Well, add me to the "pissed off camp"; just had a round of rejections at Shutterstock, on the weekend no less.  Is there no recourse for rejections on Shutterstock; for all the images, reviewer did not like the focus, all were wildlife at approx. 40 Fotolia with 600mm lens at f11 or so; so there was ample focus for the subject (small to med. birds), three they accepted, 9 they rejected, focus same on all.

I was wondering what "40 Fotolia" was - then I realized the letters f t must get changed to Fotolia.

It is frustrating getting this kind of rejection. SS does like all of the subject to be in focus - maybe a point and shoot with a tiny sensor would solve this problem for you. HA

I looked at it a bit more and there are a few things that are confusing to me, for instance these keywords were listed for a file with only one download...

central (33%); central park (33%); park (33%)

does that mean that the person was searching on "central, central park, park" or  was the search for " "central park" central park " ?

(as an aside, if I was searching for an image of central park in NYC, I'd have considered this image a spam, since I think they keywords I actually had were "central oregon" and "smith rock state park" - I guess the buyer wanted it though.)

In any case, there were a few surprises, but I'm not sure quite how to take advantage of this info. Unfortunately we can't see the searches that didn't show the image but should have (missing keywords). Although maybe looking through the top 100 keywords might help for that.

I do like the features they are putting in the darkroom section. I only wish they would include the files with 0 sales, especially while sorting by upload date.

As far as the CV on IS goes, I always thought that "none of the above" should be a viable CV for any given keyword. So that way I could have Mount Helen - that isn't Mt St Helen.

I just noticed that the SS darkroom now shows the keywords used to find the images.

It shows the top 5 keywords used and the percentage for each of them. No real surprises in my short look at it, but many many of the searches seem to be just one word as I suspected. Not only because the chances that a multiple keyword search is used enough to show up in the top 5 is lower and because I think buyers tend to try one word, then if they don't see an image they like in the first few pages then they try more words.

In any case, this is more potentially interesting and useful data from SS. Thanks.

I've had a rash of subs and level 0 lately. For once I am glad to get a sub (when they are a level 0) .35 is better than .24. I suppose a level 0 med or large would be for more though.

The spamming on SS can be pretty bad. It would be nice if they could get the obvious ones out - like the ones of a man where the keyword is woman. I think part (a small part) of the problem on SS is that they split up 2 or more word keywords.  The search is a bit better now that they use the subject for the search too.

It is surprising how often some ancient image that hasn't had sales for years or ever does sell - sometimes an EL too. That is one point in favor of cleaning up the keywords and the search rather than just deleting non or slow sellers.

Quote from: michaeldb on April 18, 2011, 19:25

Quote from: dehooks on April 18, 2011, 19:17

Stop the madness!

www.fairtax.org

Really. Think of all the thousands and thousands of hours we have spent this year keeping records only needed for the tax collectors and then filling out those all those forms. When we could have been taking photos and making illustrations! And the money spent to hire accountants. All wasted. :'(

All of that is eliminated with this system.  No more worrying about April 15th.  Everybody pays their fair share of taxes, including the wealthy and illegal immigrants.  In this system, even people who receive income illegally will still pay taxes.  There's no way to game the system. 

It looks like buying used and under the table would game the system. I imagine that it would pretty much crush new home sales too. Does hiring labor require that 23% - if not that could really boost hiring a photographer instead of buying images.

Not that there aren't plenty of problems w/ the current tax code and implementation. With most any changes, someone would benefit and someone would lose. I expect any changes to be according to the golden rule - those with the gold make the rules.

Positive at microstock - I can work when and if I feel like it and I still make money. Granted it isn't a lot, but it still is something. I am sure if I actually worked hard and smart at this I'd make more. Then again, if I wanted a real job I'd probably try to find one. Shutterstock is up this year, that is positive. DT earnings also seems to be recovering from the commission drop a year ago.

here is my latest "entertainment" that involved photography somewhat... a marathon day hike in the Grand Canyon - I even have got some pics to upload out of the deal.

http://www.electricant.net/grundyman/gchike2011.html

Yes, I thought that was amusing too (when I tried to use it for Easter eggs). Probably due to the fact that colored can refer to people with skin that isn't colored pink.

Quote

my first thought was that he jumped the gun then realized what he did so he went back and removed it.

That is exactly right. He also stated that he was going to accept the deal that was going to be on the table so whatever it is it can't be too bad, as he was pretty definitely opposed previously.

or he realized that IS had him by the short and curlies and he had no choice but to take the scraps that they offered or he'd never be able to buy that new lens cap.

For the most part, everything that isn't grown or found on the ground was made by someone and has the potential for problems. In fact I know of at least one site that says you can't submit a picture of a rock that is over a million years old.  I am a rock climber, and I could tell you the manufacturer of most of the gear in the rock climbing pictures at the sites. I am sure a gun collector could id most of the firearms, same for cars, computers, cell phones, stuffed animals... even with any logos removed. Apparently those aren't really a problem because nobody has been sued - yet.

Most sites put the burden on the buyers and on the photographers. The just want to cover their ass-ets.

That said, some companies are known for going after users of images of their product - apple, various car manufacturers, etc.  

If a site doesn't want something, they don't have to accept it. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. Their sandbox, their rules.

Many things are rejected now that were accepted in the past, some are good sellers.  Some sites have gone back and removed them, others haven't.

This can be a weird business we are in. It does take a thick skin sometimes.

I think their actions to produce a short term boost in profits makes a sale more likely than some sort of long term sustainable strategy. What they are doing now is not sustainable (by my understanding of the word, not how they used it last year to renege on their earlier deals).

Sure maybe they think they can just squeeze IS and suddenly their profits will go up forever, but what is happening now suggests a quick boost to the bottom line with no concern about what happens in the longer term future. That to me suggests a sale, some sort of pump and dump strategy.

I have no idea what H&F, Getty, or IS are really thinking or planning. I wish I did. This is just my take on what I have seen.

Hopefully if they are sold, the new owners have a more realistic idea of what is sustainable both for them and for us. (I can dream, can't I?)

I'd like to see the accepted images that didn't sell in 3 months separated from the rejected images that made > $10 (a much worse inspection issue in my opinion).

The former would make any new site inspectors look drunk merely from the low # of sales.

If you are already on SS, I would definitely send your stuff there. It might not get accepted, but if it does, it is more likely to sell than anywhere else. As far as I know rejections there only hurt your ego. I used sales there to help motivate me to produce more images, then I sent them to lots of places. At first the sales were almost all at SS, but over time the sales come at other places too.

At least some of the Flickr pics look like they would be acceptable (at least as far as composition and light go). The noise, CA,  distorted pixel, etc rejections could still happen. It is true that landscape and wildlife are pretty hard markets on microstock though. That doesn't mean that an image can't be accepted and sell well though.