Quote from: Pauws99 on November 28, 2019, 06:48

"I believe the rot set in when they changed the process to become a contributor - with one image approved you are good to go. Things just went down hill from there. "  Exactly they now have a huge burden on inspection and customer support for people who barely know how to hold a camera.

What's the difference if someone needs 7 images to get in or one? (or none) If the reviews were done right, the Crapstock wouldn't get approved. IS requires 3, DT requires none, I don't recall if Adobe has any requirements, Alamy used to inspect 10, I think they dropped that down as well.

But of those above, the review standards have changed, AS is tougher than FT, Alamy might have lightened up a bit, but not accepting slop. SS, IS, DT I can't really say, because things are so inconsistent. I know that images that were refused years ago, fly through now with those three.

My point is, the reviews are what needs to keep out the junk, not some silly test. What happens after the test, if there is one? I think that's the way SS sees it, reviewers are the gate keepers. They need to be reliable and not just pay for click reviews, based on speed.

The problem is with no "real" test then contributors with little or no knowledge of photography and issues like meta data are able to submit thousands of images which if they were inspected propeperly would cost the agency a huge amount. Money spent on rejecting images is wasted money. It would simply be uneconomic to properly inspect images at the kind of volumes Shutterstock have encouraged.

I'm no expert in this field but in your planning I would just caution that what you make or made in the last year on each clip is likely to decline given the often discussed issue around the supply and demand problem. So I would factor in some "depreciation" for that. e.g 15-20% each year.

It's all about AI...i don't think any human being can be so inconsistent and stupid on curation...

I don't believe AI can be inconsistent. It is not one reviewer. Seems to me the quality control on reviewers is broken. If reviewers receive next to no training or supervision and are required to review at a ridiculous pace I wouldn't be surprised if some go bat dropping crazy.

A human can not reject for this reason:

Objectionable Metadata -- Metadata contains potentially objectionable or offensive language.

LOL.

A beach... summer,sand,sea,umbrella,sunbathing,people...

A human can quite easily tick the wrong check box especially when they are required to inspect god knows how many images a minute. Both machines and humans are capabable of doing incredibly stupid things.

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 14, 2019, 12:50

Quote from: jonbull on November 14, 2019, 08:16

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 14, 2019, 03:05

Quote from: ShadySue on November 13, 2019, 19:28

Quote from: jonbull on November 04, 2019, 08:18

if you want live a normal life with micro you better move to a country with that cost of life...7k dollar of files per month at this point are not a joke i tell you.

Eh? Where are you unable to live in Europe on $7k a month? (Of course, it depends what your expenses are in getting the $7K, and I'm assuming you're talking about US$ and not, e.g. HK$). Even in London and Paris you can live very well on US$7k pm.

It may come back to the old issue about revenue vs profit. If you are using a studio models  regularly buying equipment and travelling  then you may well need to generate that kind of money. Mstock is a small and diminishing part of my income...however my return on investment is very high as I have reduced my spending to close to zero (except my time).

my experience is at this point zero investment bring zero gain...shooting snapshot don't take you money, real money,,.sure if you want buy a lens for have a bunch of meals is a lot...model released images are the only wayy to make consistent money,  is not a case that most of but seller are model shooter.
in addiction everything cost, i shoot lot of food recently and believe me seems zero cost but it's very expensive. travel shooting is expensive...sure if you walk around the city take some snapshot and sell is a zero cost but how much you can earn?

in adddiction model released images at this point are the only barrier left against free website. released images give the buyer the insurance everything is correct while using free images with person in free sites can bring problem...the problem is that for a shooting with a model i need spend minimum 200 300 euro here.

So if you are doing so well with your "strategy" why are you always complaining?

you should understand i foo photography for a living not for buy a pizza like you...maybe you will understand my strategy.....your strategy is zeo. you silly collect money from old file thanks to the fact that still ss favors old file...if they change this you will not even earn that pizza. simply.

So the answer is to invest huge amounts to produce images for a market that you have said over and over is flooded with images? I may be a failure but I'm not a bankrupt one. If people stop buying my images overnight I will go and do something else with no debts to service.

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 14, 2019, 11:04

Why . would a buyer be remotely interested in me?

They might implement an online dating option, don't forget to upload your photo

You haven't seen a picture of me ;-).

Quote from: jonbull on November 04, 2019, 08:18

if you want live a normal life with micro you better move to a country with that cost of life...7k dollar of files per month at this point are not a joke i tell you.

Eh? Where are you unable to live in Europe on $7k a month? (Of course, it depends what your expenses are in getting the $7K, and I'm assuming you're talking about US$ and not, e.g. HK$). Even in London and Paris you can live very well on US$7k pm.

It may come back to the old issue about revenue vs profit. If you are using a studio models  regularly buying equipment and travelling  then you may well need to generate that kind of money. Mstock is a small and diminishing part of my income...however my return on investment is very high as I have reduced my spending to close to zero (except my time).

I talk about pictures.

I have no doubt for the last rejection. The program said "non licensable content" on both sites for a batch of 25. It was a just problematic word, because I have pictures from the same place uploaded and sold a month ago.

So, I removed the word and tried just one picture again on both sites.

The picture is rejected now for out of focus on both sites, nothing about "non licensable content".

It's very easy to realize that It's a program.

I don't see any evidence one way or the other. Shutterstock have always rejected only on the first reason they spot since I can remember. Similarly on every site there have been complaints about inconsistent reviews since the start.

In the UK theres a surprising number of restrictions - National Trust as I said, Royal Parks and much of London is privately owned such as Canary Wharf. I was very dissapointed when they started rejecting National Trust properties. I believe some people have had ones taken on National Parks removed which are not actually private property but areas with strict planning controls!

I see bulk submissions of video factories passing right through, could be just my impression but my guess is they don't want to anger their big money makers. It may also be some kind of AI doing it and randomly shooting down submissions. Lets see if this corrects on it's own. 

All rejected footage accepted elsewhere with no issues, hmmm!

For what its worth I think some of the factories get a free pass or maybe only a sample inspected. I find it hard to believe SS inspect every single image at current submission levels. If a factory is making big money it does make business sense to do this whether its "fair" or not. Fairness is not part of this business now if it ever was.

Do you resubmit the similar content rejections?

Successful?

You may have misunderstood I meant a similar number of rejections accepted 2nd. I don't normally resubmit similars as I don't really do many. But I might try a few as I got some on a recent upload.

They are playing with AI in their system. I submitted the rejected content again and it was again rejected.. I submitted again and now accepted... strange..

Thats because its most likely humans that are inspecting.