MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: ruxpriencdiam on April 12, 2013, 15:30
-
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129782 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129782)
-
Aha, so it does seem to be a big influx of images from ex-exclusives.
-
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
-
Wait a little longer? Is over 30 days a little long enough for you? By then your image appears on page 8 of the new search when its approved. The pissing and moaning is justified. As if they add new reviewers because everybody is pissing and moaning anyways.
-
Obviously something has gone wrong and it's not just the long wait, it's weird reviews too. It seems like the quality of the operation has deteriorated and that's bad news for us. If they were just trying to reduce reviewing costs, I'd be worried about commission cuts coming down the road too. The statement that the queue is currently 2-8 days is clearly not true (I'm on day 14) and a disinformation campaign isn't encouraging either.
I've quit submitting for now, I'm waiting for some indication that things are making sense again. If they're madly hiring new reviewers to try and catch up, I don't want to be in on that either.
-
(last week) i've noticed it's slightly longer, like a day or two, so maybe pushing out to 10 days? but then, all images get reviewed (I tend to end up with lots of batches due to the "you spelt "colour" wrong" type messages), so some that are only a day old got through too.
-
...the "you spelt "colour" wrong" type messages)
Seriously?
Sh*t. :( >:(
-
...the "you spelt "colour" wrong" type messages)
Seriously?
Sh*t. :( >:(
yep, and I still make a *sigh eye rolling* comment. if you use their KW generator some of those words get flagged too. On the plus side, the number of times they fix a spelling mistake.... it all evens out so can't complain too loudly.
-
...the "you spelt "colour" wrong" type messages)
Seriously?
Sh*t. :( >:(
yep, and I still make a *sigh eye rolling* comment. if you use their KW generator some of those words get flagged too. On the plus side, the number of times they fix a spelling mistake.... it all evens out so can't complain too loudly.
Do you mean you must spell it correctly, 'colour', or the other way?
-
I spell it both ways color and colour and never have a problem except that the SS spellchecker says it is spelled wrong and I just leave it and hit submit once more and it goes right through and have never had any rejection for it.
-
ditto. but you end up with lots of batches of pics, as some go through and others get flagged, then you just resubmit them again. i always try to include both lots of spelling in my KWs.
-
Here is exactly what I get because i just did a submission.
The keyword colour may be misspelled. If the spelling is correct, make no changes and click the Submit button again. Suggested alternate spellings are co lour, co-lour, col our, col-our, colo ur, colo-ur, color, Colo, cooler, coolie
-
Looking at that SS forum thread today, it's clear that some people are getting reviewed in fairly normal times, and others are not, with some claiming a month or more and still waiting.
Either the contributors have been separated into groups, or the submissions are being routed to different review queues, and some of those queues are dead ends. Maybe they lost a reviewing subcontractor that was sitting on a lot of images... just a wild guess.
I've quit checking, or submitting, and moved on to other activities. I have a hunch this will take quite a while to get sorted out.
-
I really don't know what to believe and what to do. People say queues are huge and that new files doesn't sell at all. My files are usually in queue for 1 week and most of the new files sell. All the files that are selling like crazy are files which were accepted in the last 3 weeks! Maybe it's different for me because I'm a new member? ( but why would it be? ) Even so, I panicked and stopped uploading for the moment >< I have a really big batch to upload and if things suddenly become bad I'd curse SS forever.
-
I remember 1 day review times at 100% approvals on SS :D
-
Looking at that SS forum thread today, it's clear that some people are getting reviewed in fairly normal times, and others are not, with some claiming a month or more and still waiting.
I had photos waiting in the queue for 30+ days. All of those were editorial and, as it turned out, they were waiting for me to submit the corresponding credentials. Once I did that, review time was a more "normal" 3 to 4 days.
So if you've been waiting for reviews longer than a week AND the files you submitted are editorials AND you haven't sent them credentials yet, I suggest you do so. They are obviously enforcing this more strictly now. I can't say what the review for commercial photos is now, as I haven't submitted one in ages.
And, yes, I still remember the time when you submitted a bunch of editorials in the evening and they were accepted the next morning... :'(
-
Two weeks and counting for me with only commercial images. After a previous submission, I sent them an email after 3 weeks and they reviewed them the same day. Don't really like sending emails but after 2-3 weeks the waiting gets annoying.
-
Here is exactly what I get because i just did a submission.
The keyword colour may be misspelled. If the spelling is correct, make no changes and click the Submit button again. Suggested alternate spellings are co lour, co-lour, col our, col-our, colo ur, colo-ur, color, Colo, cooler, coolie
snap.
The word flavours in the 'Description' field may be misspelled. Suggested alternate spellings are flavors, favors, flavor, flours, flairs, floors, flyovers. If the spelling is correct, make no changes and click the Submit button again.
seriously, why don't they have a proper dictionary over there at SS?
-
Yes, it's always confused me that perfectly legitimate English spellings throw up errors. An awful lot of people in the world learned to spell in UK-English. Learning American-style English as some sort of default for English is surely a relatively recent phenomenon driven by the Internet and programming languages - and there are still huge influxes of students every year to countries where UK-English is taught.
I imagine that SS account for variations in English spellings in the actual search function (at least I hope so)... but they really can't expect us all to adopt American spellings when we write keywords. None of the other agencies seem to expect this. I'd much prefer it if they expanded their spell-checking dictionary to incorporate UK English spellings too.
I hope they're listening to this <nudge nudge> :)
-
And IS needs to understand American spellings are words too. This door swings both ways.
I get that pop-up and I look, check for errors, correct or ignore. The words go through fine. I've never had a rejection for keywords on SS. I have on IS. Either way the dictionary could be updated to accept either and it would make life easier for all of us.
About reviews. Read the staff message, they claim... FIFO = First in First Out. If that's true, asking for renumbering after the fact (imagine the impossible?) or all the worries about what's newest and what's replacing it, because of numbers, shouldn't matter. That's shouldn't, it doesn't mean it doesn't. FIFO everyone is treated the same.
Of course that's only if the FIFO thing is a fact. My last images took about three weeks. Plain RF, nothing fancy. Editorial or Illustration goes to a different queue? When I see a message about something sitting since March, that could seem like a long time or be two weeks?
Sorry but if faster reviews, mean more rejections and poorer reviews, I'd rather wait and get it right. Many people re-submit, so which is worse? Having to upload twice or waiting and being a little patient?
Lets start tracking. I'll make another thread?
Yes, it's always confused me that perfectly legitimate English spellings throw up errors. An awful lot of people in the world learned to spell in UK-English. Learning American-style English as some sort of default for English is surely a relatively recent phenomenon driven by the Internet and programming languages - and there are still huge influxes of students every year to countries where UK-English is taught.
I imagine that SS account for variations in English spellings in the actual search function (at least I hope so)... but they really can't expect us all to adopt American spellings when we write keywords. None of the other agencies seem to expect this. I'd much prefer it if they expanded their spell-checking dictionary to incorporate UK English spellings too.
I hope they're listening to this <nudge nudge> :)
-
Fifo my hiney. Its not fifo at all, hence the numbering can really f up your image potential. If it was fifo I wouldnt worry
-
Fifo my hiney. Its not fifo at all, hence the numbering can really f up your image potential. If it was fifo I wouldnt worry
See the other thread, we can find out for a fact. I'm being unbiased and would like the real answer, not one side or the other making claims and us guessing.
Check the upload received notification for date and time, then check the review accepted/rejected, date and time. Include the file number.
Lets find out.
-
Review times this long indicate some sort of a breakdown. If they've lost a reviewing subcontractor, and are madly trying to hire new reviewers and get caught up, then the longer this drags on, the less experience and training those new reviewers are likely to have, and the more pressure they'll be under to make snap decisions. So I'd expect the long times to correlate with poorer reviews. But, since they're not telling us what's really going on, it's all just speculation.
-
Single image (photograph) uploaded 4/8, approved today, 4/16.
-
just had all mine go through the process, ouch, worst outcome ever, more rejections than I've ever had. 5/30 got through.
I don't mind, all those "poor lighting" ones now have a new home to go to, where I need to build portfolio :) just trying to see a silver lining. and sure, they weren't top shelf stuff, so I can take the rejection.
but some of them are annoying. when the batches get split (due to spelling "mistakes") to have some rejected and then one - shot under the same lighting conditions etc etc - goes through... well, you have to wonder... this doesn't normally happen at SS. and it annoys me now to split up a set like that (when I could put it exclusively elsewhere).
[rant over]
-
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. ;)
-
+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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. :'(
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
great policy. This will give a lot of convenience ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
All of SS's reviews are done in house.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 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/ (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. It’s 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 it’s within Shutterstock. It’s one of our agile product teams and it’s in the Shutterstock ecosystem. It’s in our office and we refer to it everyday. It’s not something that’s in another office somewhere, separate. It’s 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 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114196)
-
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.
-
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.
-
"girl rejected as trademarked car" ?
Wow that's a new one :)
-
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. (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/review-what-makes-an-illustration-an-illustration)
- Event images lacking credentials (i.e., those taken on private property, etc...). Blog post here (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/credentials).
- Images with problematic model or property releases. Greater release support and numerous languages here (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/acceptable-foreign-language-releases) and refined policies here (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/how-to-submit-vectors-created-using-other-images).
- 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 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt129782-0-asc-0.html), we’re taking a number of steps to bring review times down.
• We’ve 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, we’ve clarified some policies around illustration reviews.
We're also coming out with educational materials such as the Contributor Success Guide (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/contributor-success-guide-available-in-five-languages) (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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129716)
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.
-
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 (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 (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...)
-
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
-
I have an interesting question scott.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
Hey ME,
We cross-posted (I was going to reply to you in a separate post) - to really know with those specific images, I'd have to look into it. Obviously, there was a refinement of the property release policy for illustrations lately, but the vector queue is also running high, as per my prior comments and previous posts on the same topic. Our vector queue is more specialized than the rest. If they're proceeding normally without issue, they should be approved shortly.
These queues will be getting better overall.
Best,
Scott
-
Antagonist; protagonist; tension; the plot thickens; there must be conspiracy; or, is it just paranoia?
??? ::) :P
;D ;D ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
Actions speak much louder than words.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114196 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114196)
-
Hey CD,
Totally understood. To be clear, I'm trying to provide some factual transparency to the status of the queues and the difference between them. In general, there are two paths: the normal individual queues based on content type specialization and then a secondary review. If anyone is experiencing over 7-10 day turnarounds and their images aren't vectors, then they're likely in that secondary process.
Rather than characterizing that queue as just for "problem" submissions, I'd say that the secondary process is generally reserved for images that require a more involved determination to be made, or possibly Support help. There could be a trademark or copyright question, missing credentials, a question for the contributor, etc... What we're trying to do through contributor education and policy improvements is to remove images that shouldn't be impacting those "tier 2" queues in the first place, which also cuts down on support requests, etc... Which ultimately makes things faster for everyone.
Totally agreed regarding "smoke"; as mentioned, we want every review to go through in a fast and efficient manner, with the goal of getting as many images as possible approved.
Best,
Scott
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Man... you just won't let go. Let's assume you are right; ALL images are being reviewed by robots. Now what? Is it fair? We all get the same reviewers.
What should we do?
???
-
Really can not see what automation has to do with this thread. :o
(Edit: Spelling correction)
-
My point is just that we'll never know how reviewing really works, and don't expect them to tell us.
-
My point is just that we'll never know how reviewing really works, and don't expect them to tell us.
That is not the question here. The question is merely that the review time used to be 3 days and in exceptional cases up to 10 days, up to a bit that a month ago . Now there are a large number of contributors having 30 day + reviews. Did not read all the posts, but I doubt if someone asked how they do their reviews.
-
actually, CD, the thread started as an informational post, linking us back to a thread at SS.
Then it went in many different directions with some extreme speculation -- everywhere from automated reviews to covering the SS intentions for concentration on their move to OffSet.
I think SS reps have been more than forthcoming with several long explanations for the long reviews. There seems, however, to be no accepting any explanation -- just wild speculation on what is REALLY going on.
You can't fool all the people. :P
-
Well then this tread, with the title "Answer for long reviews", has been all over the place and I need to apologize to stockastic for singling him out for going off topic.
-
is that what "atomization" means in this context? I was confused by that, I haven't heard it used much. ???
100,000 images per day to review!! wowser. maybe they need to implement a stricter similars policy.
I just did a random search on "coffee with biscuit" (yeah, it's afternoon teatime here, coffee is on my mind). That search yields a lot of similars and sadly, a boatload of keyword spamming.
Maybe a stricter similars policy would tighten up the submissions?
ok, i'm off to make a coffee! :)
-
Just as info, I have now established that if one batch is held up (pushed to "Tier 2"), the rest of your batches will be held up by that 1. So, if you are waiting for weeks, have a look at your eldest batch, the problem will probably be located in that batch. In my case it was my PR which did not contain the original image I worked from. After that was rectified the batch was reviewed and 24 hour later the rest "became unstuck" and reviewed.
Hope this info might perhaps help a few of you in similar dilemmas.
-
Just as info, I have now established that if one batch is held up (pushed to "Tier 2"), the rest of your batches will be held up by that 1. So, if you are waiting for weeks, have a look at your eldest batch, the problem will probably be located in that batch. In my case it was my PR which did not contain the original image I worked from. After that was rectified the batch was reviewed and 24 hour later the rest "became unstuck" and reviewed.
Hope this info might perhaps help a few of you in similar dilemmas.
I did the same thing, added PRs to a couple of my vectors in the queue, and even deleted a vector from the queue, and my submissions are still frozen. It's been over five weeks that I've been unable to add anything to my portfolio, and my downloads are drying up as a result. It's depressing to watch my portfolio slowly die from neglect and not being able to do anything about it. I tried emailing them, politely asking if they've forgotten me, but no response. I'd delete all my vectors in the queue if I thought it would do any good, since most of my illustrations are bitmaps. I picked a bad time to upload vectors.
-
Allsa, I got a reply to my support ticket of 6 days ago today, stating that they looked at my images in review and did not find the backlog (obviously, because the problem was already resolved).
I am afraid that the reviewers might not notice the changes you made by adding the PRs and it will not help drawing their attention to it at this stage with a support ticket, because it seems like the tickets are backed up as well.
Seems like you will just have to wait it out :-\
-
Couple of SS subscribers now reporting really fast reviews (6 days).
-
Got reviewed today (all accepted) after 25 days.
-
Got reviewed today (all accepted) after 25 days.
At least a satisfactory end after your wait! Congratulations!
-
Got reviewed last night after about 6 weeks for many files, longest wait ever for SS, but thankfully about 90 files approved out of 100.
-
I wonder if "focus" rejection is the top of the select list.
-
I just got my last lot through, 7 days, 100% through. let's hope they are on top of it again.
-
16 images pending for 10 days now…
Are they in holiday?
-
I wouldn't really care how long it takes for SS to review my new stuff, as long as they sell my portfolio. And that's what they doing pretty well. And that's what counts at the end of the day (or month).
-
16 images pending for 10 days now…
Are they in holiday?
10 days is nothing unusual. My last review was 8 days. SS advises between 7-10 days
-
I had some reviewed with hours.... rejected . boo. :-[
-
16 images pending for 10 days now…
Are they in holiday?
10 days is nothing unusual. My last review was 8 days. SS advises between 7-10 days
If I remember well it is written something about 72 hours for review time in the site (or maybe it was pond5 or Yay :D :D).
No, I am not hurry at all, just curious to understand if there was some problem, as this last weeks SS had a lot…
-
It all depends it seems. My last review a few days back was 48 hours. Some 23 shots and 22 accepted. Thats quick indeed. :)
-
It all depends it seems. My last review a few days back was 48 hours. Some 23 shots and 22 accepted. Thats quick indeed. :)
48hrs is unusual!
You must be special.
-
7-10 days is what I get for review time...But I think it is getting faster!
-
I had my most recent lot done in 7 days, 22 images came through overnight my time (about 9 hours ago). The times have taken closer to 10 days though in the past.
-
Had some done really quick in last few weeks, but this last few batches is taking some time. Not quite sure, but might be up to nearly 2 weeks wait now.