MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Acceptance Ratio... does SS care  (Read 4979 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 29, 2013, 22:11 »
0
Does SS care about what my acceptance ratio is?  ( Right now it is about 25%)

Is there any penalty for this?

Is resubmitting ( after fixing) worthwhile?  Should I flag resubmissions or just slide them in?

Thanks

Glenn


tab62

« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2013, 22:20 »
0
No and No.

Show us the reject pics and we can serve you better  ;)


Tom

« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2013, 22:24 »
+2
I always add a comment to any that I resubmit. Trying to "slide" them through could cause a problem. I've been with SS since 2005 and I can't remember anyone getting suspended for their acceptance ratio, at least not that I have heard. You should try to make some correction, even if minor, based on the rejection reason before resubmitting. I have resubmitted a few with no modification and they were accepted probably because another reviewer evaluated it.

CD123

« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2013, 00:53 »
+1
Does SS care about what my acceptance ratio is?  ( Right now it is about 25%)

Is there any penalty for this?

Is resubmitting ( after fixing) worthwhile?  Should I flag resubmissions or just slide them in?

Thanks

Glenn

SS is more concerned with the quality of the images they offer for sale than with any contributor's acceptance ratio (that is your problem, not theirs).  If you continually try to slip substandard images back into your uploads and get caught out, you will be rightfully banned for wasting everyone's time (keeping overloaded  reviewers busy with already reviewed sub standard work and causing other contributors to wait longer to get their new work reviewed).

Most rejections are not unreasonable and unfair, especially at SS.  Rather try to learn from them and improve the quality of your work. 

« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2013, 01:14 »
+3
25% acceptance is awfully low.  I looked back at my early months at Shutterstock (mid-2005) and see that I was running between 75 and 100% acceptance.  Granted, I think they were more forgiving then than today.  But I'd work on figuring out what it is they don't like and trying to improve my work.  And I wouldn't resubmit rejected images without reprocessing them to make them more acceptable.  Why take the chance of getting blocked?  It won't happen for a first offense, but it could happen.

I do get rejections now and then.  If they're fixable, I'll fix them and resubmit.  If it's not something I can fix, or if the fix is more work than I think they're worth, I'll skip it.  I try not to let rejections bother me.  Mostly I succeed.

CD123

« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2013, 01:45 »
+2
25% acceptance is awfully low.  I looked back at my early months at Shutterstock (mid-2005) and see that I was running between 75 and 100% acceptance.  Granted, I think they were more forgiving then than today.  But I'd work on figuring out what it is they don't like and trying to improve my work.  And I wouldn't resubmit rejected images without reprocessing them to make them more acceptable.  Why take the chance of getting blocked?  It won't happen for a first offense, but it could happen.

I do get rejections now and then.  If they're fixable, I'll fix them and resubmit.  If it's not something I can fix, or if the fix is more work than I think they're worth, I'll skip it.  I try not to let rejections bother me.  Mostly I succeed.

+1
If images are fixable and it is worth your while, I would suggest adding a note to the upload, starting with "Resubmission:" and a description of what you have repaired. Only resubmit once. If it is rejected again, the chance of fixing it to the point of getting accepted is in any event less than 1%.

« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2013, 08:44 »
0
25% acceptance is awfully low.  I looked back at my early months at Shutterstock (mid-2005) and see that I was running between 75 and 100% acceptance.  <snip>

I am not too worried about my acceptance rate... yet.  I am still trying to figure out what works at different agencies, and I am still mining my hard drives.  It took me a few tries to figure out what they really want for Editorial.

A lot of my rejections ( besides Editorial) are for lighting.  I really like shadows in images.  SS doesn't seem to like them.

Once I start shooting for stock, and invest in models and props, then I want to have a clear idea of what, technically, is acceptable.

Glenn

« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2013, 09:20 »
0
Speaking of resubmitting previously rejected images, I also have a question.

I was careless and forgot to make a list of what pictures I've already sent to SS, and not all my rejected pictures are showing up on the website ( I think they are deleted after a while ). So now I don't know exactly if some pictures were rejected or I just didn't upload them yet. I'm scared I might resubmit a few by mistake and they will ban me. Do they really ban you for something like this or you just get a warning?

CD123

« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2013, 09:22 »
0
25% acceptance is awfully low.  I looked back at my early months at Shutterstock (mid-2005) and see that I was running between 75 and 100% acceptance.  <snip>

I am not too worried about my acceptance rate... yet.  I am still trying to figure out what works at different agencies, and I am still mining my hard drives.  It took me a few tries to figure out what they really want for Editorial.

A lot of my rejections ( besides Editorial) are for lighting.  I really like shadows in images.  SS doesn't seem to like them.

Once I start shooting for stock, and invest in models and props, then I want to have a clear idea of what, technically, is acceptable.

Glenn
Very good strategy. You can already know that most MS agencies hates shadows, I think all their reviewers grew up in a world with halogen walls and shadows are caused by out of focus pictures.  ;)

CD123

« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2013, 09:25 »
0
Speaking of resubmitting previously rejected images, I also have a question.

I was careless and forgot to make a list of what pictures I've already sent to SS, and not all my rejected pictures are showing up on the website ( I think they are deleted after a while ). So now I don't know exactly if some pictures were rejected or I just didn't upload them yet. I'm scared I might resubmit a few by mistake and they will ban me. Do they really ban you for something like this or you just get a warning?
Go to "Portfolio" then "Approval Status: Images" then select "Rejected Photos" - they should all be there (I can still see my first 2011 rejections).

PS If you simply want to know if you can take a chance without being banned outright, sure you can and if caught might just get a warning, but no one can give you any guarantees. So go ahead at own peril.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 09:28 by CD123 »

« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2013, 09:31 »
0
I went to Rejected Photos and it says "Note:  Rejected photos will be automatically deleted after 7 days."

CD123

« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2013, 09:47 »
0
I went to Rejected Photos and it says "Note:  Rejected photos will be automatically deleted after 7 days."
Most awkward that the system will be different for different contributors. :o  Will be interesting to know how it works for other contributors.

« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2013, 10:22 »
-1
re: rejection

i thought the lower your aceptance %, the less visible your photos are, or the further back they show up in search?

and i thought this applys to all agencies, to varing degrees?

« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2013, 10:43 »
0
re: rejection

i thought the lower your aceptance %, the less visible your photos are, or the further back they show up in search?

and i thought this applys to all agencies, to varing degrees?

I don't know, but I doubt that.  Most agencies want to present customers with the most relevant and best quality images; they want to make a sale.  They have other ways of dissuading/punishing submitters with low acceptance ratios, like lower upload quotas (which SS doesn't have) or slower reviews due to lower priority (which they might do).  Assuming an image passes review, why push it to the back of the queue where it won't make money for anybody?

There may be agencies who do that (I'm looking at you, DT), but SS isn't one of them.  And I doubt the majority do anything so self-destructive.  (Other agencies find so many better ways to be self-destructive.)

RacePhoto

« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2013, 12:37 »
0
I went to Rejected Photos and it says "Note:  Rejected photos will be automatically deleted after 7 days."

True but the rejection notifications remain, just the images are gone. Did that make it clearer?

Click on > Approval Status Images (under portfolio)
then > Rejected Photos
Bottom of the list says View All ## rejected photos click that
Now you see all rejected photo. There's a red X on the right.

You can delete them.

Rejected
view all
red X
OK
Yes Delete

Rinse and Repeat... eventually you will have no rejected photos.  ;D

If SS does track it, they don't make a point of telling us anything, one way or another. If the system simply looks at the numbers, I'm happier having a 100% acceptance ratio, even if it's false?

« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2013, 13:05 »
0
re: rejection

i thought the lower your aceptance %, the less visible your photos are, or the further back they show up in search?

and i thought this applys to all agencies, to varing degrees?

I don't know, but I doubt that.  Most agencies want to present customers with the most relevant and best quality images; they want to make a sale.  They have other ways of dissuading/punishing submitters with low acceptance ratios, like lower upload quotas (which SS doesn't have) or slower reviews due to lower priority (which they might do).  Assuming an image passes review, why push it to the back of the queue where it won't make money for anybody?

There may be agencies who do that (I'm looking at you, DT), but SS isn't one of them.  And I doubt the majority do anything so self-destructive.  (Other agencies find so many better ways to be self-destructive.)

Hummm, thanks for responding, i always wondered abt that.
somwhere along the line i took it as the lower your % = the less visible.

and i also used the same logic as u just used and it made me contact a couple of agencys.
i asked them does a lower % mean lower in search?
no agency gave me a clear answer. i remb Istock (i think it was IS) said, we cannot discuss search algorythms with any contrib as it can give an unfair advantage to some.

so all this time i realise why i have such a small port compared to otheres who started abt the same time with me! well in all honesty, i am kinda lazy but i tried to defend my acceptance % at all costs.

but anyway, since the new year i have decided- screw % and i have been uploading like crazzy,...for a lazy person:)

BTW  "(Other agencies find so many better ways to be self-destructive.)" Nice, soo very true!

Poncke

« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2013, 13:21 »
+4
The days of mining a hard drive are over. Shoot for stock. Dont mine your harddrive looking for crapstock. With a 25% acceptance at SS you are perfect for DP and CanStockPhoto.

To get any significant income you need to get a much higher acceptance rate. 25% is terribly low.


Start creating stock images, stop scraping your HD


« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2013, 13:30 »
+2
The days of mining a hard drive are over. Shoot for stock..........
To get any significant income you need to get a much higher acceptance rate. 25% is terribly low.


Start creating stock images, stop scraping your HD


 ;D  ;D ;D
+1

« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2013, 14:00 »
-2
The days of mining a hard drive are over. Shoot for stock. Dont mine your harddrive looking for crapstock. With a 25% acceptance at SS you are perfect for DP and CanStockPhoto.

To get any significant income you need to get a much higher acceptance rate. 25% is terribly low.


Start creating stock images, stop scraping your HD

But before you shoot for stock you have to know what is acceptable and what sells.  By mining my hard drive I have learned that, at no expense. And some of the images that have been accepted and selling would cost a lot to reshoot.

I agree that my ratio is low, and it will have to increase for my income to increase, but I think I am in a much better position to shoot then I was when I started ( a little over 2 months ago)

Poncke

« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2013, 14:17 »
+1
I dont think I agree with that. Submitting bad images to learn what just might pass a review has nothing to do with learning the stock trade. Creating images of the highest quality you can produce and see how much they SELL will tell you what you need to know. Rejections only tell you what technical problems they have, rejections tell you nothing about the saleability.

You are approaching this the wrong way. Sales speak, rejections waste everybody's time.

« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2013, 15:23 »
0
I would not be surprised if all sites track rejection rates.  I know some disclose this information to reviewers and they use this information to determine how carefully they need to scrutinize your images.  With an acceptance rate at 25% ~ expect all of your images to be reviewed at 100% size.

« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2013, 17:58 »
+1
I would suspect SS know how utterly random their review process is so don't really use acceptance ratio for anything in particular.

Its perfectly possible to have a few weeks of 100% acceptance then have the next week of 100% rejection for same-shot images due to reviewers personal preference.  Its worse on SS than elsewhere so wouldn't actually make sense to penalise based on ratio.  Ultimately all it means is the portfolio is smaller and therefore gets less sales  and that only effects the contributor.

As for resubmitting, i do it sometimes.  If i look at an image and decide that the reviewer probably didn't bother looking, the reasons in my view are wrong or got an atila blanket rejecting a whole batch for "composition" or whatever i will resubmit some a few weeks later and onwards.  My general rule is if it fails twice i wont bother again.  So far though the ones i chose to resubmit all get accepted presumably with a different reviewer or one who actually checks.
Last year i did have an entire batch get rejected for "noise" despite them being many different topics,stlyes and times which i resubmitted en masse 4 weeks later and got 100% approved.  I dont make a habit of doing that but it does show just how subjective the review is.


Poncke

« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2013, 18:02 »
-1
I once had the weirdest thing at SS.

I submitted one photo, conceptual, photoshopped womans face with flag. Got accepted, had sales, so I submitted 15 more of the same concept, different flags. All rejected for composition and the photo already accepted and selling was removed as well as it was mistakenly approved?

How about that? Removed from the library whilst it was picking up sales.

RacePhoto

« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2013, 12:56 »
+1

But before you shoot for stock you have to know what is acceptable and what sells. 


Let me help. Read the forums. ;D There are hundreds of examples and threads on what sells and what's rejected, without sending things to review. Wasting your time and the reviewers time.

Also you can have your photos torn to shreds on the SS forums in the review section, but there will be useful and helpful hints. It saves on the wait for reviews and gives more feedback than some vague "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect." rejection. Or, Or, Or and Maybe? ???

Getting accepted and making sales are two distinct and separate events. The first has no effect on the second, except you get your photos on display. Everyone here has some image they shot, that they thought would sell and it's never made one sale. If I thought something wasn't going to get downloads, I wouldn't bother wasting the time to upload it. (some people disagree and believe more files somehow means more downloads. Also not an established fact. Good Files Make More Sales.

What he said, if you want to get accepted, send your files to places that don't screen as carefully or as critically. You may get them to pass, but they won't make much money, if any? I made the same mistaken assumption. I started at Six to Ten agencies from FT down. DP didn't exist then.

When I thought (HA HA, I was wrong) I had an idea and collection of shots that would get accepted, I join at IS and SS. Not a shock now, but NOTHING passed of what the first ten places, easily accepted. At least three of those ten are out of business and personal decision was to drop the rest. You can always build a collection and add them later!

Invest your time on IS and SS and if you get files that are accepted and sell there, the easy answer is, after that, upload them to all the rest. You've already done the work, the keywording, you know what's making sales. You have just optimized your time and efforts and your income has been established at the best paying sites, instead of wasting all kinds of time, trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

Top two and work your way down, not the other way around.

« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2013, 21:58 »
0
Thanks for all the comments, they make me think and it is helping me refine my approach.

Just as a bit of defense about my actions, I am not throwing any old file at SS, my Hardrives that I have with me have about 150,000 images.

According to my ( incomplete) records I have submitted about 204 images... and 20 of these were rejected multiple times due to my stupidity in figuring out the rules for editorial.

I am capable of creating great "handshake" photographs in studio to look like the many other "handshake" photos on all the sites.... but I am looking for the niche that i can slide into.

One niche I was exploring fell flat... images didn't get past the gatekeepers.  Another unexpected niche has appeared and is selling that I would not have known about if I hadn't tried different image.

if you search SS for user grsphoto you can see what has been accepted ( I don't think I can show you what has been rejected.)


« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2013, 14:08 »
0
I must have learned somehting.... just had a entire batch ( 48 photos) approved

http://www.shutterstock.com/sets/597737-4x4-racing.html?rid=1356019

They are editorial so I am not sure if they will sell.....

« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2013, 16:01 »
0
My experience is they not very picky about editorials.


OM

« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2013, 13:37 »
0
I shoot new stuff, mine my hard disk and copy old slide material. Most gets accepted and one of my best sellers is from 35mm slide film shot in the mid 90's. Another great seller is from a 4x5" slide made in the late 80's. Copied them both on a D90 camera (no fancy schmancy Flextight scanners for me ;D). So, it's impossible to say what to do. If it's good (qualitatively and technically) and commercial, it should get in!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2140 Views
Last post March 18, 2008, 07:29
by kabby
4 Replies
1889 Views
Last post April 29, 2010, 15:50
by melastmohican
4 Replies
2361 Views
Last post February 16, 2011, 16:07
by Pixart
4 Replies
2091 Views
Last post January 20, 2012, 07:00
by nicku
8 Replies
1757 Views
Last post August 30, 2013, 21:08
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results