The last (2) background rejections I got form Fotolia about a week ago were accepted on the second attempt.  I did add a note to the reviewer that they were the only site to reject these images and both had sold very well on SS.  I also noted that they were technically perfect.  I closed buy saying that rejecting these images would not benefit anyone, especially them. 

It worked!

They don't have a system for resubmitting an image.  So just upload it again and explain your take on it.  It may or may not work?  Worth a try no matter what I guess.

The cool thing is one of the images sold (3) days later!  Now that was a home run and a "Told you so" Love it when we can prove that we do know what we are doing from time to time.

well seeing as subs are time based and not credit based, there is nothing really to 'use up quickly'  Sure they have daily limits but just because istock started their subscription, would make any different is regards to shutterstock buyers wanting to fill up their daily quota

I thought the same thing, but when I saw my sales way above normal I just wondered why?  It's good but still a little strange for me that the two happened on the same day.  Not to mention that this is an American Holiday too!  Really odd!

I'm not sure if it has anything do do with the IS subs but when I check my DLs at SS this morning I had way more than usual for a Monday morning?  I mean about a 75% increase.  As a matter of fact if the trend continues it will be my best day ever on SS.  I am wondering if people are using up their sub at SS to move over to IS?  That would be bad for me because my portfolio at SS is about 4 times larger than the one at IS.  As of right now IS makes up for only about 3% of my sales.  SS is 70% and FT and DT make up the rest.  Also FT is #2 for me and IS is 5th.

I'm not exclusive at IS so I wonder how much effect not being exclusive will effect DLs?  At this point I sure hope folks aren't blowing out SS for IS subs.  I think that would only hurt me.  Some of you who are exclusive may win big?  I guess the next few weeks will tell the story. 

I was hoping IS would speed up their reviews in advance of the subs.  For me that didn't happen.  How about you?

I've had better acceptance at Alamy than the Micro Sites.  As of today I'm still at 100% acceptance.  I can't say that about any Micro site. However I submit only a few at a time because of the way they reject.  If you upload 10 photos and they reject (1) of them, they also reject the other (9).  They have very strict image requirements too.  I would suggest reading their requirements several times before you submit anything.  I do exactly as what they tell you to do to each image and so far I have had good luck.  On the other hand I've had no sales there.  My portfolio is very small and not that unique but I wanted to try to see what would happen. 

Later this spring I'm planning to shoot for a week or so with Alamy in mind.  I've yet to upload any RM.  Everything so far has been RF.  I'm not sure that was a good choice.

Good luck with Alamy, I hear about photogs having great success there.  RM shots can earn as much in one sale as some micro sites gross in a month for your entire portfolio.

I pulled the plug a month ago.  They just suck!

This is their address....1294 Cranbrook Dr. Schaumburg, IL 60193.  It's an apartment or townhouse community just west of Chicago.  I suspect the error messages in Romanian are the result of the original programmers.  They may have bought the site source code from anywhere in the world.  Many sites these days are OpenSource written all over the world offering many different out front languages.  Not that any of this really matters but I thought I throw my 2 cents in on the site.

P.S. I'm not uploading to them for now.

I�m glad to see that I�m not alone here.  I don�t want agencies deleting my images either.  However I would understand it if the deleted image had a proven track record of few views and no sales.

I�m sure we all have images that don�t sell or even get a view or two.  When this is the case it�s the buyers saying �No Commercial Value�.  I�d rather the buyer make that decision rather than the site reviewers.  Given the number of photos that never get views or buys, I�d say the sites really don�t know themselves.  I have one image that was rejected for �No Commercial Value� by 3 of the big six and that image is my number one selling image on SS, and I do mean number #1. It gets sales almost everyday. (I was surprised too)

I can see how �Overabundant� and �No Commercial Value� varies from site to site as well as reviewer to reviewer.  I�d really like to see all of the sites fine tune these rejections. I also think that many times it�s only overabundant to the reviewer on a given day.  I�m sure we would all be the same way if we reviewed photos 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.  Frankly I don�t know how they do it day in and day out.  I couldn�t!   I couldn�t imagine looking at photos everyday of the week having to judge them "fairly".  Also a question is how long before every category has an overabundance?   That day has to come in the next few years.  Microstock is growing in size every second of the day.  How can any of us really submit totally new photos everyday?  Can any of us name something that hasn�t been shot and submitted already in some shape or form?  If you can you better get busy because you�re denying yourself sales if you truly have a unique commercial photo idea that's not been done already.

The bottom line is this.  As we (The Photographers) learn new techniques and equipment gets better we do have something new to offer in the so-called �Overabundant Category�.  I say blow the old dead photos out automatically on a monthly basis and let all of us all be allowed to freshen things up a little.   If any of you get upset about having an image blown out for zero sales after a year then so be it.  If you really want that shot online, re-shoot and make it better and see if you can generate sales.  None of us want to delete images regardless of sales or views.  However if we�re going to continue to be free to photograph what we like and get better at, we have to be given the room to do so.

One last thing.  If a site has an Overabundance of say �flowers� (not picking on flowers) and they are rejecting new ones it seems like they are denying the buyers a fresh product.  Also how hard would it be to run a program to identify the �no sales� images and get rid of them making way for new ones?  Retail stores do this all the time.  Dead items get removed from the shelves to make room for new ones.  (Duh)  Retail stores don�t have the luxury of expanding their store size everyday to add new inventory.  However it�s easy to add hard-drive space to make a virtual store larger.  The point I�m trying to make is that I can see how a monthly pruning of �DEAD INVENTORY� would benefit us all.  Two problems still exist.  The sites want to claim a huge inventory and each photographer wants his or her portfolio to be as large as possible.  Deleting images isn�t in the thought process.  But you can rest assured that if we all had a retail store with 35% dead stock we�d be doing something about if we wanted to increase sales and stay in business.  I think it�s time the sites did a little housekeeping and open up the gates for new images in the so-called Overabundant categories.

P.S.  Having a huge inventory proves nothing if 35-60% of that inventory doesn't sell.  I'd rather have "Better" rather than "Bigger" any day.  I'd rather have 10 images selling 20 times a day rather than 100 images selling 10 times a day.  Raw numbers don't always translate into sales.  Not to mention having a bunch of non-selling carp only makes it harder to find the ones that will sell.  I'd gladly delete my dead stock if everyone else did.  But I don't see that happening.  So it's going to be up to the sites to make this happen.       

I just wish I had the models to make a composite like that myself.  I would also settle for 10% of Yuri's income not to mention his girlfriend. (Whew!) Lay off Yuri, he's entitled to an occasional mistake or oversight.  We've all done it.  The only difference between his and mine is the fact that the inspectors catch all of mine.

I'm in!

I take a very simple approach.  I have a folder for each site.  In each folder is another folder "Not Uploaded", "Accepted" and "Rejected".  Once I upload I move everything to the "Accepted" folder and move any rejected images to the "Rejected" folder as needed.  I also have a Master Stock folder where I keep copies of everything accepted across the board.  I also add a "E" to the file name for any file that is uploaded "Exclusive" to any site.  I only upload Exclusive images to DT and FT every once in a while.

I'm sure there is a better way but this is how I started so I have stuck with it.  I will admit it uses a lot of hard drive space but for now it works fine.  Once I get to 1000 images I may have to find a better way.

The other thing I would do is stick with the Big 6.  The others aren't worth keeping up with IMO.

As far as images being accepted at one site and not at others....get used to that....each site has things they like and don't like.  Don't worry about it much...it's not you....we all see that every day.  Removing composition, make sure you are noise free at all of them.  SS hates noise.   IS hates over filtering and artifacts.  DT is hard to figure out as well as FT.  I am very selective with IS.  The rest get most everything I shoot.

I'm new at this too so I hope this helps, one noob to another.  The vets here may shed a whole new light on this topic.

I gave up too and sent them an email asking to be removed from their site.  Been 2 weeks now and no reply or removal.  Slackers if you ask me.  Looks like Corbis and Microsoft aren't paying to much attention to their little newborn baby of microstock.

Looks like 123 to me as well.  Do they have any sales?

This is just sad.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2832239/