ing. reviewers are people like anyone of us - with heart beating in the chest, and hot blood running through the veins. yes-they make mistakes- anyone of us do make mistakes - but once again - it's not so often.
**i never saw -anywhere on forums that someone complained that his image is online, and later-he saw a few mistakes, and image should actually be rejected ;) (and we will agree that there are also this kind of images)
here is one of mine :)
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1793156/2/istockphoto_1793156-meat.jpg (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1793156/2/istockphoto_1793156-meat.jpg)
-underexposed with ugly white blownout spots.
o.k. camera used for this image was really inferior, and i shot this as jpg, but....
-
Nobody is disputing what youre saying but I rather be safe then sorry. Let me tell you, for three years I helped the mentor of all stock-photography to edit pictures, Tony-Stone of Stones, who later in 92 sold to Getty and together with the Image-Bank actually made Getty what it is.
Professional rules of picture-editing are: once the easy stuff is under way such as exposure, composition, etc there are three main questions:
1: will this picture sell? if no= dustbin, if yes, next question is 2: towards which market or markets? and 3: is this picture too similar to what we already have in the files? if yes, then the picture is dumped even if its fullfilled the previous criteria.
Keywording?? no! there was a special small team inside Stones, Getty-RM and Image-Bank and THEY did all keywording, equal for all and needles to say, prevented any kind of spamming.
This is the way it should operate., Sure you have to pay wages but then again I doint think fulltime or part-time reviewers work on honors?
-
well, all i can say is that everyone is free to found his own [url=http://www.my-stocksite.com]www.my-stocksite.com[/url] ([url]http://www.my-stocksite.com[/url]) microstock site, and to make a rules he thinks are o.k. e.t.c.
o.k. that is true that for let's say... (2010. -1983.....=...) 27 years, i had no image "rejected" with any of microstock rejection reasons. my customers do have only one criteria: i like (or dislike) image i need. and that's it. no counting pixels, no finding noise, no looking at 200% (or re-examining big print form the film).
these standards are well... we can discuss about this. -but - these are rules. anyone can take it, or leave it.
Yup it's all true if you're selling your own images. The moment you start selling someone else's, it becomes some form of partnership. You can't just do whatever you want, or you'll lose your partners. Let's say Istock decreased commissions to something entirely ridiculous, like 5%. How many of us would stay?
Same with the reviewers. They have to be at least semi-qualified people. Everyone has rejections here and there, it's part of the business, most people don't complain when it's business as usual - some accepted, some rejected, some make sense, some don't, whatever, moving on. But when they let someone who has no idea what they are doing to work on the queue, it becomes a problem. Then, in my opinion, as partners, we have every right to complain and request the problem to be fixed.
-
Again, this would be much easier if we could see the actual image, but it looks like they would need to know that you had just put in the words 'Love, Love, Love' youself, and that it isn't the name of an actual movie.
What works on Dreamstime is irrelevant to what will be accepted at iStock, and probably vice versa.
sigh. 'love, love, love' are the actual words on the marquee. i presume that's not allowed either. it's getting to the point where what's literally there is not allowed and what's implied is also not allowed. i really need to get a phd in keywording to figure out what to input.
the point about dreamstime is to compare how different agencies deal with keywords. the fact that they show what keywords the buyers used to search for our images is infinitely more valuable than attempting to keep us in a keywording strait jacket.
it's beyond me to try and influence is policy but i can certainly consider eliminating them as an agency to contribute to for it's just getting to be such an unpleasant process.
-
well, all i can say is that everyone is free to found his own [url=http://www.my-stocksite.com]www.my-stocksite.com[/url] ([url]http://www.my-stocksite.com[/url]) microstock site, and to make a rules he thinks are o.k. e.t.c.
o.k. that is true that for let's say... (2010. -1983.....=...) 27 years, i had no image "rejected" with any of microstock rejection reasons. my customers do have only one criteria: i like (or dislike) image i need. and that's it. no counting pixels, no finding noise, no looking at 200% (or re-examining big print form the film).
these standards are well... we can discuss about this. -but - these are rules. anyone can take it, or leave it.
Yup it's all true if you're selling your own images. The moment you start selling someone else's, it becomes some form of partnership. You can't just do whatever you want, or you'll lose your partners. Let's say Istock decreased commissions to something entirely ridiculous, like 5%. How many of us would stay?
Same with the reviewers. They have to be at least semi-qualified people. Everyone has rejections here and there, it's part of the business, most people don't complain when it's business as usual - some accepted, some rejected, some make sense, some don't, whatever, moving on. But when they let someone who has no idea what they are doing to work on the queue, it becomes a problem. Then, in my opinion, as partners, we have every right to complain and request the problem to be fixed.
Yes Elena! and very well put indeed.
-
Again, this would be much easier if we could see the actual image, but it looks like they would need to know that you had just put in the words 'Love, Love, Love' youself, and that it isn't the name of an actual movie.
What works on Dreamstime is irrelevant to what will be accepted at iStock, and probably vice versa.
sigh. 'love, love, love' are the actual words on the marquee. i presume that's not allowed either.
Again, without seeing the actual image, it's impossible to say for sure, but I'm guessing that could be an IP issue, and that was what the note from the inspector in your OP was about. That's (potentially) a much bigger issue than the keywording issue. But we haven't seen the picture, so that's just inference.
-
Anyone know for how long the uploads are usually deactivated ? I try to upload again and I can't...
-
here is a cut and paste...
Uploads will be turned off on Wednesday, June 23 from 8am until Thursday, June 24 at noon (all MST). During that time Contributor Applications, Moo Cards and Prints will also be unavailable.
The downtime is necessary for us to replace some of our servers. The team will work hard to make sure it runs smoothly.
modified to say that means that uploads will be down 'til 6 pm MST (or whenever they get around to getting it working again).
-
Ok thanks a lot !
-
is anyone experiencing problems with uploading? all the photos are stuck here: https://secure-uploads.istockphoto.com/file_upload.php and ultimately kicked back into "unfinished uploads" since yesterday.
i swear their system have so many problems or have i been complaining too much? ::)
-
There's a forum thread here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=230211&page=4) about upload problems. It isn't just you
-
There's a forum thread here ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=230211&page=4[/url]) about upload problems. It isn't just you
oh, thanx! i didn't see that.
-
Well Im holding off, Im not uploading any new XXXL stuff just to get a summer reviewer touching them, Im waiting to the hollidays are over. Im re-doing some previous stuff and uploading that instead.
-
Well Im holding off, Im not uploading any new XXXL stuff just to get a summer reviewer touching them, Im waiting to the hollidays are over. Im re-doing some previous stuff and uploading that instead.
Summer reviewers? That might explain my most recent string of rejections. A picture taken under a tree with dappled sunlight => "lighting could be improved". An ordinary landscape with out-of-the-camera settings => "over-filtered/over-processed". And so on.
Meanwhile my inbox is spammed every month with over-shopped, weirdly-composed snapshots which I am told are "top shots".
I assume that at times, IS become concerned about the sheer volume of pictures being uploaded so they scare the reviewers into increasing their rejection percentage. Since nobody ever got fired for approving "cute girl with laptop" or "smiling cougar with tennis racket", I will retreat to my studio and resume taking these shots.
-
A picture taken under a tree with dappled sunlight => "lighting could be improved". An ordinary landscape with out-of-the-camera settings => "over-filtered/over-processed". And so on.
"Dappled sunlight" normally looks pretty bad when people are sitting in it. "out-of-the-camera settings" often results in artifacting from heavy .jpg processing.
-
A picture taken under a tree with dappled sunlight => "lighting could be improved". An ordinary landscape with out-of-the-camera settings => "over-filtered/over-processed". And so on.
"Dappled sunlight" normally looks pretty bad when people are sitting in it. "out-of-the-camera settings" often results in artifacting from heavy .jpg processing.
Thank you for the suggestions. It wasn't a people picture under dappled sunlight. I think it was a perfectly valid exposure given the highlight/shadow situation. If the opinion of the general public matters, people who saw the photo on my monitor when I loaded it into the computer said, "That's a nice photo!" No need to show everybody the photo to quibble over, you can believe me or don't.
The other shot was not JPG out of the camera, it was raw, and in Digital Photo Professional I gave one "bump" upward to saturation to what was a slightly dull photo due to the cloudy light. Nothing extreme - I did not give it "Top Shot of the Month" saturation :D I dialed back the sharpening a notch and otherwise left it alone, saved to 16 bit TIF, shopped out a couple of faces, saved as JPG, 100%, etc. Who knows if a tree looks "too green"? One can either upload a slightly dull photo and hope that the customers will see something with potential if they jazz it up a bit, or one can process the photo to give it "curbside appeal" so that they will actually notice the picture when they are scanning through pages of thumbnails.
To be fair to the reviewers and the review process, none of these photos was particularly striking or commercial looking. They were more like, "10 sales over 2 years" type of photo. Possibly the reviewers sensed this, but for whatever reason they hit the "bad lighting" or "over filtered" button instead. Maybe they were inexperienced, or maybe they just didn't want to have it scouted if they made the subjective call "not suitable for stock" or whatever other buttons are provided to them for saying, "Meh."
Maybe the real lesson is, don't even lift the camera up and take the picture unless what you're looking at is an obviously striking composition of a really appealing subject, with excellent lighting. It has to be something that's going to grab the reviewers, or else is such an obvious best-seller that it will be worth fighting for in scout. From now on my motto is, "No More Meh!"
-
If the opinion of the general public matters, people who saw the photo on my monitor when I loaded it into the computer said, "That's a nice photo!" No need to show everybody the photo to quibble over, you can believe me or don't.
Nothing personal, but I don't believe anyone who extols their own virtues here without a sample.
-
If the opinion of the general public matters, people who saw the photo on my monitor when I loaded it into the computer said, "That's a nice photo!" No need to show everybody the photo to quibble over, you can believe me or don't.
Nothing personal, but I don't believe anyone who extols their own virtues here without a sample.
he might be accused of pimping his photo by other members of the forum. however, as the op i hereby encourage those who's bemuddled by the is reviewers (summer or otherwise) to show their rejected photos here for a fair assessment. no stoning or sharp criticism, only constructive words, please.
in any case, i believe you, pet chia. ;)
-
he might be accused of pimping his photo by other members of the forum.
It would be if there was a "buy now" link and if this forum was populated with buyers. Both aren't true.
-
istock...arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggh!!!
This is one of reason why I "love" my "fabulous" iStock site
Safari can’t open the page “https://secure-uploads.istockphoto.com/file_upload.php” because the server unexpectedly dropped the connection. This sometimes occurs when the server is busy. Wait for a few minutes, and then try again.
Specially when I loose 5-10 mins to manage keywords an cats and see this message.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr
How months/years passes iStock for me seams like car 10 or 15 years old which needs so many maintenance for basic operations?!?
Very professional for wanabee "big dog"
-
he might be accused of pimping his photo by other members of the forum.
It would be if there was a "buy now" link and if this forum was populated with buyers. Both aren't true.
Actually, that isn't true. I am a buyer. Not a huge buyer, but buyer nonetheless. But hey, whatever. ;)
-
it'd be kind of funny if a (noncontributor) buyer showed up to critique our photos. i think it may even be more constructive.
-
what's wrong with pimping? :)
anyway, it doesn't work: buyers search pictures by keywords, not on forums
-
I will buy any funny cat picture posted under my post
-
The sales are really depressing this month. I have had no weekend sales for two weekends. Haven't got a sale today yet.
>:(
-
timing your uploads to give the best chance to an image may seriously affect its long-term success.
I think this is woo. Although I never upload just before a full moon or during months without an 'R' in them.
-
he might be accused of pimping his photo by other members of the forum.
It would be if there was a "buy now" link and if this forum was populated with buyers. Both aren't true.
Actually, that isn't true. I am a buyer. Not a huge buyer, but buyer nonetheless. But hey, whatever. ;)
His photo was rejected. How could you buy it? :P
-
If the full moon has anything to do with the rejections, they should suspend inspection around the period.
;D
timing your uploads to give the best chance to an image may seriously affect its long-term success.
I think this is woo. Although I never upload just before a full moon or during months without an 'R' in them.
-
How 'bout this?
[url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/[/url])
Hanging out at MSG tonight and came across this link. Great job and really informative! Thanks!