Wha else could "humans review images" possibly mean?

Don't forget "cowardly."

So it's Friday, end of the week, time to tie up all those loose ends. Well not the case for Scott Braut it seems.....

Following an avalanche of posted concerns on the SS forum relating to the unfounded, ridiculous and down right stupid rejections of perfectly good images (from established contributors mind, not the cr*p from newbies) Scott finally succumbed with a stalling post (attached)..

That was Monday, five days ago.

He obviously does not have the capacity (or is it the will and desire ?) to respond to the glaring question of what is going wrong.

Perhaps he does not have mobile communications, strange that as he essentially works for a digital based company.

He was 'forced' to respond last time following a (my) post on a public forum last week, (which they hate btw) so here we go again.

Scott Braut - Do your job. It's why you take your salary each month.

Respond.

The guy already responded. I'm not sure what you'd want him to add. He said that if you have an issue with a rejected image to contact support, and they will look at the image again. They will either overrule the previous rejection or uphold the rejection. I know the system works because I've used it twice recently and had rejections overturned.

He also told us about several areas where they are trying to get better so we don't have to go through the initial anguish of a bad rejection.

Well, in the United States, it's about the same as using the n-word. If someone had used that for their user name, I could see someone else not liking it.

All this being said about Shutterstock reviews, and I've had a bone to pick with them every once in a while. I haven't had issues lately, but I can tell when they hire a bunch of new reviewers. I think it's more or less worked itself out now. They are still more consistent than reviewers on other sites like 123RF, Canstock and Fotolia who might throw out a weird rejection that makes no sense, and you know they don't know what they're doing.

Why does Bigstock have different rules for editorial cations than Shutterstock now? Shutterstock recently made captioning easier, but Bigstock didn't follow so now I get rejections on editorial captions because I write them for Shutterstock first, and they are acceptable to every other site as well, except Bigstock. I'm not going to write special captions just for Bigstock. I end up just deleting the image after it's rejected because of the caption.

Quote from: robhainer on June 03, 2014, 15:49

Yesterday was good. Today is almost like a holiday. I don't know what is going on.

Sooner or later, IS subs will have an impact on SS. And also DPC, of course, and more regarding OnDemand sales.

I doubt those things would explain a one day turnaround. Wouldn't I see a big increase in sales from FT if that were the case?

That's a good change. Scrubbing all the logos out of a skyline hurts the character of the image.

Quote from: robhainer on June 01, 2014, 12:13

Quote from: ethan on June 01, 2014, 08:52

Quote from: gbalex on May 31, 2014, 11:42

It is nice to see that the sedate boiled frogs are starting to wake up enough to jump out of the pot.

We can now engage in conversations that will benefit our collective good. The me mentality will be the death of us, if we fail to address it.

Instead of fighting it is time to come together to discuss our long term welfare in this greed driven business model.

Could not agree more.

The inevitable split between the collective of Stock/Commission photographers (Full time making a living) versus hobbyists that do it for pocket money is becoming more apparent. The latter group essentially have nothing to loose, they just go back to their day jobs when all RF images are free on the internet.

I'm not sure where you're coming from. I think it's the opposite. I'm on track to make more than $20,000 this year from stock. While that's not a full-time salary, it's not pocket change either. It's enough for me to care about what happens to it, which is why I've made the decisions I have. "Boycotting" Fotolia would have cost me a decent chunk of that money, while hobbyists who do make pocket change can afford to delete whatever they want.

On the other hand I'll probably make more than twice that much from microstock this year, and I not only opted out, I just deleted my files from Fotolia. I'd like to earn even more next year, and I think DPC will make that more difficult. I'm not interested in being associated with a coompany that undercuts my sales elsewhere.

They're your files, so I don't have a problem with it. I just get annoyed when people tell me what to do with my files especially when all they have to back up their assertions are assumptions, speculations and guesses. Fact is, we don't know what impact any of this will have. Every other site sells images cheaper than Shutterstock, which makes me most of my stock income. I still use them. I don't see the difference. This effort by Dreamstime could mean more money. I don't see the harm in letting them use a few of my low income images to find out. I think it's worth the very small risk.

That said, I understand the point people like Mantis have made. The email by Dreamstime wasn't a very good effort. It's not very clear what they're trying to do, and you should be able to opt out without losing other Alliance sales. 

Flat month.

Earnings up .8 percent over April 2014. Total sales down slightly over April. Still, earnings up 31 percent over May 2013.

Having trouble getting new files to stick. A lot of them sell quick after upload, then I don't really see them again.

Quote from: robhainer on May 31, 2014, 10:32

Quote from: ferdinand on May 31, 2014, 10:26

Quote from: robhainer on May 31, 2014, 10:22

I'm OK if you guys want to make it personal if it makes you feel better. But really, it's not personal and I'm entitled to my opinion.

it is not personal - you are working against the interest of majority of us - so don t be astonished if we condemn your attitude...

After you send me money for all of my equipment and time spent on my images, then you can sit in judgment and tell me what to do.

You have stated on this and other forums that stock photography for you is a hobby. You also confess to also being an average photographer - your words not mine.

And I would not disagree with your view about that.

Assuming you have a full time occupation and this 'stock thing' is just for 'pin money' your views on the DT deal is bound to be completely different from others here that make their living from photography.

I really don't have a problem with guys like you making a few bucks from your hobby.

But please respect the views of full time photographers that depend on selling their images to live and support their families.

You might want to take a moment to think about that Mr Hainer while you're spending your pocket money and ask not why we judge you.

Actually, I'm a full-time photographer. Stock photography is just one revenue stream. About 15-20 percent of my annual income. I use it to put food on the table. I think you have me confused with someone else.

So maybe you should have respect for my views, too.

I'm OK if you guys want to make it personal if it makes you feel better. But really, it's not personal and I'm entitled to my opinion.