Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 22, 2020, 03:35
very frustrated with some of the reviewers who appear to just do an auto "100%" rejection because they are too lazy to do their job.
seems some of the reviewers shutterstock employs have figured out how to game the system, so are doing zero work, to get paid. (to be clear, not all of them - some do their job - I like those reviewers - it's the ones that don't do their jobs that I don't like).
seems the game is for those ones is - they wait as long as possible to review the items (i.e., say a week) - so it gives the "appearance" of being reviewed to the (semi-automated) metrics shutterstock uses - so they can paid for doing nothing. I'm all for reviewing & approving 'good quality' images & videos, and rejecting poor quality. But when you happen to land one of these reviewers who just wants money for nothing, so autorejects 100%, it's very frustrating.
Would be a great time now shutterstock to either weed out these poor quality reviewers - OR - a different company to do a better job than shutterstock.
I have been experiencing bogus rejections as well. I posted about one of them awhile back where they rejected my waterfall photos for ""Title: Title must be descriptive and relevant to the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess." My title for both (same waterfall, different angles) was: Name of waterfall, Name of National Park, Name of State, USA. All in English. Completely relevant to the subject matter. All spelled correctly. Nothing repeated. No special characters - just commas. I re-submitted them and they still rejected one of them, even though the focus was on the waterfall and was f/13 taken on a tripod.
The other bogus rejection I got recently was for another waterfall. This time it said I was missing a property release and that the title/key words contained trademark issues. Again, I re-submitted it and it was accepted....because a property release was not needed nor were there any trademarked words in it.
It would be nice if SS would address these reviewers who aren't doing their job properly.


Exposure: Content is underexposed, overexposed, or is inconsistently exposed. How's that possible? Not worth the time and I'm over caring. Fine rejected, it wasn't the best image in the world, or the only one, so I don't care.



