|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - gnirtS
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38
901
« on: June 17, 2014, 10:48 »
It appears now to be affecting everyone. Stuff uploads, you keyword then randomly in the review queue loses its thumbnail or goes back to "processing".
Smells of a database error to me.
I've stopped uploading for now just in case it means spending hours re-uploading the stuff that's broken.
So much for the "increased communication" too. Not even a simple status update acknowledging the issue unless you dig deeply into forum threads.
902
« on: May 28, 2014, 16:50 »
I think it's to prevent apps that gather stats logging in
Except the various MS stats programmes i use all bypass that by going to the mobile site that sets a cookie and no captcha. 2 factor auth would be far better. It's not as if SS is secure anyway as every time you use FTP your main site password is send in the clear over the local network and internet.
903
« on: May 28, 2014, 16:48 »
Reviewers are hired without seeing the equipment they will use to review images. They all work out of their homes and the sites have no way of knowing if they use color management, keep their eye glass prescriptions up to date, have adequate functioning equipment etc.
This i feel is a big issue. A large number of exposure/WB rejections when on examination on several calibrated systems shows nothing wrong does hint to me that the reviewer in question does not have a properly calibrated and profiled display. Especially the batches all rejected for that. Some of the time im convinced its someone sitting in a darkened room with a laptop on full brightness randomly clicking through images. SS needs to have a policy of reviewing the reviewers,
904
« on: February 20, 2013, 16:14 »
I've getting internal server error sporadically on the submit page. Other times when i have keyworded they stay in the "to submit" queue, others they've vanished off both.
Been going on a few hours now.
905
« on: February 20, 2013, 15:28 »
They go on vacation. "Holidays" seem to mean only public holidays and certain times of the year, I think.
This one drives me nuts too. "holidays" is used pretty much everywhere in the world, only the US has a different meaning and different word (Vacation). From a buyer point of view if they're not american and they want a picture of a family on a beach they're likely to search on "family beach holiday" or similar yet we're not allowed to tag it as such.
906
« on: February 09, 2013, 21:30 »
I usually restrict myself to 2 submits of an image provided it isn't something bizarre. I never bother with notes to the reviewers.
If i get an atilla batch rejected for no obvious reason to me i'll usually resubmit some of them mixed with others over the following weeks. More often than not they get accepted the second time.
Had an EL a few days ago with one rejected on an atilla review which i resubmitted a week later and got accepted for example.
Twice though and i assume maybe there is a problem with the image (or im just unlucky getting the same ruthless, bored reviewer twice)
907
« on: February 05, 2013, 07:53 »
On a related note what exactly is this site:- http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/stock-photos.php?hleda=school+fishFound a lot of mine and friends pictures on there. They seem to use SS,FT and others. I can't work it out, theres upload image options mentions of a business model but clicking on an image goes to SS. What is this site meant to achieve for anything?
908
« on: January 30, 2013, 17:58 »
I would suspect SS know how utterly random their review process is so don't really use acceptance ratio for anything in particular.
Its perfectly possible to have a few weeks of 100% acceptance then have the next week of 100% rejection for same-shot images due to reviewers personal preference. Its worse on SS than elsewhere so wouldn't actually make sense to penalise based on ratio. Ultimately all it means is the portfolio is smaller and therefore gets less sales and that only effects the contributor.
As for resubmitting, i do it sometimes. If i look at an image and decide that the reviewer probably didn't bother looking, the reasons in my view are wrong or got an atila blanket rejecting a whole batch for "composition" or whatever i will resubmit some a few weeks later and onwards. My general rule is if it fails twice i wont bother again. So far though the ones i chose to resubmit all get accepted presumably with a different reviewer or one who actually checks.
Last year i did have an entire batch get rejected for "noise" despite them being many different topics,stlyes and times which i resubmitted en masse 4 weeks later and got 100% approved. I dont make a habit of doing that but it does show just how subjective the review is.
909
« on: January 25, 2013, 19:47 »
Some technical specifics as to why full size downloads help sales would be nice.
I've got files on there ranging from 6MP up to 18MP and logged in as a buyer every single one of those offers me the same choice of sizes and licences to download. Going by that i really cant see how a full size image is in any way "better".
910
« on: January 24, 2013, 06:52 »
Downsizing is something you do when your image does not hold water, and you hope to have sales from the smaller file.
Or you live somewhere with very slow internet uploads and fairly severe monthly data caps. Or even a connection where you pay for all bandwidth. Cutting a file size down in those circumstances is very useful.
911
« on: January 21, 2013, 06:23 »
The SS rejections (ie the blanket ones for whatever reason is popular this month) don't seem to be related to anything more than a reviewer just deciding not to bother properly checking a batch and hitting the same button for all it contains without actually doing it properly.
There are LCV and "similar" rejection criteria for SS but i suspect not connected to these.
FWIW, i'd rather LCV was left out of it, allow the buyer to decide as some people want some surprisingly bizarre things at times and the reviewer has no way of knowing what those will be. If a picture is technically correct and not obviously flawed then let it fight like the rest of them.
912
« on: January 20, 2013, 16:02 »
Haven't had one for over a month. For the last month 90% of my rejections are now "composition".
On iStock, that apparently means 'lcv'. I queried a composition rejection which made no sense in terms of composition, and the answer I got was that it wasn't likely to have many sales, which I couldn't disagree with. It's interesting that any agency wants a buyer to leave and look around another agency, but there you go.
SS also have a LCV rejection reason but i havent seen it used for over a year. They just blanket reject whole batches even containing multiple topics with "composition" lately. "rejection of the month" was noise, then moved to focus and now its composition. No idea what next months winner will be.
913
« on: January 20, 2013, 13:37 »
Haven't had one for over a month. For the last month 90% of my rejections are now "composition".
914
« on: January 19, 2013, 07:24 »
Never had a similar rejection at SS, even on sets that DT has culled for similars.
Ive had exactly one - i uploaded 3 photos of turtles ( underneath, head on and silhouette) in a batch of 50. Never seen another one and i suspect that one was just the usual random reviewing rejections when they cant be bothered to check properly.
915
« on: January 18, 2013, 16:48 »
I was wondering if it meant that they were ready to give a free pass to defecting exclusives, since the SS inspection is generally tougher these days than the iS one. They wouldn't want to put exclusives off hanging up the crown by rejecting their initial application, would they?
I wouldnt class SS as tougher just a LOT more random. There are big difference in accepted styles too. IS really want fairly untouched and minimally processed images whereas SS want completely finished, processed images. I quite often have to submit 2 images of one photo - a severely edited SS and a barely edited IS of the same.
916
« on: January 18, 2013, 15:49 »
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio
Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them. Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.
Possibly although a LOT of stuff that gets accepted on IS routinely gets rejected by SS with its extremely random and inconsistent review process!
917
« on: January 17, 2013, 11:21 »
I get it sometimes off them when im trying now.
I looks like a stock message for a server time out, says back in an hour then mentions midnight. Just a placeholder they forgot to change when a timeout happens.
918
« on: January 17, 2013, 11:10 »
...and now this: Shutterstock will be down for maintenance for about an hour.
It should be back up by midnight Eastern standard time. We apologize for the inconvenience. They really need to sort out their entire set of servers rapidly. Why do i suspect some lost sales for people here...!
919
« on: January 17, 2013, 11:02 »
Dead here too.
A bit earlier it went with "0% of your profile is complete" and lost all my image. again too.
When will they actually admit their entire IT infrastructure is so badly overloaded it needs a severe and immediate upgrade. All aspects of their site have been slow or unreliable for months.
920
« on: January 15, 2013, 18:51 »
Attempting to put it back on topic... Hello Everyone,
Thanks for your detailed feedback...it has been very helpful.
We've been looking into this and we found an issue that started a few days ago with a normal refresh of our search records. The effect of the issue is that some older popular images are ranking higher than they should be. This was an issue with the normal refresh and not a change made to our search algorithms. The team has already identified and implemented a solution. Only a portion of the collection was affected and you should see the impact of the solution as early as today, though it may take a few days for everything to be 100% back to normal.
Thanks again for your help and patience as we resolve this. So looks like they're admitting a problem.
921
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:58 »
Only just noticed this but ive discovered similar since the start of the year.
Previously for as long as ive used SS new stuff sold - you could rely on probably 80-90% of new images selling at least a couple of times in the first few days of life. This was pretty much always the case.
Since the new year here ive had NO new submission sales at all (out of 33 new images) - not a single one. Every single sale has been of an image over 2 months old.
If i search via a keyword even just one in the list the new image appears normally on the first row or certainly first page after a few hours of being live (we're talking 1 common keyword here not concise phrases).
What i have noticed last week and again this week images i've had go live if you go to category view are starting life round about page 9 or 10 if they show at all. Images which are older (ie were there before) are still showing several pages higher in the "new" order than a brand new image.
I've just verified it again today with my latest batch, live for 2hours, appear as first or second row of hits for a generic keyword search in "new" but on page 9 or lower in the category view despite images that were on the first page yesterday (therefore older) still being there. Other newly approved ones i cant find at all after going through 30 pages of category.
The result is these images never get seen, bought hence the no new submissions sold problem.
We know SS has tinkered with popular again but i think they've done more than change popular.
Ive gone from new submissions (i class that as a week or so active) making up a fair percentage (60% or so) of sales to quite literally overnight 0% of sales!
922
« on: January 14, 2013, 09:05 »
For me, something has changed for the worse. Daily income significantly down. Avg. dL per day prior to this change was 40. Now around 25.
Mine have gone down roughly 40% since the change, quite literally an overnight change and its still declining. Look the screenshot above im expecting my first zero day in well over a year shortly its been that drastic! One more worrying thing ive seen since the change is new images. Usually new images i could expect usually 90% of them to sell within the first 2-3 days (even if its only 1 or 2 sales), gain a "life" and then stay around. Since the change not a single new image i've uploaded (30 or so) has sold even once. Every single sale i am getting is over 2 months old.
923
« on: January 01, 2013, 16:04 »
I read it and see: Once the group of images has been reviewed, they will move through our system and go live on the site usually within 72 hours. The time it takes will vary based on how many submissions we have received. which is why i asked. Being new to BS i have no idea what "normal" is. In the same way shutterstock claim "usually" 72 hours for reviews and its usually twice that and so on. Just looking for rough ideas as to what usually happens to know where to go from.
924
« on: January 01, 2013, 15:52 »
Ive recently (last month) started submitting content to BS. My initial batch was approved and appeared about a day or so later.
My latest batch (40 or so pics) that were uploaded on the 13th Dec and approved shortly after still haven't appeared on my portfolio. Is this normal or worth raising a support ticket for?
925
« on: December 20, 2012, 12:12 »
Im just going to resubmit them in a few weeks. Obviously standards differ but all 57 got accepted on BS,RF123,Alamy and even IS.
Some interesting ones like one photo accepted last week and another taken on identical settings 0.5 seconds later submitted this week (the subject had turned slightly) rejected for (i) white balance (ii) composition (iii) noise.
Odd given they both went through the same batch process with identical camera and develop settings!
The problem is the reasons are so generic and so overused its impossible to tell what they are/aren't looking for. If there was a "we just dont like it" button it would at least tell you where you stand and that's fair enough as the process is subjective.
There does seem to be "reason of the week" though with Composition winning this weeks ballot - it is the ultimate generic though for "i just dont like it". Consistency i should imaging would drastically reduce their photo workload as pretty much everyone i know is resubmitting half the rejected stuff for the above reasons. With no consistency its impossible to actually "learn" *exactly* what they're after.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
