Author Topic: ANGRY REVIEWER (Read 13571 times)

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!

chellyar · « **Reply #1 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..

rjmiz · « **Reply #2 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.

RT · « **Reply #3 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.

Bateleur · « **Reply #4 on:** October 26, 2007, 06:12 »

Quote from: rolffimages on October 25, 2007, 19:59

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.

ludesal · « **Reply #5 on:** October 26, 2007, 09:48 »

maybe rolffimages is angry?

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** October 26, 2007, 10:28 »

maybe this is just a `hit and run`posting.

rjmiz · « **Reply #7 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.

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

Pixart · « **Reply #8 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?

rjmiz · « **Reply #9 on:** October 26, 2007, 12:00 »

On DT you must give the filr ID # for resubmission

Bateleur · « **Reply #10 on:** October 26, 2007, 12:27 »

Quote from: leaf on October 26, 2007, 10:28

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.

fotografer · « **Reply #11 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.

Bateleur · « **Reply #12 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.

leaf · « **Reply #13 on:** October 26, 2007, 13:59 »

Quote from: 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?

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

Stu99 · « **Reply #14 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!

rolffimages · « **Reply #15 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

digiology · « **Reply #16 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...

Pixart · « **Reply #17 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!)

Alex · « **Reply #18 on:** November 08, 2007, 01:16 »

I think she/he must be on vacation, 100% so far this week.

LOL

Sitting on crossed fingers

rjmiz · « **Reply #19 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!

leaf · « **Reply #20 on:** November 08, 2007, 06:05 »

Quote from: 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!

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.

ludesal · « **Reply #21 on:** November 08, 2007, 08:36 »

Quote from: leaf on November 08, 2007, 06:05

Quote from: 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!

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.

rjmiz · « **Reply #22 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?

leaf · « **Reply #23 on:** November 08, 2007, 11:55 »

i dunno if they necessarily are 'employed' they might be doing the work on 'contract basis'??

Beckyabell · « **Reply #24 on:** November 08, 2007, 17:17 »

LOL.... "Lowly" might be a little harsh!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: ANGRY REVIEWER (Read 13571 times)

rolffimages

chellyar

rjmiz

RT

Bateleur

ludesal

leaf

rjmiz

Pixart

rjmiz

Bateleur

fotografer

Bateleur

leaf

Stu99

rolffimages

digiology

Pixart

Alex

rjmiz

leaf

ludesal

rjmiz

leaf

Beckyabell

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors