No and No.

Show us the reject pics and we can serve you better 


Tom

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. 

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%.

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?

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.

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.   Will be interesting to know how it works for other contributors.

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.)

Quote from: ouchie on January 30, 2013, 10:22

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!

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

  
+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.

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.

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

Let me help. Read the forums. 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.