MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: rolffimages on October 25, 2007, 19:59

Title: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: rolffimages on October 25, 2007, 19:59
To those of you who have experienced the angry reviewer and have received multiple unjust rejections. I challenge you to write shutterstock with your complaint. I have written to Setho here at Shutterstock at Laurins suggestion and hope you will do the same.

Don't put it off write Setho or shutterstock tonight!
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: chellyar on October 26, 2007, 02:39
Lots of rejections?  Or weird reasons for the rejections?  I've had a few in the queue there lately, and not had anything odd..
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: rjmiz on October 26, 2007, 03:12
There have been studies released that indicate reading online messages can sometimes be deceiving.
This study includes, email, forums, or text messaging. The study indicated that almost 70% of what was
written, was misinterpreted by the reader.

1. If you want other readers to understand what you mean, I suggest you include quotes of the reviewers
communication that point out he or she is getting angry.
(sometimes an author's attempt to explain his frustration is often interpreted as anger on the part of the reader)

2. "Unjust rejections"? Again, another possible misinterpretation. After all a reviewers opinion is considered subjective.
We sometimes don't always see the rejected images with the same eyes the reviewers use. We tend to get
"emotionally upset" at the rejection, and consider any explanation by the reviewer as unreasonable.

If I am incorrect in my assumptions, then please please post examples of this reviewers communication with you.
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: RT on October 26, 2007, 05:39
Hmm I must say I agree with the last two posts.

What makes you say the reviewer was angry, they don't normally give anything than a 'standard button' pressed result.

To be honest I don't get many rejections at SS and on the odd occasion that I do I just accept that it's part and parcel of the industry, it can be annoying but there you go.
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Bateleur on October 26, 2007, 06:12

To those of you who have experienced the angry reviewer and have received multiple unjust rejections ...


Can you give an example of what the 'Angry Reviewer' writes, with an example of the unjustly rejected image? Is he/she being abusive or defamatory?

Others can't really make any judgment on this until we see what it's all about. What you consider to be an 'unjust rejection' may be fully justified in the eyes of Shutterstock. They are the ones running the business.

They have no duty to you to sell your photos so they are fully justified in rejecting anything they don't want, for any reason.

However, if they're being rude or abusive about it ... that's another matter.
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: ludesal on October 26, 2007, 09:48
maybe rolffimages is angry?
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: leaf on October 26, 2007, 10:28
maybe this is just a `hit and run`posting.
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: rjmiz on October 26, 2007, 11:03
I'll give you an example how it might a reviewers comment MAY be taken as "Angry"
Below is a quote I got from a recent rejection:

The problem was a possible copyright infringement on a car logo

"Reason: Please remove the car logo.
You have submitted this image before and it was refused for the same reason(s).
Please ensure that you did fix the problem(s). Do not resubmit images in hopes of reaching a new reviewer.
Your account privileges may be disabled if you use this method again."

Clearly you can see the change I made, but the reviewer did not.

(http://www.microstockpix.com/support.jpg)

I did not interpret this reviewers response as anger.
I simply removed it and made up an entirely different emblem in photoshop.

(http://www.microstockpix.com/support2.jpg)
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Pixart on October 26, 2007, 11:58
Robert, how did they know you submitted it before?  Did you include the original image number or did they check on you?
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: rjmiz on October 26, 2007, 12:00
On DT you must give the filr ID # for resubmission
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Bateleur on October 26, 2007, 12:27
maybe this is just a `hit and run`posting.

I think it is.

I notice that Rolfimages has only just joined and this is the only posting he's made.

Sounds like he's got a massive grudge and he's trying to drum up support.
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: fotografer on October 26, 2007, 12:51
He's posting this on different forums all over the place including the SS one but I think they've deleted it as I can't find it now.
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Bateleur on October 26, 2007, 13:38
I guess he thinks he's the next Henri Cartier-Bresson .... David Bailey ... Ansel Adams ... Edward Weston ... all rolled into one ...

... and the reviewer at SS hasn't the wit to see it.

 :D

Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: leaf on October 26, 2007, 13:59
Robert, how did they know you submitted it before?  Did you include the original image number or did they check on you?


that response seems very much like a shutterstock response and they have a 'magical' way of knowing if you have submitted an image before.  I say magical because i am not sure quite how they do it - not that i have tested it ;) mind you
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Stu99 on October 26, 2007, 14:54
If he has a small porfolio it would be easy for the reviewers to scan over old images to look for re-submissions. Also he may have a note attached to his profile warning other reviewers if he has a history of re-submissions without letting the admins now in the comments box.

I have always found the SS reviewers to be fair and professional, I've always respected their POV. But some people take rejection very personally, I think one of the first peices of advice I read in this forum was not to take rejection personally :-) Another one of the pearls of wisdom offered by you guys!
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: rolffimages on October 26, 2007, 15:57
Hey Guys,

If you don't know what I am referring to as the angry reviewer then ignore this post

Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: digiology on October 26, 2007, 16:38
 ???

Hard to ignore this thread with the subject title you have chosen. Now you have left us all in suspence...
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Pixart on October 27, 2007, 21:48
Oh, no!  I think they've recruited someone from Istock!!!  My successful streak has come to a screeching halt this week.  Overuse of noise reduction and artifacts!!!  (It's ironic getting a noise reduction rejection from SS, and it was only applied to the sky!)
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Alex on November 08, 2007, 01:16
I think she/he must be on vacation, 100% so far this week.

LOL

Sitting on crossed fingers
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: rjmiz on November 08, 2007, 04:08
Wrong!...Reviewers don't have have VACATION benefits. They don't get paid sick days,
nor do they have holidays off. In fact, anytime they don't work....they don't get paid period!
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: leaf on November 08, 2007, 06:05
Wrong!...Reviewers don't have have VACATION benefits. They don't get paid sick days,
nor do they have holidays off. In fact, anytime they don't work....they don't get paid period!

that doesn't mean they can't take vacation -
I'm a self employed photographer - I don't have vacation benefits, or get paid for sick days, or have holidays 'off' ... when I don't work I don't get paid..... I still take vacation though ie... time when i don't work.
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: ludesal on November 08, 2007, 08:36
Wrong!...Reviewers don't have have VACATION benefits. They don't get paid sick days,
nor do they have holidays off. In fact, anytime they don't work....they don't get paid period!

that doesn't mean they can't take vacation -
I'm a self employed photographer - I don't have vacation benefits, or get paid for sick days, or have holidays 'off' ... when I don't work I don't get paid..... I still take vacation though ie... time when i don't work.

same here, but not photographer... designer.
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: rjmiz on November 08, 2007, 11:45
But THEY ARE employed.....that's my point!
A reviewer is such a lowly job, don't you agree?
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: leaf on November 08, 2007, 11:55
i dunno if they necessarily are 'employed' they might be doing the work on 'contract basis'??
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Beckyabell on November 08, 2007, 17:17
LOL.... "Lowly" might be a little harsh!  :D
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Phil on November 08, 2007, 22:25
But THEY ARE employed.....that's my point!
A reviewer is such a lowly job, don't you agree?

No.  Reviewing is a great job and reviewers are great, I aspire to be like them.  They are the best part of microstock, I love them all.

<<Any reviewers here?  ;D ;D >>
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: berryspun on November 08, 2007, 23:14
Not anymore.  I have been there though, and you may consider hard to believe, and be surprised, to know that in general reviewers would prefer by far to be in a position to accept a picture.  It's more rewarding.

These reviewers are photographers like us, some are probably participating here in this forum.  They don't have a lowly job, nor a great one either.  They chose to be reviewers because they like it, or the incentive is big enough, they wouldn't be able to continue that job otherwise.  And when they submit pictures, they get treated the same way as the non-reviewers, no difference.
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: null on November 09, 2007, 00:02
An angry reviewer sounds to me like an honest lawyer and an altruistic politician  ::)
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Alex on November 09, 2007, 16:00
Most reviewers do a fine job.  It is really unfair to put the work that they preform down.  However there are a few in the barrel or maybe one just having a bad day that create occasion problems.  I think that if they paid them more there would be less issues.

Most of them are fellow photographers and review for various reasons, such as improving their own work etc.
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: Gregor909 on November 09, 2007, 16:40
Hey Guys,

If you don't know what I am referring to as the angry reviewer then ignore this post

Can you give us a hint?  :)
Title: Re: ANGRY REVIEWER
Post by: RacePhoto on November 10, 2007, 04:33
Hey Guys,

If you don't know what I am referring to as the angry reviewer then ignore this post

Can you give us a hint?  :)

Lots of shouting, but when asked for details, we get... If you don't know, then ignore this thread?  :P