pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: It's nice to know I'm not alone...........  (Read 12292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 27, 2008, 05:18 »
0
IS reviews can be soooooooo upsetting......I swear sometimes it seems like they are out to get......ME.......!!          Lately I have been getting rejections for all sorts of things....... 
 
Keywords not relevant.....ok...I can deal with this one...they are right...to a point...I need to cut down on the implied keywords...but if you look at Dreamstime and check out the keywords that find a photomany many times people look up things with very general keywords.yet IS does not want these.they want only specific keywords.    I listed JAVA on a coffee bean picture and it was rejected for keywords not relevant..come on..it was JAVA coffee.   I had another picture of coffee beans rejected for the word Cappuccino.   True there was no Cappuccino there..but coffee beans make cappuccinoto me that seems relevant.   I see the point on this..to a degree.but man sometimes I think they are way to picky

But here is a new one   They rejected one with five model releases, because the witness signature looked different in a couple of the releasesthen they noted to me that the Model release is a legal document so they are basically implying that I forged the signatures of the witness.  The witness on all of these is my wife.ya her signature is slightly different on some of the releases.but if you look at the handwriting closely you can tell that the letters are made the same way..  So now I guess we are responsible for how our models and witnesss sign their names.   MAKE SURE YOU SIGN EXACTLY THE SAME give me a break I resend it in and sent a little nasty email with it..I really upsets me that they insinuate that I am forging my model releases.
It makes me feel much better when I see other people complaining about ISs reviewsat least Im not alone. 

Are there any Exclusives out there that are having this same problem?????

One other note:   Over the last 2 weeks.IS sales have really slowed down..all other sites are fine..anybody else notice this?


« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2008, 06:30 »
0
I had another picture of coffee beans rejected for the word Cappuccino.   True there was no Cappuccino there..but coffee beans make cappuccinoto me that seems relevant.   I see the point on this..to a degree.but man sometimes I think they are way to picky


Metal is used to make cars.  Should we tag images of sheet metal with "automobile, plane,etc."?

RT


« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2008, 06:58 »
0
   I had another picture of coffee beans rejected for the word Cappuccino.   True there was no Cappuccino there..but coffee beans make cappuccinoto me that seems relevant. 

In all fairness you're missing the point, yes coffeee beans can be used to make cappuccino but by the sound of your image it doesn't portray that, most people use coffee to help them stay awake but you wouldn't put sleep in as a keyword would you.

It's a bit like putting the word 'sex' into every shot with a person in it, because sex is used to make people  :D

I agree iStock inspectors sometimes have some wierd habits regarding keywords but in this instance I don't think they're wrong.

Personally I'd wish they sort the best match fiasco out, my sales have taken a nosedive since their latest re-structure  >:(

« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2008, 08:54 »
0
I had another picture of coffee beans rejected for the word Cappuccino.   True there was no Cappuccino there..

You said it yourself... You should only keyword what is in the image, not in your head.

« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2008, 10:04 »
0
Hi Perkmeup,

I once received a comment from an IS reviewer that may shed some light for you.  From what I gather, after Getty acquired IS, IS inherited Getty's structured keywords system.  The comment I received was that, having acquired this system they feel fewer extremely relevant keywords are preferred, as the system itself is designed guide buyers towards finding the right keywords to fit what they are looking for.

This may explain why keywords attached to similar images that have been in IS for a while are being rejected as irrelevant.  I feel your pain, I've been hounded by the irrelevant keyword rejection a bit myself. :) 

Hope this is helpful,
-Brett

vonkara

« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2008, 10:17 »
0

It's a bit like putting the word 'sex' into every shot with a person in it, because sex is used to make people  :D

:D LOL You couldn't explain it better

« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2008, 16:42 »
0
I resend it in and sent a little nasty email with it..

I know rejections can be extremely annoying sometimes, but writing a note like that won't do you any favors.

The inspectors don't have anything against you personally, but when you think about just how many images they look through each day, it's important to stick to their rules.

Regarding keywords, if in doubt I leave it out - I'd rather get an image accepted with fewer keywords than rejected for unnecessary ones. I also upload sketches/scans/screengrabs & a note for every vector file to show my illustration from start to finish, which inspectors seem to really appreciate, again making it easier to approve the image.

It's definitely worth going the extra mile to ensure your files are up to scratch, as inspectors don't have the time to spend 'nannying' contributors (that's not aimed at anyone in particular, just a general observation)  ;D

« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2008, 21:27 »
0
I really support the attempt by istock to tighten up on keywords - it was sadly needed so I am really pleased to see the get tough approach. I do have a question though and would like some feedback - I submitted a piggy bank (aka coin bank) image and it was refused due to the bad keywords "savings" and "wealth". Should I appeal to scout on that one or are those really not appropriate keywords for the image?

« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2008, 23:40 »
0
I'd appeal - if saving is unrelated to piggy bank - what else is related? Pig - for sure  not, bank - neither...

jsnover

« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2008, 23:48 »
0
If  the image was of an isolated piggy bank, then it doesn't show either saving or weath, it just shows a piggy bank. If there was someone with a pile of money to put into it, or even a big pile of coins next to it or being dumped out of a broken one, then you'd be illustrating the concept of saving or wealth and those keywords would fit.


« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2008, 00:05 »
0
i find them the most frustrating of all the sites. The thing that gives me the pips is when you hit the last button and it says you need a word / category thing. what? You sit there and try to attach stuff and it obviously does not stick.

I just give up with them.

« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2008, 03:06 »
0
I just got a picture of two Zebras in Namibia rejected for incorrect keywording.
The keywords that were mentioned are "Animal, Striped, Africa, Fur (Animal Hair), Mammal".
It's getting ridiculous...

GWB

« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2008, 10:00 »
0
Same here, these keyword rejections are getting absurd.  What are they looking at?  Though I am constantly annoyed with them the sales remain good.  I just wish all of this made sense. 

I'm going to submit files with just the minimum keywords--5.  If it gets through then I'll go in later and add more. 

G~

« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2008, 11:38 »
0
If an english major,  student of linguistics or alike were the ones doing the reviewing I would say they know best. Most likely though this is not the case. Getty asks its submitters to give 5 concept keywords, not literal but concept, to each image submitted. The concept "wealth" or "savings" would do nicely attached to an image of an isolated piggy bank. You can argue that a piggy bank by itself has nothing to do with wealth but so much of image use is based on a concept rather than literal interpretation. 

« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2008, 14:45 »
0
I think these mistakes should be reported ([email protected]).  Someone is doing a big mess in IS - dirkr's post is a clear example.

I agree savings is ok for piggy bank (what are piggy banks for?). Wealth may be a kind of stretch, some will accept it, some won't.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2008, 15:26 »
0
I contacted support, let's wait what they say...

« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2008, 13:59 »
0
I shoot a lot of jewelry and gemstones.  Most of the names of rarer gemstones aren't in anybody's database and come back either omitted or with the infamous "incorrect keyword" or "incorrect spelling" rejection.  Uh, boys, just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean the jewelry trade doesn't, either.  sheesh!!  gimme a break, here! >:(

« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2008, 14:11 »
0
IMO, conceptual words should be allowed and are important for buyers to find an image.  While there are professional buyers that know exactly what they want, there are many more buyers that have no idea what they are looking for.

One of the features that DT has is the ability to see what a buyer searched for when they purchased an image.  I have had many images that were purchased with keywords that were conceptual.  There is actually a thread on the DT forums where members show the image that was purchased along with the keywords that were used to find the image.  If you go through the thread, you will see loads of images that were purchased by conceptual keywords.  Here is the thread:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_8992

hali

« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2008, 14:37 »
0
lol, my problem is not with too many irrelevant keywords, it's with not enough keywords.
who is it? i think BigStock wants 10 keywords, and i always seem to have problems finding ten. luckily most of my images are isolateds, so i have copy, space, white, over, isolated... to add .
but yes, it is a problem . and IS can be a pain, even when you use the relevant keywords.
good to know we're not the only ones.

« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2008, 15:17 »
0
I could complan about IS until I was blue in the face.

I just dont get why they have to be so uptight about keywords either. I have never had a photo rejected for keywords at any other site and I get them quite often at IS. If there are people out there repeatedly spamming keywords, by all means punish them. But what about all of the other people out there who occasionally get a bad keyword on a photo.

The way I look at it IS is responsible for keeping their buyers happy as well as the contributing artists. So a buyer searches for a cup of cappuccino and your photo of coffee beans show up, whats the damage? The buyer either ignores your photo or they think "Hey, coffee beans that will work too." On the other end of it you have the photographers stuck with rekeywording all our photos and putting up with ridiculous rejections and upload restrictions.

It just feels like the photographers get the short end of the stick more often than not at IS...that is if you are non-exclusive. 

« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2008, 15:24 »
0
Because  coffee beans on a search for cappuccino fills up the search pages unnecessarily and makes the buyer page forward and forward looking, when they shouldn't have to.  Also, "cappuccino" is a noun.  "Coffee beans" is a noun.  It's not like that is a grey area.  Either it is there, or it isn't.

« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2008, 19:04 »
0
Because  coffee beans on a search for cappuccino fills up the search pages unnecessarily and makes the buyer page forward and forward looking, when they shouldn't have to.  Also, "cappuccino" is a noun.  "Coffee beans" is a noun.  It's not like that is a grey area.  Either it is there, or it isn't.

Have to totally agree here. It either is, or it isn't. As a former image buyer, having things things named what they are not was the absolute biggest time waster for me.

How about a guy in a suit on white, with the keyword Wallet because he might have one in his back pocket? Just stupid. Keyword accurately.

« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2008, 19:18 »
0
I've had over-the-top rejections, too.

You know, I probably wouldn't mind as much IF the resubmits didn't count as a new upload.

Well, time to upload my 15 so I can get another 2 online :D

« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2008, 18:24 »
0
I've had over-the-top rejections, too.

You know, I probably wouldn't mind as much IF the resubmits didn't count as a new upload.

Well, time to upload my 15 so I can get another 2 online :D

I was actually 14 for 15 on my last IS submission - I almost fell out of my chair in shock!!  Now let's see what they do with my current batch; just to keep the law of averages average, they'll probably reject the whole lot.. ::)

« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2008, 19:56 »
0
Heh
If you see I am very upset, angry, .... (+50 very bad feelings and bad things about IS...)
Yes but why?
Maybe if I am buyer that is all OK but if you on the other side why that "superior, megaturbo super system" dont work for contributors in same way???
All complains about iStock are about that. Fck authors in all possible way for all kind of stupid triviality!?!
Why and for what? iStock in this way in quota protecting they newbee loosers as exclusive members??? Or programes have impotence or inability to solve that mutually simple thing???


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
4610 Views
Last post May 12, 2006, 16:31
by leaf
12 Replies
7872 Views
Last post September 23, 2008, 06:15
by peep
3 Replies
2854 Views
Last post February 08, 2010, 11:31
by PenelopeB
19 Replies
14466 Views
Last post January 24, 2011, 12:44
by gill
7 Replies
3720 Views
Last post January 05, 2011, 05:24
by Newsfocus1

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors