Quote from: mtgrant on September 27, 2016, 15:03

Quote from: Mantis on September 27, 2016, 14:51

Quote from: mtgrant on September 27, 2016, 14:22

There's a lot of conjecture on this forum string about bots being used by the Big 4 sites. These "bots" are a myth. The only automation I know of, for iStock, Fotolia, and Shutterstock at least, is file size rejection or unacceptable file type. There is no automation for image content / design, meaning images won't be rejected upon submission by a computer algorithm - they're being rejected because your image isn't on par with submission guidelines, technical aspects, Model or Property releases, etc., and those are decided by a living, breathing human being, the vast majority of which are highly qualified. I've previously worked for 2 major stock houses, now defunct (thanks a lot Visual China Group / Getty!), and you needed a BFA in photography or visual arts to be an Image Researcher / Editor. iStock was the same. Most people had more than that. I suspect qualifications have lessened over the years, as the stock model has gone from a mostly Rights Managed environment to the Royalty Free microstock model we see today, but to assume reviewers are wholly unqualified is quite a leap.

As for the fast turnaround, after working 10+ years in the industry as an Image Researcher and Image Editor / Reviewer, some of you know that photo output slows down somewhat during the months of June to August. One could account for fast review times = less images for those non-bot reviewers to review, and therefore things move speedily along. I wouldn't continue to expect near instantaneous reviews in the coming months. That'd be great, but then the bot-myth would continue to perpetuate.

Are you aware that SS touts automated inspection software in their SEC Filing?

You mean, "Each of our images has been vetted by a member of our review team for standards of quality and relevance. We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers." Form: 424B

To assume that that means that a computer is vetting an image for anything other than the file size or unacceptable image file type as I previously mentioned, is again, conjecture.

So your hypothesis is that aside from image size or type all of sudden many contributors started sending in wrong model releases, blurry images, property released images with no property release, bad color balances, wrong or missing model releases, that somehow SS found superhuman reviewers to check key image properties in 30 seconds all the while letting in thousands of duplicate pot images that somehow magically passed their non bot inspection process? You are obviously trolling, which we get in here now and then.

I'm just stating facts as I know them. People are fallable. Stock images going through the submission process are never reviewed by the same person twice, and some images will have multiple issues that maybe a previous reviewer didn't pick up on, or another reviewer is feeling lenient for an image that teeters on what would be acceptable or unacceptable for a stock site's collection.

There's a lot of conjecture on this forum string about bots being used by the Big 4 sites. These "bots" are a myth. The only automation I know of, for iStock, Fotolia, and Shutterstock at least, is file size rejection or unacceptable file type. There is no automation for image content / design, meaning images won't be rejected upon submission by a computer algorithm - they're being rejected because your image isn't on par with submission guidelines, technical aspects, Model or Property releases, etc., and those are decided by a living, breathing human being, the vast majority of which are highly qualified. I've previously worked for 2 major stock houses, now defunct (thanks a lot Visual China Group / Getty!), and you needed a BFA in photography or visual arts to be an Image Researcher / Editor. iStock was the same. Most people had more than that. I suspect qualifications have lessened over the years, as the stock model has gone from a mostly Rights Managed environment to the Royalty Free microstock model we see today, but to assume reviewers are wholly unqualified is quite a leap.

As for the fast turnaround, after working 10+ years in the industry as an Image Researcher and Image Editor / Reviewer, some of you know that photo output slows down somewhat during the months of June to August. One could account for fast review times = less images for those non-bot reviewers to review, and therefore things move speedily along. I wouldn't continue to expect near instantaneous reviews in the coming months. That'd be great, but then the bot-myth would continue to perpetuate.