MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Answer for long reviews  (Read 12648 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Poncke

« Reply #50 on: April 20, 2013, 17:57 »
0
Everything started to happen at the same time.

1. Editorial split between hard and soft editorial
2. Editorial now need credentials before submitting for certain events
3. Shutterbuzz known image restrictions was being updated
4. Vector and illustration artists now need to submit the original sketch
5. Review times started to go over 35 days
6. Weird and false image rejections start to happen
7. Announcement of Offset

Shutterstock is moving, reorganising and adapting. We are feeling the pain of these changes, as well, until it all sorts out and settles down again.



« Reply #51 on: April 20, 2013, 18:59 »
+1
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 thought Offset was still vapor - is it already happening?

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/09/finding-extraordinary-shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-talks-offset/

Snip 'TNW: How far away is a full public launch?

No one has ever done it like this before. This is not typical of how a stock photo agency releases a high-end collection, so we wanted to test the waters. We wanted to see how people would react.

We increased our workload by a lot to make this preview available to everyone. Its going to take a little bit of time.'


Snip 'TNW: How is Offset being treated from inside the company? Does it have its own offices or team?

Offset is its own brand, but its within Shutterstock. Its one of our agile product teams and its in the Shutterstock ecosystem. Its in our office and we refer to it everyday. Its not something thats in another office somewhere, separate. Its a part of Shutterstock.

When we realize something important about the customers that Shutterstock has, we will apply that to Offset too. Anything we learn from the Offset collection, we will also take back to Shutterstock. We will keep them separate, but learn and apply to each.'




Because SS is not upfront with us, we are left to educated guessing. They lost my confidence several years ago when almost every batch I submitted either went missing or did not show up in searches because of keyword bugs.

If you look, the problem is still going on today and they just expect submitters to deal with it.  Years to solve the problem while hard work and resources still go down the drain for some submitters and others have never experienced the problem at all. Again we are left to speculate; is it database scalability problems that SS can't or simply chooses not to address?

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114196
« Last Edit: April 20, 2013, 20:15 by gbalex »

« Reply #52 on: April 20, 2013, 19:05 »
0
Everything started to happen at the same time.

1. Editorial split between hard and soft editorial
2. Editorial now need credentials before submitting for certain events
3. Shutterbuzz known image restrictions was being updated
4. Vector and illustration artists now need to submit the original sketch
5. Review times started to go over 35 days
6. Weird and false image rejections start to happen
7. Announcement of Offset

Shutterstock is moving, reorganising and adapting. We are feeling the pain of these changes, as well, until it all sorts out and settles down again.

I agree that most of the changes are recent. But some of us have been dealing with bizarre and inconsistent rejections and for several years.

Poncke

« Reply #53 on: April 21, 2013, 02:20 »
0
Everything started to happen at the same time.

1. Editorial split between hard and soft editorial
2. Editorial now need credentials before submitting for certain events
3. Shutterbuzz known image restrictions was being updated
4. Vector and illustration artists now need to submit the original sketch
5. Review times started to go over 35 days
6. Weird and false image rejections start to happen
7. Announcement of Offset

Shutterstock is moving, reorganising and adapting. We are feeling the pain of these changes, as well, until it all sorts out and settles down again.

I agree that most of the changes are recent. But some of us have been dealing with bizarre and inconsistent rejections and for several years.

I mean really weird rejections, MRs sideways rejections, girl rejected as trademarked car, etc. Really out of whack.

« Reply #54 on: April 21, 2013, 04:39 »
0
"girl rejected as trademarked car" ?

Wow that's a new one :)

« Reply #55 on: April 21, 2013, 14:46 »
0
Hi All,

To help ensure efficient reviews, I'd respectfully ask that you refrain from speculation, which can misinform people of our processes. On our end, we'll endeavor to be as transparent and informative as possible so you're not trying to fill in the blanks.   

You can think of our review process as a system of train tracks.  There are different tracks for different content types (illustration, vectors, editorial, commercial photos, etc...) that go to different groups of specialists.  Like trains, images don't "jump" over other images within a track - it's a first-in, first-out process. 

If an image or set of images is problematic, it gets pulled onto a different track to a secondary review.  That routes the images to a more experienced reviewer and also keeps "regular" images moving through the system quickly and efficiently.  Some of the most common reasons for those secondary reviews:

  • Incorrectly labeled images.  Blog post here.
  • Event images lacking credentials (i.e., those taken on private property, etc...).  Blog post here.
  • Images with problematic model or property releases. Greater release support and numerous languages here and refined policies here.
  • Images with more complex trademark or copyright determinations
  • "Spam"-type submissions where the commercial value is unclear (large submissions of abstract backgrounds, etc...)

Every image is looked at by a human reviewer and we monitor the performance of reviewers.  These reviewers are highly trained (many have been with us for years) and we're in constant communication with them daily about standards, specific images, and sets of images. That doesn't mean a reviewer will never make a mistake, but we entertain requests for re-evaluations and we respect the time and effort that went into creating content.  Most times, images are pulled into a secondary review with the goal of making sure they get accepted and get the best review possible.

Even though it's a critical forum for feedback, people often post specific anecdotes in the forums.  We have  40k contributors and hundreds of thousands [millions] of images moving through the system; the vast majority of images move through the system smoothly, efficiently and without issue.

As mentioned previously, we've seen increases in submission volume lately.  As a result, we've been refining our educational materials and making improvements.  For example, proactive submission of credentials means that an editorial submission won't get hung up in a time-consuming, back-and-forth support request waiting for credentials. 

As mentioned by Anthony in the SS forums, were taking a number of steps to bring review times down. 

   Weve added additional trained reviewers to each queue.
   We are asking that contributors submit credentials prior to an event for editorial images. 
   We are reminding contributors to accurately differentiate between photos and illustrations.   
   Lastly, weve clarified some policies around illustration reviews.

We're also coming out with educational materials such as the Contributor Success Guide (now in five languages) to better educate contributors on how to get their images accepted.

Ultimately, our goal is to provide the highest-quality review in the shortest time possible and appreciate your patience and understanding. 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 15:04 by scottbraut »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #56 on: April 21, 2013, 14:57 »
0
Thanks, Scott.  Was expecting (hoping) to see that clarification. 
Maybe you will consider posting the same in SS forums.  It may not stop speculation but should at least dilute some doubts.

Poncke

« Reply #57 on: April 21, 2013, 15:03 »
+1
Well, I have been guilty of speculating. I am glad I am wrong, I am glad it triggered a response. Now at least stuff is made clear. Thats what its all about. We need more communication from the agencies. It keeps people happy.

Thanks Scott, I appreciate your explanation.

« Reply #58 on: April 21, 2013, 15:06 »
0
Well, I have been guilty of speculating. I am glad I am wrong, I am glad it triggered a response. Now at least stuff is made clear. Thats what its all about. We need more communication from the agencies. It keeps people happy.

Thanks Scott, I appreciate your explanation.

No worries.  :)  I get it - it's a good reminder to us to communicate as transparently and effectively as possible so you don't have to fill in the blanks.  You should expect continuous improvement on that point (which is why we have so many blog posts and guides coming out now in multiple languages, etc..).  Thanks!

- Scott

CD123

« Reply #59 on: April 21, 2013, 15:12 »
+4
Thank you for your reply Scott. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure the "tracks" principle is not new to SS. It is very rarely coincidental if a large number of contributors to MSG experience a similar problem simultaneously at the same site  (that is the actual reason why many of us contribute to the site, to highlight obvious problem areas to each other and hopefully also the site administrators).

In the light of the above it seems quite evident that there was a major change in review time at SS the past few weeks. From a 3 day review time to 5 weeks+ is an enormous change and is influencing the individual contributor effected by it actually much more than it does your organization. You have to deal with the higher rate of contributions, but that has increased both your output and potential income (obviously and understandably putting your resources under pressure as well).  However, the contributors, whose work is not getting reviewed at present, are taking major stress as they can not re-cooperate their costs or sustain their targeted growth.

I had a response from your support desk that there might be a delay to one of the list of reasons you mentioned with my contributions. in a batch. That might be the case, but I have about 15 batches in the queue? Do they all suddenly have problems as well as all the other contributors complaining here's batches as well? A straight, we are overloaded would have sufficed. Generalizations like that type of reply just add to speculation, so your info here was essential in stopping it.

In essence, we all just hope that you can get the bottle necks sorted out as soon as possible, as many of us are hurting badly due to our best selling site not keeping up with the workload at present.  Best of luck with that!
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 15:20 by CD123 »

Poncke

« Reply #60 on: April 21, 2013, 15:34 »
+2
Well, if the side tracking of batches is causing them to be delayed for 5 weeks, than that is of course still unacceptable. If the queues go down to 7-10 days, I can live with that.

I agree about the canned responses on my emails. I asked them 3 times if my images were subject to a side tracking, but it was never confirmed in so many words. Its still a guessing game. But at least now I know its not technology thats causing it, but its just a bottle neck and side tracked images.

If thats the case anyway then THIS suggestion should be seriously considered by SS:  http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129716

Quote
Since current delays in review times mean not only that images take longer to get accepted, but also that there are huge differences between contributors (or even individual batches within a portfolio), I would propose that Shutterstock change the way the "Newest" order is displayed. Right now it takes into account the image ID and since that number is given at the time of upload it represents the order in which images were uploaded not the time they were approved and available for sale.

I understand this would require adding a new set of data for each image (date of approval, instead of just using the ID number), but I don't see how else can you resolve the situation where images uploaded even two or three weeks later are already available for download when others are still under review. Clearly the order in which images are approved has nothing to do with the order they were uploaded. If the delay is 2-3 weeks (as it is now) there could be even more than 200 thousand images in front of your "fresh" content.

This change would create a more fair competition and would prevent the fresh high quality content getting buried underneath other files.

« Reply #61 on: April 21, 2013, 15:46 »
0
intresting Scott may I ask why this image below with these ref images has taken more then 10 days now?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=470031976398618&set=a.310515332350284.71655.310236269044857&type=1&theater

Or this image with ref?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=470777679657381&set=a.310515332350284.71655.310236269044857&type=1&theater

 These reasons below do not apply in my case....I will not speculate about the problems SS may have .....so I must ask what is really happening at SS?

    Incorrectly labeled images.  Blog post here.
    Event images lacking credentials (i.e., those taken on private property, etc...).  Blog post here.
    Images with problematic model or property releases. Greater release support and numerous languages here and refined policies here.
    Images with more complex trademark or copyright determinations
    "Spam"-type submissions where the commercial value is unclear (large submissions of abstract backgrounds, etc...)
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 15:54 by MisterElements »

« Reply #62 on: April 21, 2013, 16:13 »
0
Hi guys,

When people come to the forums, they're usually commenting about a group of images that took much longer than normal (i.e., people rarely come to the forums to say "my review was fast and efficient").  Therefore, it builds a notion that everyone is experiencing the same thing or that the worst-case-scenario is the mainstream scenario, which isn't the case.  Of course that still matters to us greatly, since everyone should be getting fast and efficient service.

Submission volume has been high across all of our queues. There are two queues that have -- very admittedly -- spiked for us lately: one is our vector queue; the other is our queue of batches of images that have issues (this secondary track).  Hence, we've come out with various policy communications to make sure that the images coming to us meet our standards and are less likely to be problematic.  For example, blog posts on marking illustrations accurately, our editorial credential policy, standardized releases, property releases for illustrations, etc..., all of which are designed to prevent problematic submissions from happening in the first place. 

Its probably obvious, but every contributor has an interest in other contributors providing frictionless submissions, because the most time-intensive submissions slow things down for everyone.   As with the Contributor Success Guide and our numerous blog posts, our goal is to increasingly invest in internationalized educational material, contributor tools and policy simplifications (as well as our internal processes) to reduce turnarounds for everybody. 

Best,

Scott

« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 16:16 by scottbraut »

« Reply #63 on: April 21, 2013, 16:17 »
0
I have an interesting question scott.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 16:22 by MisterElements »

« Reply #64 on: April 21, 2013, 16:21 »
+1
Hi guys,

When people come to the forums, they're usually commenting about a group of images that took much longer than normal (i.e., people rarely come to the forums to say "my review was fast and efficient").  Therefore, it builds a notion that everyone is experiencing the same thing or that the worst-case-scenario is the mainstream scenario, which isn't the case.  Of course that still matters to us greatly, since everyone should be getting fast and efficient service.

Submission volume has been high across all of our queues. There are two queues that have -- very admittedly -- spiked for us lately: one is our vector queue; the other is our queue of batches of images that have issues (this secondary track).  Hence, we've come out with various policy communications to make sure that the images coming to us meet our standards and are less likely to be problematic.  For example, blog posts on marking illustrations accurately, our editorial credential policy, standardized releases, property releases for illustrations, etc..., all of which are designed to prevent problematic submissions from happening in the first place. 

Its probably obvious, but every contributor has an interest in other contributors providing frictionless submissions, because the most time-intensive submissions slow things down for everyone.   As with the Contributor Success Guide and our numerous blog posts, our goal is to increasingly invest in internationalized educational material, contributor tools and policy simplifications (as well as our internal processes) to reduce turnarounds for everybody. 

Best,

Scott

Thanks for the fast response :)

"Therefore, it builds a notion that everyone is experiencing the same thing or that the worst-case-scenario is the mainstream scenario, which isn't the case"

So why does my wife who is a top tier vector artist have the same problems on her account :) Maybe lighting striking in the same house hold ?

« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2013, 16:22 »
+4
I don't see any 'clarification' at all.    Just a blanket statement that if your images have been sitting there for weeks, it's because there's something weird about them;  and a request that we stop speculating.

 My photos have been there 21 days now and don't fall into any of those problematic categories. 

« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 16:24 by stockastic »



WarrenPrice

« Reply #67 on: April 21, 2013, 16:35 »
-3
Antagonist; protagonist; tension; the plot thickens; there must be conspiracy;  or, is it just paranoia?
 ??? ::) :P
 ;D ;D ;D

Poncke

« Reply #68 on: April 21, 2013, 16:37 »
+2
I just noticed there is another freaken bug that now causes images to sit in a processing queue before entering the review queue. People reporting images stuck in processing for a week. My images are now also stuck in processing for 36 hours. If they are still tomorrow I have to delete them from the queue altogether. Cant believe it.

CD123

« Reply #69 on: April 21, 2013, 16:43 »
+2
Scott, no one said it is everybody. Actually a few people have responded with normal period replies. But unfortunately for the rest us you now had to went back one step again and gave your support desk's systemized response to the long wait period issue: "There is probably a problem with your work".

Where there is smoke.......  Even if a number of our contributor's reviews are delayed due to "issues" with their submissions, the "unhappy" responses will unfortunately persist till the smoke is gone. 

« Reply #70 on: April 21, 2013, 17:10 »
0


« Reply #72 on: April 21, 2013, 17:21 »
-1
Hey Scott I think a more believable meaningful response needs to be created. I understand you may not be in the immediate position to create that response today.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 17:39 by MisterElements »

CD123

« Reply #73 on: April 21, 2013, 18:15 »
+3
Hi Scott

I do understand that you are supplying as much info as you can without going into individual cases. My concern is that I have 1 vector batch (5 weeks old) and everything after that is normal JPG images.
1. Can this one batch cause all my batches to be delayed?
2. What can be such a big issue that it can take 5 weeks to get an answer to (everything my own work, minimal MR's or PR's required ).
3. If my work is taking 5 weeks to be reviewed, do I need to start packing my bags, as my submissions should be now round about on Director's level?
 :P
Regards
Charl
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 18:20 by CD123 »

« Reply #74 on: April 21, 2013, 18:21 »
-1
I expect the reviewing process to become even more opaque in the future, not just at SS but everywhere, especially as it becomes more automated.  These companies are simply not going to discuss what they consider to be proprietary technologies or arrangments that give them a competitive advantage and cost money to develop. 

Note that the statement "every image is looked at by a human reviewer" doesn't rule out the use of software screens.  It just says that every image is at least seen by a human at some point in the process.   I think SS is already using software to reject for "focus"  but I don't expect anyone from SS to even comment on that possibility at this stage of the game. 

« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 18:27 by stockastic »


 

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
3366 Views
Last post July 17, 2014, 04:14
by BoBoBolinski
33 Replies
9858 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