MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: tired and stressed reviewing of files!  (Read 11511 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« on: June 08, 2010, 11:47 »
0
See this is what happens. The reviewer in question is probably a neewbie or trainee or just so plain tired and stressed he looked at the wrong shot.

" please remove keywords like, oil, gas, industry, petrochemical, engineer, chemical, etc, etc, etc,"  AND here is a file of a chemical oil engineer with GIANT fuel storage tanks in background AND the shot have already sold about 30 times already and among that 4 RF sales.

I know reviewing is a human process but theres got to be limits. I wouldnt post this unless this was such an obvious mistake and fact is, this shouldnt happen, its more in the interst of IS then me.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 11:49 by lagereek »


« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2010, 12:02 »
0
I think to be fair it is not problem solely for IStock. A month ago a reviewer with another Big 4 rejected all my picture of obvious concept and also indicated specific "irrelevant" keywords which obviously related to conceptual idea.
Maybe not agency problem, but reviewer problem. Not stress, but ignorance of reviewer to conceptual idea.

lagereek

« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2010, 12:06 »
0
Yeah probably, but ignorance like this can in the long run cost them a lot of revenue. Reviewing at IS, used to be really good up to about 8 months ago, then its gone downhill rapidly. I wonder whats happend?

« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2010, 12:20 »
0
In defense of the reviewer, it's not immediately obvious that those are chemical storage tanks behind him - they could be even grain silos. And yes, he might be an engineer, but he could also be any of a number of hardhat-wearing occupations. That being said, I agree that the image shouldn't have been flagged for keywords, especially since this is the area you specialize in.

lagereek

« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2010, 12:35 »
0
In defense of the reviewer, it's not immediately obvious that those are chemical storage tanks behind him - they could be even grain silos. And yes, he might be an engineer, but he could also be any of a number of hardhat-wearing occupations. That being said, I agree that the image shouldn't have been flagged for keywords, especially since this is the area you specialize in.


Oh come on,  how come then that every other agency have accepted and sold it even for over a 800 bucks?  no, sorry this is plain ignorance to conceptual photography.
The whole problem and which is now being discussed inside Corbis is the fact that editors must learn to recognize conceptual submissions, thats what commands the most revenue.

« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2010, 12:46 »
0
In defense of the reviewer, it's not immediately obvious that those are chemical storage tanks behind him - they could be even grain silos. And yes, he might be an engineer, but he could also be any of a number of hardhat-wearing occupations. That being said, I agree that the image shouldn't have been flagged for keywords, especially since this is the area you specialize in.


Oh come on,  how come then that every other agency have accepted and sold it even for over a 800 bucks?  no, sorry this is plain ignorance to conceptual photography.
The whole problem and which is now being discussed inside Corbis is the fact that editors must learn to recognize conceptual submissions, thats what commands the most revenue.

Yes, full agreemenrt with both arguments. But also to be your side, some agency have problem with conceptual .
Send mixed signals , first,  encourage conceptual keywords one month, then suddenly employ reviewer who have no idea about conceptual.   Maybe education of reviewers is important. Some reviewers maybe come from country no idea about certain specialistic concepts.
Again, it is NOT specific Istock problem. It is reviewer problem.

lagereek

« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2010, 13:03 »
0
Yes!  but it becomes an IS problem since they train and employ their reviewers for the sake of IS. This type of reviewing has gone on for some time now, consequently its a pointless exercise submitting any conceptuals which is very strange.
Oh well?  if generic rubbish is what they want, fair enough.

« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2010, 13:05 »
0
Yes I'm afraid the quality and consistency of iStock's reviewing process has gone astray. They've obviously got a new bunch of reviewers who are desperately trying to prove their reviewing chops. I always thought the review philosophy on iStock was 'look for a reason to approve' in Bruce's day, now it's the complete opposite. I'm a long time exclusive contributor and am dismayed by the way reviews have started going.

Unfortunately I feel I can't complain there or use my correct artist name here, which must either be a sign of my complete paranoia or a poor reflection on the way they deal with any critical dissent over there.

« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2010, 13:09 »
0
Yes!  but it becomes an IS problem since they train and employ their reviewers for the sake of IS. This type of reviewing has gone on for some time now, consequently its a pointless exercise submitting any conceptuals which is very strange.
Oh well?  if generic rubbish is what they want, fair enough.

To be fair to IS. My experience, it is not majority reviewers. One, maybe two. Because my experience with IS reviewers is good experience , all very reasonable with objective rejections. But yes, one..maybe two. Scary!.

Maybe you think possible to omit conceptual keyword for application. Then add back them after approval.
Is not possible, Lagereek?

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2010, 13:27 »
0
I credit the inspection process at IS regularly. it has helped me as a photographer and in general I find the inspectors are remarkably kind people. but either they have new inspectors or tired inspectors, but the inspection process has certainly changed recently. the change has not helped me any, and yet files by more of the whos who seem to get through no matter what. I've largely ignored the complaints about the clique approach at IS, but lately it seems more apparent and discouraging.

lagereek

« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2010, 13:29 »
0
Yes, Bruce words " instead of looking for a reason to reject, look for a reason to approve"  thats become a joke. Dont know but maybe they are using one of these editing-reviewing services?

« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2010, 13:40 »
0
" please remove keywords like, oil, gas, industry, petrochemical, engineer, chemical, etc, etc, etc,"  AND here is a file of a chemical oil engineer with GIANT fuel storage tanks in background AND the shot have already sold about 30 times already and among that 4 RF sales.

Look at your image ... Is there any oil, gas, or chemicals in the photo? If a buyer is looking for an image of oil then they won't want to see your photo. If they are looking for an oil industry worker standing by a refinery (or whatever the term for the structure is called) with copy space, then they'll search for those keywords and be happy to see your image.

Yes, the inspectors do sometimes remove keywords that are appropriate but for the most part the keyword policies are set up to make sure that the images have the proper terms with words that are obviously relevant to the image. If a designer wants a conceptual image then they probably know what type of image they are looking for and will search for that image, not what we think they might want to search for.

lagereek

« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2010, 14:20 »
0
" please remove keywords like, oil, gas, industry, petrochemical, engineer, chemical, etc, etc, etc,"  AND here is a file of a chemical oil engineer with GIANT fuel storage tanks in background AND the shot have already sold about 30 times already and among that 4 RF sales.

Look at your image ... Is there any oil, gas, or chemicals in the photo? If a buyer is looking for an image of oil then they won't want to see your photo. If they are looking for an oil industry worker standing by a refinery (or whatever the term for the structure is called) with copy space, then they'll search for those keywords and be happy to see your image.

Yes, the inspectors do sometimes remove keywords that are appropriate but for the most part the keyword policies are set up to make sure that the images have the proper terms with words that are obviously relevant to the image. If a designer wants a conceptual image then they probably know what type of image they are looking for and will search for that image, not what we think they might want to search for.

What on earth are you dribbling about. You see two GIANT oil towers!  you would presume its bloody OIL in  them wouldnt you?  You see an engineer in a whacking big hard-hat, well what is he?  the Pope?
One has to be a complete moron to miss that this guy is working inside an oil and gas refinery,  which he in fact is. he is n ot a model but a real life engineer.
Sorry nicolsay but this falls flat on its face.

Im surprised regarding your statement,  we have both earned Diamond status within IS,  you shouldnt really entertain down out bad and ignorant editing, contrary we have earned the right to object and not just follow the stream.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 14:25 by lagereek »

« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2010, 14:40 »
0
What on earth are you dribbling about. You see two GIANT oil towers!  you would presume its bloody OIL in  them wouldnt you?  You see an engineer in a whacking big hard-hat, well what is he?  the Pope?
One has to be a complete moron to miss that this guy is working inside an oil and gas refinery,  which he in fact is. he is n ot a model but a real life engineer.
Sorry nicolsay but this falls flat on its face.

Im surprised regarding your statement,  we have both earned Diamond status within IS,  you shouldnt really entertain down out bad and ignorant editing, contrary we have earned the right to object and not just follow the stream.

I didn't say ALL of the keywords the inspector said were wrong were in fact wrong, I'm just trying to point out that if a buyer wants a photo of an oil refinery then they'll search for "oil refinery", not "oil". In fact, one of your images of a worker standing by an oil refinery has "oil refinery" as its top keyword, and it's sold more than 400 times (#4485847). Seems to me like it's doing okay. :)

I've gotten a lot better at my own key-wording over time and probably have some images that need to be corrected from my early days. In a nutshell, though, the way iStock works is that the images that have the most relevant keywords will be higher up in the searches. I do agree, like I said in my previous post, that oftentimes they remove or reject for keywords that should be in the image. These measures are put in place for keyword spammers and the human element does sometimes come into play for those of us trying to do the right thing.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 14:45 by nicolesy »

« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2010, 14:43 »
0
In a gargantuan effort at perfection there is the collateral damage. That's you this time. Don't agree with it though.

« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2010, 14:59 »
0
I'm going with a mini BP protest by rejecting any petroleum based keywords.  ;)

lagereek

« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2010, 15:02 »
0
Nicole!  I agree to that type of editing myself. Another of my images almost identical to the one you pointed out has sold 800 times and the premiere keywords there is fuel and oil.
Look I dont mind rejects, that goes with the territory but what I do mind is this type of Getty enforced editing style ( same within the Getty-RM), clean wording and only two or three conceptuals. Thats impossible.
Classic example and well discussed is the close-up of a jet-engine sitting on the wing of an airplane. The present IS reviewer would then reject the keyword "airplane" simply because this is a close-up of the airplanes "Jet-engine" wrong?  or right? well according to the IS philosophy the word "airplane" will cause a rejection.  Crazy!!   "oil-tower, oil-storage, oil-refinery?  well ofcourse you need the word " oil" as in an industrial meaning since OIL is the fundamental raw-material of all these industries.

This is what I mean with being able and educated to review/edit with conceptual knowledge in mind. If a reviewer cant do that, he/she has got no business being there.

best.

« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2010, 15:12 »
0
Well, it isn't really conceptual.  I mean there is a word for what is there, and that's 'oil refinery'.  Since that works, there's no need for words like 'oil' or 'gas'.

« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2010, 15:29 »
0
Not all, but a number of these words suggests things that aren't visible, not even suggested in the photo.

« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2010, 15:31 »
0
I didn't say ALL of the keywords the inspector said were wrong were in fact wrong, I'm just trying to point out that if a buyer wants a photo of an oil refinery then they'll search for "oil refinery", not "oil". In fact, one of your images of a worker standing by an oil refinery has "oil refinery" as its top keyword, and it's sold more than 400 times (#4485847). Seems to me like it's doing okay. :)
...

Well, it isn't really conceptual.  I mean there is a word for what is there, and that's 'oil refinery'.  Since that works, there's no need for words like 'oil' or 'gas'.

That's not quite true.
If a buyer enters the search words 'engineer oil refinery', iStock's engine translates it to 'Engineer AND Oil (Fossil Fuel) AND Refinery' - not having 'oil', 'gas', ... together with 'refinery' would mean that the image wouldn't be found. Sure, the image would be found if the buyer put quotes around "oil refinery" or just searched for 'oil refinery' on its own, but I don't think it's wise to assume make any assumptions about how buyers think - it's better to cover all the bases.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 15:36 by sharply_done »

« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2010, 15:44 »
0
True, I was assuming someone was using the system correctly.  I'll say I'm occasionally guilty of the same paradigm. ;)

« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2010, 16:00 »
0
I would say the real question is - why would a reviewer decide that those are NOT oil tanks, and the guy is NOT a petrochemical engineer?  Why not just trust the contributor, since the keywords aren't obviously and deliberately misleading?

Another interesting question: if the reviewer decided the oil industry keywords weren't justified, what keywords would he actually accept?  Is it just a photo of a guy in a hard hat in front of some metal?

I live near a refinery and yeah, that's what it looks like.  When you have huge storage tanks of gas and oil you don't stencil GAS and OIL on them in giant letters.  Think about it. 
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 16:04 by stockastic »

« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2010, 16:14 »
0
I would say the real question is - why would a reviewer decide that those are NOT oil tanks, and the guy is NOT a petrochemical engineer?  Why not just trust the contributor, since the keywords aren't obviously and deliberately misleading?

Another interesting question: if the reviewer decided the oil industry keywords weren't justified, what keywords would he actually accept?  Is it just a photo of a guy in a hard hat in front of some metal?

I live near a refinery and yeah, that's what it looks like.  When you have huge storage tanks of gas and oil you don't stencil GAS and OIL on them in giant letters.  Think about it. 

Ha!ha!.. Heart Award to stockastic.
Answer:  Maybe the reviewer don't live in a land where oil is stored in huge tanks. Maybe haven't a clue what that oil industry . That is why I think is ignorance of concept on reviewer side. Much like some westerner used to think all African live in trees and swing down to market like Tarzan, ha!ha!.  Ignorance is the problem.

lagereek

« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2010, 17:32 »
0
Yeah well anyhow, end of story end of rant, a kind person at IS told me what to do and thats good enough for me. Im going to bed.

pieman

  • I'm Lobo
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2010, 17:55 »
0
Yeah well anyhow, end of story end of rant, a kind person at IS told me what to do and thats good enough for me. Im going to bed.
Dude. I'm a jerk. Don't go ruining my street cred.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
5153 Views
Last post June 25, 2006, 16:38
by admart01
0 Replies
2881 Views
Last post February 22, 2009, 04:50
by fintastique
14 Replies
9193 Views
Last post March 20, 2011, 02:14
by rubyroo
13 Replies
7223 Views
Last post February 11, 2012, 20:35
by lisafx
5 Replies
2223 Views
Last post April 28, 2015, 21:40
by farbled

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors