Author Topic: Are reviewers for real or bots? (Read 13410 times)

Artist · « **on:** October 04, 2016, 11:01 »

My few vectors were rejected due to reason of
Spelling / Grammar -- Image and/or metadata contains spelling or grammatical errors.

I have double checked the files and spellings are correct. I couldn't find what is the problem. Regarding grammar, I am not any english professor, though I think what I write is good and understandable.
In vectors, we display text as a dummy form, the buyers usually replaces them with their version.

Has anyone faced such issue before? Are the reviewers real or bots?

kuriouskat · « **Reply #1 on:** October 04, 2016, 11:18 »

It would help if you gave an example - maybe you missed something?

Chichikov · « **Reply #2 on:** October 05, 2016, 04:09 »

From yesterday almost all my vectors are reviewed in minutes and rejected with absolutely inconsistent reasons.
I have tried to upload the same file three times and every time it has been rejected with completely different reasons.

At the fourth time all has been accepted……

Is the crazy inspector back again?

alno · « **Reply #3 on:** October 05, 2016, 04:21 »

Right now some smart person at Shutterstock is standing by flipchart and reporting about enormous content review expences economy...

Artist · « **Reply #4 on:** October 05, 2016, 05:27 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 05, 2016, 04:09

From yesterday almost all my vectors are reviewed in minutes and rejected with absolutely inconsistent reasons.
I have tried to upload the same file three times and every time it has been rejected with completely different reasons.

At the fourth time all has been accepted……

Is the crazy inspector back again?

same happened to me, fourth time and accepted all.
but I still worry to re-submit it so many times as at the end of the day they will send of warning for too much re-submission.

skysense · « **Reply #5 on:** October 05, 2016, 05:51 »

I was thinking to start similar topic.

Few days ago i uploaded some Italian vineyard aerial shots, and two sunset shots i was almost sure they will reject (due to noise-grain issue) actually got accepted, but three other during the day got rejected due to "Noise / Artifacts / Pixelation -- Clip contains excessive noise, compression artifacts, pixelation a" reason. I find this very interesting... Ill post here those clips but from Fotolia, they all got accepted on all 6 agencies i upload to.

Accepted shots:
1
2

Rejected ones:
1 - marked this one as editorial
2

Is there a way to resubmit somehow, or i have to upload again on SS?

Lana · « **Reply #6 on:** October 05, 2016, 15:49 »

I'm also wondering if we owe those quick reviews to bots.. But then it's weird that the bot approves the images that were just rejected by the bot the day before

lostintimeline · « **Reply #7 on:** October 05, 2016, 18:32 »

Quote from: Lana on October 05, 2016, 15:49

I'm also wondering if we owe those quick reviews to bots.. But then it's weird that the bot approves the images that were just rejected by the bot the day before

its the battle of the bots

stockastic · « **Reply #8 on:** October 05, 2016, 19:37 »

Quote from: lostintimeline on October 05, 2016, 18:32

Quote from: Lana on October 05, 2016, 15:49
I'm also wondering if we owe those quick reviews to bots.. But then it's weird that the bot approves the images that were just rejected by the bot the day before
its the battle of the bots

Bot versus Anti-Bot!

Chichikov · « **Reply #9 on:** October 06, 2016, 00:56 »

Bot people……

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2018, 16:09 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 06, 2016, 00:56

Bot people……

I want to complain. Are the bots or the AI computers on strike? I think reviews are taking three days. If this was simple bots doing the reviews, and I'm talking about unreleased, commercial, not anything with a release or Editorial, why does the review take three days now!?

Yes I know 2016 thread but these are all the same, it came up first in the search and had a good subject title.

obj owl · « **Reply #11 on:** September 07, 2018, 17:37 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 07, 2018, 16:09

Quote from: Chichikov on October 06, 2016, 00:56
Bot people……

I want to complain. Are the bots or the AI computers on strike? I think reviews are taking three days. If this was simple bots doing the reviews, and I'm talking about unreleased, commercial, not anything with a release or Editorial, why does the review take three days now!?

Yes I know 2016 thread but these are all the same, it came up first in the search and had a good subject title.

You must know by now that this tech company has a very bad tech record and strikes, unintentional or otherwise, are commonplace. Complaint rejected.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #12 on:** September 07, 2018, 17:59 »

Quote from: obj owl on September 07, 2018, 17:37

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 07, 2018, 16:09
Quote from: Chichikov on October 06, 2016, 00:56
Bot people……

I want to complain. Are the bots or the AI computers on strike? I think reviews are taking three days. If this was simple bots doing the reviews, and I'm talking about unreleased, commercial, not anything with a release or Editorial, why does the review take three days now!?

Yes I know 2016 thread but these are all the same, it came up first in the search and had a good subject title.

You must know by now that this tech company has a very bad tech record and strikes, unintentional or otherwise, are commonplace. Complaint rejected.

You got that right. Their bots don't work right along with anything else.

Thomas from France · « **Reply #13 on:** September 08, 2018, 00:53 »

There's no activity on my bank account on sunday. Even bots needs to rest.

dpimborough · « **Reply #14 on:** September 08, 2018, 02:18 »

The reviews are up to 3 days or more which is now the complete reverse of recent instant or an hour or two reviews.

Its obvious they haven't got a handle on this.

What is infuriating is the amount of crap they let through still

Pauws99 · « **Reply #15 on:** September 08, 2018, 02:23 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on September 08, 2018, 02:18

The reviews are up to 3 days or more which is now the complete reverse of recent instant or an hour or two reviews.

Its obvious they haven't got a handle on this.

What is infuriating is the amount of crap they let through still

The review process in my opinion is the weakest aspect of Shutterstock.....and they have a lot of weaknesses ;-). But their biggest strength happens to be the most important one....they make the most money for most contributors

dpimborough · « **Reply #16 on:** September 08, 2018, 04:31 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on September 08, 2018, 02:23

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on September 08, 2018, 02:18
The reviews are up to 3 days or more which is now the complete reverse of recent instant or an hour or two reviews.

Its obvious they haven't got a handle on this.

What is infuriating is the amount of crap they let through still
The review process in my opinion is the weakest aspect of Shutterstock.....and they have a lot of weaknesses ;-). But their biggest strength happens to be the most important one....they make the most money for most contributors

Not any more they don't after hitting a peak in early 2016 the revenue I get basically flat lined and hasn't grown at all

I get more money from other sources

As to reviews being their biggest weakness well they have plenty more fighting for that honor.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 08, 2018, 05:02 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on September 08, 2018, 04:31

Quote from: Pauws99 on September 08, 2018, 02:23
Quote from: Sammy the Cat on September 08, 2018, 02:18
The reviews are up to 3 days or more which is now the complete reverse of recent instant or an hour or two reviews.

Its obvious they haven't got a handle on this.

What is infuriating is the amount of crap they let through still
The review process in my opinion is the weakest aspect of Shutterstock.....and they have a lot of weaknesses ;-). But their biggest strength happens to be the most important one....they make the most money for most contributors

Not any more they don't after hitting a peak in early 2016 the revenue I get basically flat lined and hasn't grown at all

I get more money from other sources

As to reviews being their biggest weakness well they have plenty more fighting for that honor.

For you maybe but never the less what little evidence there is is that for most people they still generate the most income. They do for me but it looks like adobe are on a gradual upward path. I don't dislike SS but a bit more healthy competition for them would be no bad thing.

DallasP · « **Reply #18 on:** September 08, 2018, 17:20 »

Quote from: Artist on October 04, 2016, 11:01

My few vectors were rejected due to reason of
Spelling / Grammar -- Image and/or metadata contains spelling or grammatical errors.

I have double checked the files and spellings are correct. I couldn't find what is the problem. Regarding grammar, I am not any english professor, though I think what I write is good and understandable.
In vectors, we display text as a dummy form, the buyers usually replaces them with their version.

Has anyone faced such issue before? Are the reviewers real or bots?

Shoot, I uploaded a few photos over the weekend and half were rejected. I just figured that they were bad and I'd move on but, maybe something's up over there.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #19 on:** September 09, 2018, 11:57 »

Quote from: DallasP on September 08, 2018, 17:20

Quote from: Artist on October 04, 2016, 11:01
My few vectors were rejected due to reason of
Spelling / Grammar -- Image and/or metadata contains spelling or grammatical errors.

I have double checked the files and spellings are correct. I couldn't find what is the problem. Regarding grammar, I am not any english professor, though I think what I write is good and understandable.
In vectors, we display text as a dummy form, the buyers usually replaces them with their version.

Has anyone faced such issue before? Are the reviewers real or bots?

Shoot, I uploaded a few photos over the weekend and half were rejected. I just figured that they were bad and I'd move on but, maybe something's up over there.

Was that last weekend? Mine are still sitting from days ago.

DallasP · « **Reply #20 on:** September 09, 2018, 17:36 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 09, 2018, 11:57

Quote from: DallasP on September 08, 2018, 17:20
Quote from: Artist on October 04, 2016, 11:01
My few vectors were rejected due to reason of
Spelling / Grammar -- Image and/or metadata contains spelling or grammatical errors.

I have double checked the files and spellings are correct. I couldn't find what is the problem. Regarding grammar, I am not any english professor, though I think what I write is good and understandable.
In vectors, we display text as a dummy form, the buyers usually replaces them with their version.

Has anyone faced such issue before? Are the reviewers real or bots?

Shoot, I uploaded a few photos over the weekend and half were rejected. I just figured that they were bad and I'd move on but, maybe something's up over there.

Was that last weekend? Mine are still sitting from days ago.

I believe on the first ... either first or second. They moved fast, by like next day ... The rejects usually are accepted other places so I just move on with life. lol

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #21 on:** September 10, 2018, 11:17 »

I had a review experience a couple of days ago that was pleasantly human-like. A very smart and well engineered bot could have done this, but I'm guessing that's not what happened.

Last week I had one of my images rejected for having visible brand names or logos - it didn't, but it was of a ferry terminal in the San Juan Islands that had the name of the island in a few places. The keywords and description made the setting clear, but if you were in a hurry, you see a word on a building and click the reject button.

I had some other files to upload, so decided to include the reject (plus one other that had the place name clearly visible) along with an all caps explanation in the description field that ORCAS ISLAND IS A PLACE NAME NOT A BUSINESS OR BRAND NAME

I had expected to have to edit my shouted communication with the reviewer out once the images were approved, but the reviewer removed the note from both for me.

I wish they had a place where you could leave a note for the reviewer, but I was pleasantly surprised that someone took care of editing the note out when approving the files.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #22 on:** September 10, 2018, 12:14 »

I didn't have quite the same experience, but did re-submit a rejected for protected content image and included in all caps, "fake generic..." just passed.

Maybe there is something to adding a note in all caps, where there's a possible need for a note to the reviewer.

I just went and removed the all caps part.

f9photos · « **Reply #23 on:** September 13, 2018, 11:22 »

If I am not mistaken I have read something like the following (the name of the stock agency was not mentioned but I assume it was Shutterstock) by anonymous microstock reviewer:
before an image comes to a human reviewer (and what is interesting, reviewers work in pairs), it is assessed by some kind of AI that gives it one of the statuses: Rejected, Likely to be rejected, Likely to be accepted (I am not sure about the first one, but quite sure about the 2nd and 3rd). So it is possible that the reviwer doesn't even check the image if it has "Rejected" or "Likely to be rejected" status.

Sounds realistic, IMHO

Quote from: skysense on October 05, 2016, 05:51

I was thinking to start similar topic.

Few days ago i uploaded some Italian vineyard aerial shots, and two sunset shots i was almost sure they will reject (due to noise-grain issue) actually got accepted, but three other during the day got rejected due to "Noise / Artifacts / Pixelation -- Clip contains excessive noise, compression artifacts, pixelation a" reason. I find this very interesting... Ill post here those clips but from Fotolia, they all got accepted on all 6 agencies i upload to.

Accepted shots:
1
2

Rejected ones:
1 - marked this one as editorial
2

Is there a way to resubmit somehow, or i have to upload again on SS?

as far as I know, Tuscany shots from Val d'Orcia are not accepted as commercial RF on Shutterstock. Though not all intectors might be aware of it.

derek · « **Reply #24 on:** September 13, 2018, 13:16 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on September 08, 2018, 05:02

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on September 08, 2018, 04:31
Quote from: Pauws99 on September 08, 2018, 02:23
Quote from: Sammy the Cat on September 08, 2018, 02:18
The reviews are up to 3 days or more which is now the complete reverse of recent instant or an hour or two reviews.

Its obvious they haven't got a handle on this.

What is infuriating is the amount of crap they let through still
The review process in my opinion is the weakest aspect of Shutterstock.....and they have a lot of weaknesses ;-). But their biggest strength happens to be the most important one....they make the most money for most contributors

Not any more they don't after hitting a peak in early 2016 the revenue I get basically flat lined and hasn't grown at all

I get more money from other sources

As to reviews being their biggest weakness well they have plenty more fighting for that honor.
For you maybe but never the less what little evidence there is is that for most people they still generate the most income. They do for me but it looks like adobe are on a gradual upward path. I don't dislike SS but a bit more healthy competition for them would be no bad thing.

Dont be so modest! youre too kind, too affable!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are reviewers for real or bots? (Read 13410 times)

Artist

kuriouskat

Chichikov

alno

Artist

skysense

Lana

lostintimeline

stockastic

Chichikov

Uncle Pete

obj owl

YadaYadaYada

Thomas from France

dpimborough

Pauws99

dpimborough

Pauws99

DallasP

Uncle Pete

DallasP

Jo Ann Snover

Uncle Pete

f9photos

derek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors