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.

it's because its a picture of MY egg & toast! and THAT makes it special!

but in all seriousness... it is a bit annoying with ss having random rejections for no reason other than the east indian (or whatever 3rd world country) reviewer is too lazy to do the work, and since no one is 'looking' over them they just watching pizza while clicking 'reject' on their phone and get paid for that...

Quote from: MysteryShot on December 04, 2019, 10:57

...also the review times is ridiculously fast, uploaded a batch, set my timer on the phone, it took 40 seconds and the review was done! ...

I wish mine did that. Sometimes it takes days, but just for a reminder, reviews used to be days and many days and everyone complained, because it was so important that their latest "stock photo" of some sliced vegetables, a handshake or girl with a headset, was so important, and they had to be online right away. 

I always said, what's so important about the next upload, except news and editorial of course, that a picture of an egg and toast, that hasn't been in someones portfolio for buyers since 15 years ago, just has to be there, right now, today? Really?

Yes, I'd like Editorial to be fast tracked and isolated food to be side tracked for a week at minimum. LOL

anyone know where?

that's really devaluaing the content, especially as now it prices videos at $3/video for people who purchase.

also - if say someone doesn't use their full subscription (i.e., lets say they only use 5/10 items) - that means shutterstock pockets the rest of the money?
(so in reality, they are giving you an even LOWER commission than the 30%, more like 10-15%/video)...

If they were only allowing quality items in - I'm all for that.

That's not the case. They are just mass rejecting because the reviewers - whomever they are - just don't feel like working.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on March 30, 2020, 22:40

seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.

the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.

I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.

Sorry, no one from us like rejections, but to me this sounds like good news from Shutterstock, the better news can be to start removing some existing crap.

There are black clouds coming over this business after COVID-19, and if this is true and they apply rigorous review this will improve the revenue per photo accepted.

The old experienced contributors knows very well the value of acceptance, this is not a routine process.

P.S. I don't mention your rejections or someone's particular, I focus my thoughts as a whole about the collection.

So many lately. Maybe their AI (Artificial Intelligence or Absolute Idiot) review system flags this up every time it meets a word it doesn't recognize eg a place or town name.
I'd be even more irritated if they were still selling as well as before. Now I tend to just sigh and move on....
But crazy.
PS If they don't reject for Title they reject for Editorial. A picture of a road bridge for heavens sake.....
Beyond the pale......

quite possibly it wasn't in 'east indian' english. much different then british, american, canadian or australian english.

you need to write it in proper east indian english, something like:

"super vech much gooder phto of toiwn in place somewhere, thankyou come again".

then that should help get you approved.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on March 31, 2020, 04:38

Quote from: mj007 on March 30, 2020, 22:43

This just came out from SS. It makes no sense as reviewers work in their homes on computers and no computer has ever given anyone a virus.     "PLEASE NOTE: Our review teams are taking the necessary steps to continue operating safely and at full capacity. However, you may experience longer than usual wait times for review due to the global impact of COVID-19."

I think that's garbage. It may be just for video - but I suspect:

a) It is outsourced in India/Phillipines
b) By SOME reviewers (not all) - A combination of laziness, probably reviewing on their cellphone while watching t.v. (so don't feel like using data) - so just go through the 'motions' of reviewing so they get paid when in fact they are doing nothing at all. (I've actually hired/outsourced workers from those area - and it's been my experience unless you really watch what is being done - that is precisely what happens. Had some data entry/review jobs outsourced where I could "see" what they were doing - and it varied from doing it 100% incorrect to simply waiting 10 seconds per item, then clicking 'reviewed & accepted' without actually doing any work).

It's just *really* annoying. But it seems to be some (not all) reviewers are just automatically rejecting 100% of items.

I'm holding off for now too. Ive gone from a 99.999% approval to 50% at the most. All for noise artifacts where there is 0 noise or artifacts. Shooting in 4K RAW on a professional Sony cam. Editing them in Pro Res. I've even tried submitting the 4K as HD - still get rejected. If I re-upload them I might get 50% through but it's wasting my time too much. Sales have tanked since COVID-19 so putting my time into other creative digital areas.

The only thing keeping me afloat at the moment is template making on membership sites (only upload templates) Without these sales I'd be finding it difficult. I'm a full time stock producer.

I wish shutterstock could make it easier for us in these troubling times....

Yes - that seems to be the same message for me.

I have super high quality (very high end *cameras*), mechanical shutter (which most hobbyist photographers don't even know the difference), great lighting conditions - and get stupid inaccurate things like "noise" when there is 0 noise, etc, etc...

It's annoying that *some* of these reviewers without direct supervision abuse the work at home policy.

seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.

the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.

I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.

Quote from: panicAttack on March 26, 2020, 06:05

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on March 26, 2020, 05:56

No I don't think the agencies should have more money. And as much as it would be nice for agencies to increase their royalty rates... it's never going to happen. Well, it might in very rare instances and for specific reasons, but if you think the agencies are going to reduce their profits just so that you can earn more... you might be waiting quite some time.

That's the point of my reply though... surely you can see the irony in a post about agencies only caring how much money they make, when the whole point of your post was due to you caring about how much money you make.

rare instances and specific reasons, that's it!

Why is adobe giving away 2 months of CC for everyone instead of charging double/triple in this times?

or, why is USA gov sending 1000 usd checks to everyone instead of sending billions of usd to few corporations?

Think about it.

lol re: gov'ts giving checks - it's kind of like a casino giving you a "free" $20 credit. because they know they'll get it back (aka taxes). (in reality - it is "your" money "they" are giving back to you, but people don't seem to get that).
adobe - it's a goodwill gesture that will probably help them in the longrun - because people remember companies that helped them in times of need, and tend to reciprocate in times of abundance.

haha, now that's funny - I never thought someone would have their kid do it - but who knows, you could be 100% correct!

Quote from: SuperPhoto on March 21, 2020, 19:20

While just speculation, I don't think it's AI. I think they've outsourced it to somewhere like India, where a guy gets paid for how many videos he "reviews".
So out of laziness, periodically just skips a bunch so he/she can say they were "reviewed", so he/she gets paid.

I know for a fact some of them do exactly that with deliveries. (I.e., some DHL drivers will just mark "attempted delivery" several times so it "appears" they are working, when in fact they just skip the delivery route). Some of them are very creative with ways to 'scam' the system, aka get paid without doing any work.

Good theories, I'd agree. If there's a way for someone to cheat the system and get paid for pretending to be working, they will often do that.

"Here honey, Daddy is busy watching the soccer match, play this reviewer game for me..."

Yes, it is pronounced "j"iff, although some people like to be different and say "g"iff with a soft g.

& haha, I thought "everyone" knew gif meant graphics interchange format, I probably learned that about 25 years ago when gifs started first becoming popular in Netscape - and the fact you could animate an image was "magic".

I like it - just came back from flying it now.

It's a good 'quick' portable drone - but main issues is the smaller sensor - and you really have to check wind conditions - AND from what some people have said (haven't tried it myself) can't do heavy braking (i.e., flying forward, then stop) - otherwise it could break it. (Phantom you can do super hard braking, which actually in a way is fun).

I get a bit nervous when I get all the "strong wind" warnings with the mini + it says "maximum power output" when you aren't flying very high or very far - even with a slight wind.

So - portablity, awesome. Picture - decent.

Not really a good idea, unless you have one person assign all copyright/ownership of photos/images/etc to you, and you pay them a royalty - based on an agreement in writing. If it's not in writing:

- Friendships break up (sad but true), in which case your friend might retailiate (i.e., contact all the agencies telling them you are selling his/her 'stolen' content, etc without a written agreement).
- Almost always a disagreement about how much work/compensation someone should be getting
- Interests change. Maybe your friend will get married/have kids/travel/get a job/etc. Or maybe you will.

Not really a good idea - unless you take the proper steps (i.e., outlining EVERYTHING in writing) - so BOTH of you have a CRYSTAL clear understanding of the expectations of each person. Then - if anything DID happen - and it had to go to court/etc - you have a clear document which makes it easy to decide who gets what. But it probably wouldn't - because you could just show your friend that document - and both of you would save a lot of time, stress, etc because it was clear, and you could part ways on amicable terms.

If someone is 'truly' exclusive (and doesn't cheat hoping pond5 doesn't notice there clips elsewhere), from what I've seen I do not believe the slight increase in sales compensates for lost sales at other agencies...