of course the rejections have increased.The total number of contributors has increased hence more files to inspect and i would imagine the rejection....not suitable as stock will increase as the library grows.
IMO there is still too many files getting  accepted into the library that are not microstock although technically sound. This is being addressed in the new year with a 3 tier library.

That would make sense if my best images were accepted while the rest were rejected, but the rejections seem entirely random to me. It seems to have less to do with the quality of the image, and mostly to do with which reviewer happens to inspect your images. ... and having been contributing to microstock since July of 2004, and having achieved very close to diamond level at iStock, do you really think that I've suddenly become incapable of producing images that are suitable as stock?

Maybe it's just a long run of very bad luck, or maybe they've decided to discourage raster illustrations by rejecting them heavily. I thought maybe they are just rejecting more these days, so I posted hoping there were others to share my unhappiness and  whine with me Unfortunately they are my second highest earning site, so I just have to put up or shut up I guess.

Not only that, but shooting outside the box is also likely to result in rejections because the reviewers are specifically trained to think inside the box with respect to subject, lighting, color, composition, etc.  This motivates a contributor to be a boring copycat and to use other, not-merit based factors to get sales, such as keyword spamming and best match spamming using whatever techniques happen to work with the current algorithm.

I speculate that this tendency is more pronounced right now because the prevailing economic pessimism is leading to generally conservative and cautious business attitudes.  A more optimistic business climate would presumably lead to more originality and creativity in business-related graphic arts.

It's also true that if you upload an image that depicts an idea that has been done to death, the reviewer may be inclined to judge it more harshly, given that it's just a repetition of things that are already over-represented on the site. The benefits of being original are even greater when you're independent - you're not locked into one site's vision of what constitutes a good stock image.

...and what about personal integrity - wouldn't you rather believe that you are contributing something of value, instead of simply trying to steal sales from other people? Otherwise, you're just making money at other people's expense, and you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the world. Why not take some pride in your work?

exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense.  Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.

my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers  -> then begin shooting    Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive.  So go and get them 

It's this type of attitude that has led to the mind numbing repetition and boring lack of originality that has been so typical of microstock imagery these days. Since when are creativity and originality dirty words? Would it kill you to take a risk and try something that hasn't been tried before? As a microstocker who at least attempts to be original, I resent those who regard my portfolio as their personal grab bag for ideas to rip-off.

Thank you for addressing our concerns, StockXpert, I opted in.

Linda B.

My portfolio appears to be dying a slow death at iStock. IS used to be my best earning site, but lately the downloads are down to trickle. Is it just me, or are others seeing a big drop in downloads? I'm not exclusive.
Linda B

I'm not happy about having to opt out of subscriptions entirely, but it's far better than being forced to leave StockXpert. I was really hopeful it wouldn't come to that, and I'm relieved that StockXpert didn't force it on us in the end.

The main reasons I won't even consider exclusivity with iStock is that their narrow idea of what constitutes good stock imagery would effectively kill my creativity. Eventually, microstock, for me, would become a joyless exercise in frustration - not to mention a grinding bore.  If that isn't bad enough, I would also take a big cut in income.

Linda B

Add my name to the list - I'm AlienCat (Linda Bucklin) at Fotolia. I have 513 images with them, mostly illustrations. Things starting turning sour at Fotolia with the recent big increase in (type of photo) senseless rejections. With this subscription thing and the way they are handling it, I'm shocked at how far downhill things have gone there. I have been with them since close to the beginning, they used to be very responsive to contributors, and I felt valued there. What Happened?

I've noticed a big drop in sales, too. The que is super slow, too - I've got an image that I submitted May 3rd, and it's still waiting.

I think people don't talk much in elevators because you're together such a short time that there's no point in starting a conversation.

But it's a cute and fun image - I like to upload wacky and off the wall pictures sometimes, just to see what might happen. Sometimes they bomb, but sometimes they do great! You just never know.

Linda B

I can't stand it anymore! I have a picture in my portfolio that is just plain bad - yet the stupid sells and sells like crazy! Here it is:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=94858
The bird is flying, yet the feet are left in the default perching position.

I made and uploaded a new and improved  version of it, hoping people would download it instead:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-5656783-blue-and-gold-macaw-flying-d-render.html
But it doesn't get downloaded nearly as much.

Every time that thing is downloaded (which happens with depressing frequency) I cringe. I should delete the stupid thing, but I'm making a lot of money off of it, in fact it's one of my best sellers at Shutterstock. At least iStock had the good sense to reject it.

So I'm curious, anyone else have a bad picture in their portfolio that sells like crazy? If you do, I'd love to see them 

I know it sounds strange complaining about a picture that sells too much, but it's just so weird!

Linda B

I've learned not to complain about rejections at the individual Micro site forums. Why? Last year, I complained at the forum of a site 'that shall remain nameless' about what I thought were outrageous rejections. Shortly after that, my uploads started flying through the que at lightening speed! The result? rejection, rejection, rejection... Hell, they weren't even subtle about it... The moral? Complain about rejection at your own risk. If you must complain, do it at an independent site like this one.

Linda B

Quote from: Allsa on April 06, 2008, 20:38

Did you check your site mail at StockXpert? I was asked to send them another 5 images when I applied at SX, too. I remember sending them an additional 5, and then waiting and waiting for a reply in my email. Finally,  I discovered that their response had been waiting for me at the SX site, in my messages folder. 

There is site mail?  Where?  I find this the most awful site to navigate.  Nothing is in a logical place.

At StockXpert, go to 'My Account', and on the left hand side, you'll see 'new messages' under 'General Info' . To see all of your messages, click on the messages tab in 'My Account'.