pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Double Standards!  (Read 13366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2008, 09:37 »
0

Not exactly a nice thing to say. Maybe not "slanderous" but certainly not something she'd say to the reviewers face.

Oh believe me, I would!


« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2008, 10:14 »
0




This week, I had one photo rejected at Dreamstime for being out of focus - yet 4 other agencies accepted the image... Does that mean i can come on here and claim that Dreamstimes inspectors have something against me or are doing something wrong?




Sure you can...that's what an open forum is for. Doesn't mean it will do anything positive OR negative, but it is surely your right to come in and vent. You certainly know that if Seren's comment were made on the LO forum that it would quickly be squelched....and her comment would only have been "slanderous" (maybe), if she had given the reviewer' name.
ah the freedom of speech! ;D

« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2008, 10:32 »
0

One incident of a photo being rejected doesn't indicate possible "dubious integrity" to me - especially without any followup investigation! If there were a series of incidents that would be something to report.

I was just using my photo as an example, I wasn't saying that I was peed off because that particular photo had been rejected.  Hell, I don't really care, I'll just shoot it again because it'll only take a few seconds.

I was pointing out, that although they seem to be applying high standards, there are some extremely bad pictures in the reviewers portfolios, that combined with the fact that one in particular does not appear to be a photographer, is making me question their qualification and credentials.  What gives them the right to inspect and reject my photographs (and other peoples) if they themselves do not appear to be able to take them?

After all, you would not want a photographer to inspect vectors or a videographer to inspect photographs, etc.

« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2008, 10:35 »
0

This week, I had one photo rejected at Dreamstime for being out of focus - yet 4 other agencies accepted the image... Does that mean i can come on here and claim that Dreamstimes inspectors have something against me or are doing something wrong?

Sure you can...that's what an open forum is for. Doesn't mean it will do anything positive OR negative, but it is surely your right to come in and vent. You certainly know that if Seren's comment were made on the LO forum that it would quickly be squelched....and her comment would only have been "slanderous" (maybe), if she had given the reviewer' name.
ah the freedom of speech! ;D

Dear anonymous, there's no history of squelching any discussion on LO's forums. I've read every post and moderated the Forum there since day one.

« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2008, 18:43 »
0
my comments were removed by me as in the final analysis,  they did nothing to advance the cause of this good forum or to maintain a good relationship with others here,  with whom I have developed friendship.      - tom 

 



« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 12:27 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2008, 09:59 »
0
Maunger...  do you just have a thing about making something out of nothing?  Not the first time you've done that and I'm sure it won't be the last.
   I've reread my statement.  It doesn't say the reviewer at LO has dubious integrity.  It says that the world is filled with such people.  And its implication is that this forum is a good place to make a heads-up. It was not implying or giving lead to this reviewer being one of evil character......  geezzzzzzzzzz.  Lighten up, man....

Tom - i apologize for confusing you and not being clear - my comment was in intended to be about the comments Seren made - i wasn't intending to point at you. I'm sorry.

Seren - i apologize to you for not understanding that your first post wasn't about a specific rejection but more about the inspector. Your tone is what set me off the most... most people who are getting reviews from LO are applauding the inspectors for their detailed and helpful comments - yet you perceive them as "patronizing". I'm sorry that you feel that way. LO is always looking for feedback, why don't you send Bryan a note and talk to him about it?

Tom, i didn't say Seren's post was "slanderous" - you were the first to use that word in this thread. (I will apologize for my "hmmm..." post - i shouldn't have made that one). There are several comments in this thread that imply that both LO and this particular reviewer are doing something inappropriate and there are comments specifically targeting the reputation and abilities of a reviewer - yes, I do take offense to those statements. As i said before - i have learned thru moderating a lot of different forums (and from just flat out getting older) that personal attacks are rarely appropriate and do little good for anyone. Therefore, i have a policy of trying to be kind to each person i respond to as if i were talking to them face to face. I don't really believe that most people are willing to say hurtful things when talking to someone face to face. It is much easier to do when typing almost anonymous posts on the internet.

Yes, in the past I have just "vented" (and i have admitted that already) - but I've learned that much harm can be done by venting in such a public manner so i no longer do it.

Again, i believe the appropriate course of action would have been to contact LO management if there is some concern about an inspector's ability to inspect. It should NOT have been done here as the very first course of action. You said "I have no problem with a 'member' here giving a heads-up warning to fellow members of a possible problem. " - well i differ with that opinion. I will agree that it is good to work together to solve a problem - but the beginning of this thread and the title of this thread are bold statements that are (in my opinion) over stated. If the poster had discussed the situation with LO first, then maybe the situation could have been resolved without publicly  making an issue. If it wasn't resolved with direct discussion, THEN this forum should be informed and could get involved in resolving the situation (again, that's my opinion).

I'm also sorry that you feel i'm making something out of nothing. When the reputation of a company I work for has been unfairly attacked (in my estimation), then I put up my defense mechanism. I won't "lighten up" when there are lots of people reading these threads and i just don't feel it is appropriate to imply that something is going wrong at LO and that a specific reviewer isn't doing their job correctly without contacting them first to try to resolve the question.

It is more difficult to undo the harm to a reputation later (you said "If we all find the possiblity to be invalid... then we can fix matters, apologize and, move on.").

Mitch

« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2008, 12:21 »
0


Mitch

Mitch...  Your points well taken.   I make all attempts to be a peaceable person. My experiences as a young man in the 1968 era American military and all that entailed,  left me a person that has had quite his fill of anything but peace. 

I hereby take back my remarks to youApologize to you and any that have read my comments and were offended. 

I will remove my comments from this thread for the sake of maintaining peace and normalcy.  I have no desire to be unwanted by the members of MSG.

On the point of LO....  I am a contributor and I continue to upload there. I have no cross to bear with Bryan or LO. I am not an LO basher. It is my hope that my work will eventually sell there as it does elsewhere.

Peace,   tom




« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2008, 16:24 »
0
Seren - i apologize to you for not understanding that your first post wasn't about a specific rejection but more about the inspector.

I also understood that from her post, hence my own reply to her.

One single case of rejection would not condemn a reviewer, but Seren makes an interesting point about the reviewer's portfolio.  How good photographers must reviewers be?  I'm not sure they must be good photographers, but they must understand about photography.

I still believe that rejections we don't agree with should be reported.  If a reviewer is not working well (even if he is seriously doing his job), the site management can correct him.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2008, 17:05 »
0
Seems I was the bad reviewer, for me an isolation has to follow the following standard: "When key wording/ describing an image as "isolated" and/ or "isolation" it has to be on a pure white (#FFFFFF) or other uniform background without any stray pixel and with well defined edges, so that a buyer can just cut&paste it with a few clicks." If the image in question doesn't comply with this standard I will reject it. If you don't agree with ANY review at Lucky Oliver then you are always free, and will get a response, by emailing Bryan at z@luckyoliver.com BTW, I don't do isolated shoots myself for the simple reason that it is not the kind of image I like to take, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize a good or bad isolation when Is see it. I can assure you that I spend far more time with each image I reject then with the ones I accept. Regards, SY

« Reply #34 on: March 09, 2008, 01:35 »
0
Regards, SY

SY, the point I was making was not really about that particular isolation, or about the rejection notice you gave, but was actually pointing out the standards of reviewers photography.

It would appear that LO has an inherent flaw in that it allows it's reviewers to review ALL the submissions, rather than breaking them down into groups such as IS does (eg, digital, film scans, illustrations etc).  It would appear that on LO you do not need the same credentials to be a reviewer as on places like SS or IS which concerns me slightly.

I understand now that perhaps LO used to have a far, far lower standard of acceptance than it does now, but those old and sub-par files should be deleted.  I can't imaging how it looks to a buyer to see such shocking files to be frank.

[And actually, the rejection reason was "isolation needs more work, stray pixel", just the cute comment at the top said about FFFFFF and pure whites - I thought FFFFFF was a web term too, not a photography one]

EDIT - BTW, why when I submit a batch does it appear that random picture get reviewed?  For instance, there were three (I think) in the middle of my last batch that are still waiting for review, when the rest of the batch were done a while ago?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2008, 01:39 by Seren »

« Reply #35 on: March 09, 2008, 03:03 »
0
Regardless of the merits of the OP's complaint, she has the right to discuss any of her concerns because this is a public forum. She is entitled to her freedom of speech as much as the reviewer's to defend the rejection. This discussion should not be moderated or silenced by anyone other than the owner of this website or the Big Brother (even the Big Brother has to be under the oversight of the congress, courts and people).

I do not have any personal problems with LO. My position is a matter of principle. However, it does not look good if LO employees can't stay cool about criticism in an independent forum.

Just want to add another perspective when I happen to see a post by the Content Development Director at IS, talking when he started as a newbie inspector:

"After having been spanked pretty badly (it still hurts late at night at times), I got into a conversation with Bruce and here is the magic phrase that he served me back then: ''When in doubt in deciding on a borderline file, look for a major reason to approve not a minor one to reject.'' http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=413


Perhaps it's something to think about. By the way, I am not IS exclusive and still hate some of their rejections.

« Reply #36 on: March 09, 2008, 23:54 »
0
I don't understand why the agencies use photographers as reviewers at all. They will always be biased, even if they are not contributors. Designers would be more qualified as reviewers, since they generally know more about the usage of images, but strictly speaking: with proper training, most people would be able to do the job.

« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2008, 04:14 »
0
I don't understand why the agencies use photographers as reviewers at all.
Because they're probably the only ones that want to do it for a lousy 10cent per image. After all, microstock photogs are willing to sell 10MP perfect shots for just 25c, so they must be a special breed of masochists.  ;D

« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2008, 04:27 »
0
Seems I was the bad reviewer, for me an isolation has to follow the following standard: "When key wording/ describing an image as "isolated" and/ or "isolation" it has to be on a pure white (#FFFFFF) or other uniform background without any stray pixel and with well defined edges, so that a buyer can just cut&paste it with a few clicks." If the image in question doesn't comply with this standard I will reject it.
Agreed 200%. But the OP has a point. I bought two images once on LO (with my free credits) that were "isolated" and when I tried the 1-click, it showed squares with near-white all over. I had to redo the isolation myself. I placed a comment on those shots at LO but they were still there when I looked last. Not even an apology of the contributors.

Two years ago I bought some isolated stuff from Andresr on CanStockPhoto and those shots were perfectly isolated. If I were a full-time designer, I would bear in mind that LO isn't good for buying isolations, and CanStockPhoto is. LO should clean out those early shots.

RT


« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2008, 05:05 »
0
Speak to any successful designer and they'll all agree that the most important thing is that the subject is well lit, if it's a good isolation then that's a bonus, if not they might have a bit of work to do.

I work with two very successful design companies here in the UK, both have the same approach to buying stock, they are more concerned about the subject than whether it's isolated or not.

The benefit to doing good isolations as a photographer is that it highlights the subject better in search results thumbnails, a few stray pixels is no big deal to any capable designer if you know what you're doing.

« Reply #40 on: March 10, 2008, 06:17 »
0
Again, it wasn't a complaint about a specific rejection.  I could just have easily used several other files as examples.

However, perhaps I should not have tagged it "isolated on white" and just had the tag "white background".  I add the former because it helps it to sell on other sites.  Will remember that for the future.

It had provoked interesting thoughts to me though about how I percieve sites to be run, and perhaps if they are coming across as a professional place to sell work.  After all, the goal is to become professional - am I shooting myself in the foot by using a site that projects itself with a less than professional attitude, both in design and by informality and choice of staff.

« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2008, 10:39 »
0
Just want to add another perspective when I happen to see a post by the Content Development Director at IS, talking when he started as a newbie inspector:

"After having been spanked pretty badly (it still hurts late at night at times), I got into a conversation with Bruce and here is the magic phrase that he served me back then: ''When in doubt in deciding on a borderline file, look for a major reason to approve not a minor one to reject.'' http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=413


This is exactly what our supervisors at LO tell us Bouncers to do.  Best advice ever! 

vonkara

« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2008, 12:46 »
0
I don't understand why the agencies use photographers as reviewers at all. They will always be biased, even if they are not contributors. Designers would be more qualified as reviewers, since they generally know more about the usage of images, but strictly speaking: with proper training, most people would be able to do the job.
That's kind of a solution and a very good idea. Making designers as reviewers. If some was interested to do the job, on what I know it would be great.

« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2008, 13:40 »
0
When it comes to isolations... I seriously don't know why the agencies don't have an "isolated" category, and when a submission just happens to be a perfect isolation, the reviewers can add it to that category to.  Apart for the stray areas of non-white, a true isolation should be free of a shadow as well, even though I prefer to see a shadow myself.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
11937 Views
Last post July 09, 2010, 15:10
by lisafx
10 Replies
3268 Views
Last post November 03, 2011, 05:39
by lacee
27 Replies
19440 Views
Last post October 16, 2011, 15:48
by fujiko
6 Replies
1785 Views
Last post March 21, 2013, 11:54
by Veneratio
5 Replies
2067 Views
Last post March 02, 2016, 11:14
by trek

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results