MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Answer for long reviews  (Read 12650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2013, 06:35 »
+1
Wish people would shut . up about slow reviews at SS. Are they in it for a month or two or the long haul. I'd rather have good reviews than fast reviews. As someone who's been there for 7 years, I have seen the same pattern over and over. People piss and moan about slow reviews until they hire a bunch of new reviewers and then reviews go down the crapper until they can fully train the new kids. Been getting slow but good reviews for several months now. Today, I got my worst review in a long time. But hey, it was fast. It's much better to have half my images rejected quickly than wait a little longer and get 80-90% acceptance.

rant over

I think the frustration, dbvirago, is how images placement is tied to submission date, not acceptance date. If this is accurate, all SS contributors should be concerned.  I no longer see any of my new imagery sell and it's decent stuff.  Most contributors work very hard on their submissions and deserve to be treated in a way that maximizes their opportunities to sell their work.  Knowing Scott B participates in these forums I am optimistic that he is looking into changing the ranking logic to be more fair.  In the meantime, serious contributors will continue to be frustrated. And I do think it's frustration more than anger.  And you are making a broad assumption that speed=bad reviewers.  Totally an opinion I suspect unless you have inside info we aren't privy to. ;)


OM

« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2013, 08:36 »
+4
+1 Mantis.

The largest problem I have with these excessive review times and the corresponding terrible placement in search (as the images get buried) is that it is apparently not a level playing field.
Some contributors are reporting reviews within a week whilst others report 30+ days.

If everyone had to wait 30 days the SS image number allocation on submission would not be a problem but it would seem that this may not be the case which makes it inherently unfair to the 30-day waiting contributor and giving an unfair advantage to those lucky enough to get the <7-day review.

« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2013, 10:23 »
0
I checked a recent sale on SS and found the image on page 4. The subject, a communications tower, has 66 pages in total so I'm not disappointed with the placement. It's the first sale with this particular image and it was submitted about 6 months ago.

My question: I noticed an error with the description. If I edit the description and re-submit, do I risk losing that fourth page placement?

« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2013, 11:05 »
+3
 Obviously the whole operation is in some sort of turmoil.  My guess is that some cost-cutting plan - maybe they signed with some new subcontractors for reviewing - went south in a big way and Plan B is still being worked out.

Mine are still there from the end of last month, and I've stopped checking.  I won't be submitting again until it's all making sense, and I get the feeling that will be quite a while. 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2013, 11:28 »
0
To me this whole thing is really weird.  My last batch had images from 1 day to 5 days old.  All were reviewed the same day.  I can't remember ever waiting more than 7 days.

Hope I'm not shooting myself in the foot; wondering why some are taking so much longer than my images.

PS: mine are all photographs.  are others talking illustration or a mix of image types?


« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2013, 15:02 »
+1
I have 7 very ordinary photos sitting there now.

Their system no doubt routes batches of incoming photos to a number of queues, either for individual reviewers or for subcontractors who route them internally.   One or several of these pipelines has become a dead end; others are still being processed normally.   Maybe they cut an entire group of reviewers at one location, or signed up a new subcontractor who hasn't been able to handle the workload.  Either way, they don't seem to be able to reconfigure their workflow to equalize the review times; some batches still go down a chute that's already clogged.

With a backlog this large, reviewers will be under more pressure than ever to make snap decisions.  If a subcontractor is the problem, he'll be lashing his troops to catch up, or out on the street collaring people to become reviewers.  So along with the delays, I think we're likely to see more dodgy reviews.



« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 15:32 by stockastic »

« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2013, 15:44 »
0
Mine are still there from the end of last month, and I've stopped checking.  I won't be submitting again until it's all making sense, and I get the feeling that will be quite a while.
" My last batch had images from 1 day to 5 days old.  All were reviewed the same day." WarrenPrice

Today several of my images were finally reviewed, after many days. Images submitted on different days were all reviewed on the same day, just before the weekend. This is happening now every time I submit images to SS. How can SS's claim that they review images in a FIFO order be true? How can it be a coincidence if it happens every time?

How can I help but suspect that SS is unfairly favoring some submitters over others?

I have 4 images waiting at SS which were submitted in February. Apparently they will never be reviewed.

On top of it all, SS changes its policy to require "property releases" for hand-drawn and hand-traced vectors. Whether this policy makes sense or not, it certainly requires from me a PITA procedure which no other agency I submit to requires.
 
I stopped submitting to IS because of things like this. I guess the only course is to stop submitting to SS for the time being, at least. They do not seem to want my images anyway.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2013, 16:11 »
0
Mine are still there from the end of last month, and I've stopped checking.  I won't be submitting again until it's all making sense, and I get the feeling that will be quite a while.
" My last batch had images from 1 day to 5 days old.  All were reviewed the same day." WarrenPrice

Today several of my images were finally reviewed, after many days. Images submitted on different days were all reviewed on the same day, just before the weekend. This is happening now every time I submit images to SS. How can SS's claim that they review images in a FIFO order be true? How can it be a coincidence if it happens every time?

How can I help but suspect that SS is unfairly favoring some submitters over others?

I have 4 images waiting at SS which were submitted in February. Apparently they will never be reviewed.

On top of it all, SS changes its policy to require "property releases" for hand-drawn and hand-traced vectors. Whether this policy makes sense or not, it certainly requires from me a PITA procedure which no other agency I submit to requires.
 
I stopped submitting to IS because of things like this. I guess the only course is to stop submitting to SS for the time being, at least. They do not seem to want my images anyway.

I guess I should be flattered but can't believe any agency would favor me.  My numbers are quite insignificant.  As I said, "This is all very weird." 
I did note that you are talking vectors.  Maybe that is the difference?


« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2013, 17:27 »
+2
Mine are still there from the end of last month, and I've stopped checking.  I won't be submitting again until it's all making sense, and I get the feeling that will be quite a while.
" My last batch had images from 1 day to 5 days old.  All were reviewed the same day." WarrenPrice

Today several of my images were finally reviewed, after many days. Images submitted on different days were all reviewed on the same day, just before the weekend. This is happening now every time I submit images to SS. How can SS's claim that they review images in a FIFO order be true? How can it be a coincidence if it happens every time?

How can I help but suspect that SS is unfairly favoring some submitters over others?

I have 4 images waiting at SS which were submitted in February. Apparently they will never be reviewed.

On top of it all, SS changes its policy to require "property releases" for hand-drawn and hand-traced vectors. Whether this policy makes sense or not, it certainly requires from me a PITA procedure which no other agency I submit to requires.
 
I stopped submitting to IS because of things like this. I guess the only course is to stop submitting to SS for the time being, at least. They do not seem to want my images anyway.

I guess I should be flattered but can't believe any agency would favor me.  My numbers are quite insignificant.  As I said, "This is all very weird." 
I did note that you are talking vectors.  Maybe that is the difference?
I didn't mean favoring you because of the 1-5 days (yes, that is probably because JPGs are reviewed differently - but besides vectors I also submit JPGs and they are not being reviewed in a timely way or FIFO either). Like many other long-time SS loyalists, I wonder if the new IS ex-exclusives are getting special treatment at our expense.

Whatever the case, SS is losing a lot of the good will it has built up over the years with contributors. Look at all the many threads on this subject at SS forums, one is 10 pages long. Here at MSG, some photo contributors have a thread collecting evidence of SS cheating on review order. Many people who routinely submitted their images to SS first are forced to submit them elsewhere first, if at all.

Things like that shouldn't be happening, and it isn't our fault that they are happening. IMO SS has to be honest about this mess, and fix it.


CD123

« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2013, 17:36 »
+3
I must have a bottom feeder stamp on my submissions. My oldest batch is now 5 weeks old and I have over 200 images in the queue (and still uploading). Considering I work all hours to get my images as quickly as possible reviewed and online, I am way passed being frustrated by now.  :'(

dbvirago

« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2013, 17:36 »
+1
Wish people would shut . up about slow reviews at SS. Are they in it for a month or two or the long haul. I'd rather have good reviews than fast reviews. As someone who's been there for 7 years, I have seen the same pattern over and over. People piss and moan about slow reviews until they hire a bunch of new reviewers and then reviews go down the crapper until they can fully train the new kids. Been getting slow but good reviews for several months now. Today, I got my worst review in a long time. But hey, it was fast. It's much better to have half my images rejected quickly than wait a little longer and get 80-90% acceptance.

rant over

I think the frustration, dbvirago, is how images placement is tied to submission date, not acceptance date. If this is accurate, all SS contributors should be concerned.  I no longer see any of my new imagery sell and it's decent stuff.  Most contributors work very hard on their submissions and deserve to be treated in a way that maximizes their opportunities to sell their work.  Knowing Scott B participates in these forums I am optimistic that he is looking into changing the ranking logic to be more fair.  In the meantime, serious contributors will continue to be frustrated. And I do think it's frustration more than anger.  And you are making a broad assumption that speed=bad reviewers.  Totally an opinion I suspect unless you have inside info we aren't privy to. ;)

Thanks, Mantis. I didn't get the problem until after my original post. Been a submitter there for 7 years and honestly never paid attention to review times or where I end up in the placement.  Years ago, new images sold like crazy, but now, my new stuff and old stuff sell in equal measure. The only thing that every bothered me at SS is the screwy rejections and Attila, and from my observations, including now, rejects get higher after a reaction to slow reviews. Rather have the images online with poor placement than rejected.

« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2013, 17:40 »
0
I doubt that any contributors are being treated better in a systematic way.  More likely it's just luck of the draw - which reviewing queue or contractor a particular submission gets sent to.  It might be a totally random thing. 

« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2013, 18:20 »
+1
I doubt that any contributors are being treated better in a systematic way.  More likely it's just luck of the draw - which reviewing queue or contractor a particular submission gets sent to.  It might be a totally random thing.
I truly hope you are right.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 19:34 by michaeldb »

« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2013, 21:37 »
0
great policy. This will give a lot of convenience  ;)

OM

« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2013, 09:55 »
0
Warren. Referring to your post about getting reviewed quickly, I see that you are in the US. I get the impression, and this is not based on anything other than reading other posts on the SS forum, that US contributors are not seeing the problems that I see coming from mostly European and Asian contributors. That is just my impression.
I suppose a contractor for reviews from non-US contributors could have suffered a 'disruptive event' and that the whole process is in flux but who knows? Maybe US contributors are also experiencing long delays but not mentioning it and you just got lucky.

lisafx

« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2013, 10:04 »
0
Warren. Referring to your post about getting reviewed quickly, I see that you are in the US. I get the impression, and this is not based on anything other than reading other posts on the SS forum, that US contributors are not seeing the problems that I see coming from mostly European and Asian contributors. That is just my impression.
I suppose a contractor for reviews from non-US contributors could have suffered a 'disruptive event' and that the whole process is in flux but who knows? Maybe US contributors are also experiencing long delays but not mentioning it and you just got lucky.

Interesting theory.  Makes sense.  I am in the US, and have experienced wait times lately of around two weeks, which is about double what I normally see there, but still not excessive IMO. 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2013, 10:18 »
0
I feel it is just luck of the draw, OM.  Certainly not complaining.  My bitch before was the obscene number of rejections.  That seems to have faded a bit.

And, where is the "contractor" theory coming from?  Is it fact or speculation?



« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2013, 10:30 »
0
The "contractor theory" is just my speculation.   If SS does subcontract inspections, they probably wouldn't talk about it. 

I'm in the US and my last submissions have been sitting for about 3 weeks now.

« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2013, 10:39 »
0
All of SS's reviews are done in house.

« Reply #44 on: April 20, 2013, 10:44 »
+1
All companies like to say "in house" but of course that "house" could include a new office opened in Bangalore last month, which is currently in chaos.   And this is just my own wild speculation.  But whatever is going on, it's a mess and they're not talking.

OM

« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2013, 11:55 »
+2
Thanks for the feedback from US contributors. Clearly my impressions of US vs RoW on review times were erroneous. Noticed on SS forum that someone in Canada today also reported a 29-day wait.
Whatever it is, the playing field is no longer as level as it used to be.

Poncke

« Reply #46 on: April 20, 2013, 16:55 »
+3
On SS I have seen several posts about rejections for sideways MRs or upside down MRs when they werent. Same MR used as always, and now it gets rejected for being sideways. Someone reported a rejection for isolated card when it was an image of a girl with an umbrella.

I am seeing more of these weird MR rejections lately when the MR was uploaded correctly. I am more than convinced they are using technology these days to review images. And its not working. Thats why there are so many delays, they need to let technology review the images, and then manually check if its correct. Then they need to fine tune the software and run the process again. That's why we have these long review times, and thats why we have these weird rejections and, not forget 100% rejections. Established contributors with 100% rejections, doesnt add up. Our images are being used as guinea pigs, imo, and thats just unacceptable, imo.

Do testing in a testing environment, or ask volunteer images, dont do testing on live queues. They need to get a Six Sigma black belt  on board to sort this stuff out.

« Reply #47 on: April 20, 2013, 17:22 »
0
Yes, introduction of automated (software) reviewing technology could certainly be the reason for the meltdown, and also the reason for the disinformation.  I'm 100% convinced they're using a software "focus" scan, and that it's the reason for the periods of crazy "focus" rejections that made no sense.  During the runup to the IPO, in documents filed with the SEC, they stated they were already using automation in the reviewing process but gave no details.

« Reply #48 on: April 20, 2013, 17:23 »
0
I doubt that any contributors are being treated better in a systematic way.  More likely it's just luck of the draw - which reviewing queue or contractor a particular submission gets sent to.  It might be a totally random thing.

I have thought that they put us in queue groups for a long time and it would also explain why some people can get large quantities of very poor images through queues while others are scrutinized for every tiny imagined flaw.

For about 6 months I was convinced that the mythical Attila was my personal reviewer.  I went from near 100% acceptance to nearly 100% rejections.  After 6 or so months my reviews suddenly reverted to normal again.

My reviews have been longer but usually under a week. I have noticed that fast reviews have much higher rejections rates lately and wonder if those are not done by a non human.

I also wonder if they are not shifting resources from SS to get Offset kicked off. It is funny how reviews and customer support really started to lag once they shifted into gear to get Offset and BS ramped up for new and expanded business.

« Reply #49 on: April 20, 2013, 17:47 »
0
I also wonder if they are not shifting resources from SS to get Offset kicked off.

That's another possibility which I hadn't considered.  But I though Offset was still vapor - is it already happening?



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
5661 Views
Last post May 16, 2010, 07:14
by jareso
10 Replies
5323 Views
Last post December 10, 2015, 02:42
by BigBubba
12 Replies
3367 Views
Last post July 17, 2014, 04:14
by BoBoBolinski
33 Replies
9859 Views
Last post March 21, 2016, 14:58
by jgolby
0 Replies
1328 Views
Last post June 13, 2016, 16:08
by muro

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle