Author Topic: Most hilarious rejection ever (Read 7856 times)

janniswerner · « **on:** February 15, 2012, 07:10 »

I just received a rejection at SS that still has me chuckling hours later.

Last weekend I happened across the local version of the protests against ACTA that are happening all over Europe. For those of you living in a tree with that SS reviewer, ACTA is basically SOPA through the back door, an internet censorship regulation under the guise of IP protection, in this case via an international treaty. Since this subject has been in the international news for a week now I quickly took some newsworthies.

I had the perfect caption and everything. Rejection reason:

"What is ACTA?"

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1 on:** February 15, 2012, 07:41 »

Well, it is always best to spell out acronyms. Not everyone is familiar with the Association of Canadian Travel Agents and the threat they pose to global freedom

My classic from SS was a photograph of Qatar national day celebrations, which led to the "what is national day?" rejection.

Newsfocus1 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2012, 08:09 »

Well actually it is the Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists that are the real problem

Seriously though I am a total news junkie but had never heard of ACTA until your post. As Baldrick said you do need to spell out what it stands for (granted not always easy with a 200 character limit). Regards, David.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #3 on:** February 15, 2012, 08:15 »

Quote from: Newsfocus1 on February 15, 2012, 08:09

Seriously though I am a total news junkie but had never heard of ACTA until your post.

Contradictio in terminis

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #4 on:** February 15, 2012, 08:32 »

It's not a contradiction, it depends what aspect of news you are interested in. There are some people who haven't even heard of the Urea Scam or the Bofors Scandal.

Perry · « **Reply #5 on:** February 15, 2012, 08:37 »

Quote from: Newsfocus1 on February 15, 2012, 08:09

you do need to spell out what it stands for (granted not always easy with a 200 character limit)

I really hate the 200 character limit. I know they don't long stories, but why not at least 300 characters?

clickinchic · « **Reply #6 on:** February 15, 2012, 08:49 »

That's why there is a comment box to send a note to the reviewer. Use it!

RT · « **Reply #7 on:** February 15, 2012, 12:49 »

Sorry but I live in Europe (the UK) and I generally have Sky news on in the background when I edit, I've never heard of ACTA and it certainly hasn't been all over the news for the last week here.

Maybe the best thing the reviewer should have done is a quick internet check before rejecting it, on the other hand they are paid peanuts and in the time it takes to do an internet check they'd maybe lose 50 cents - I guess your perfect caption wasn't clear enough.

janniswerner · « **Reply #8 on:** February 15, 2012, 17:10 »

Yeah sorry - I had not realized that this wasn't on the news in England. It sure is in Central and Eastern Europe...

I kinda meant though that the rejection itself is hilarious. The question format. I almost fell over laughing and totally wanted to explain it for the poor chap.

The character limit is indeed ridiculous for editorial captions. Their rules for place/time (twice!) alone makes them take up half of it.

heywoody · « **Reply #9 on:** February 15, 2012, 17:37 »

On the + side it's not a "canned" rejection reason - nice to have the personal touch

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** February 15, 2012, 18:13 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 15, 2012, 08:32

It's not a contradiction, it depends what aspect of news you are interested in. There are some people who haven't even heard of the Urea Scam or the Bofors Scandal.

What are those?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #11 on:** February 16, 2012, 07:11 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 15, 2012, 18:13

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 15, 2012, 08:32
It's not a contradiction, it depends what aspect of news you are interested in. There are some people who haven't even heard of the Urea Scam or the Bofors Scandal.

What are those?

gillian vann · « **Reply #12 on:** February 16, 2012, 07:48 »

some of us are heading into State Elections.... there's little room for any other news other than mud slinging and occasion dead celebrity

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #13 on:** February 16, 2012, 08:39 »

Quote from: janniswerner on February 15, 2012, 17:10

Yeah sorry - I had not realized that this wasn't on the news in England. It sure is in Central and Eastern Europe...

I kinda meant though that the rejection itself is hilarious. The question format. I almost fell over laughing and totally wanted to explain it for the poor chap.

The character limit is indeed ridiculous for editorial captions. Their rules for place/time (twice!) alone makes them take up half of it.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I agree. It would be nice, if there was a question about an image, editorial or not, if they could throw it back into pending and send the question to you to answer before making a decision. If the rejection isn't based on a technical issue but a question as to subject matter it seems stupid to simply reject it.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #14 on:** February 16, 2012, 14:49 »

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on February 16, 2012, 08:39

Quote from: janniswerner on February 15, 2012, 17:10
Yeah sorry - I had not realized that this wasn't on the news in England. It sure is in Central and Eastern Europe...

I kinda meant though that the rejection itself is hilarious. The question format. I almost fell over laughing and totally wanted to explain it for the poor chap.

The character limit is indeed ridiculous for editorial captions. Their rules for place/time (twice!) alone makes them take up half of it.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I agree. It would be nice, if there was a question about an image, editorial or not, if they could throw it back into pending and send the question to you to answer before making a decision. If the rejection isn't based on a technical issue but a question as to subject matter it seems stupid to simply reject it.

I've had a few of these personal rejection notes. It basically means the image will be accepted, so long as when you re-upload you add the requested info. in the caption and quote the original rejection reason in the comment to reviewer.

Batman · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2012, 16:19 »

If you use an acronym you need to spell it out the first time simple as intro journalism. Good rejection. Who's ACTA or whats ACTA.

cascoly · « **Reply #16 on:** February 17, 2012, 14:38 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 15, 2012, 08:32

It's not a contradiction, it depends what aspect of news you are interested in. There are some people who haven't even heard of the Urea Scam or the Bofors Scandal.

or what a santorum is - google it if you're not sure

cascoly · « **Reply #17 on:** February 17, 2012, 14:41 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on February 16, 2012, 14:49

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on February 16, 2012, 08:39
Quote from: janniswerner on February 15, 2012, 17:10
Yeah sorry - I had not realized that this wasn't on the news in England. It sure is in Central and Eastern Europe...

I kinda meant though that the rejection itself is hilarious. The question format. I almost fell over laughing and totally wanted to explain it for the poor chap.

The character limit is indeed ridiculous for editorial captions. Their rules for place/time (twice!) alone makes them take up half of it.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I agree. It would be nice, if there was a question about an image, editorial or not, if they could throw it back into pending and send the question to you to answer before making a decision. If the rejection isn't based on a technical issue but a question as to subject matter it seems stupid to simply reject it.

I've had a few of these personal rejection notes. It basically means the image will be accepted, so long as when you re-upload you add the requested info. in the caption and quote the original rejection reason in the comment to reviewer.

in my experience, after i supply the requested info, it's then rejected as 'not editorial', or these days for 'lack of composition'.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #18 on:** February 17, 2012, 14:49 »

Quote from: cascoly on February 17, 2012, 14:41

Quote from: Microstock Posts on February 16, 2012, 14:49
I've had a few of these personal rejection notes. It basically means the image will be accepted, so long as when you re-upload you add the requested info. in the caption and quote the original rejection reason in the comment to reviewer.

in my experience, after i supply the requested info, it's then rejected as 'not editorial', or these days for 'lack of composition'.

After putting the original file number and reason for rejection in the comment box?

cascoly · « **Reply #19 on:** February 17, 2012, 18:00 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on February 17, 2012, 14:49

Quote from: cascoly on February 17, 2012, 14:41
Quote from: Microstock Posts on February 16, 2012, 14:49
I've had a few of these personal rejection notes. It basically means the image will be accepted, so long as when you re-upload you add the requested info. in the caption and quote the original rejection reason in the comment to reviewer.

in my experience, after i supply the requested info, it's then rejected as 'not editorial', or these days for 'lack of composition'.

After putting the original file number and reason for rejection in the comment box?

yes - repeatedly

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #20 on:** February 17, 2012, 20:00 »

Quote from: cascoly on February 17, 2012, 18:00

Quote from: Microstock Posts on February 17, 2012, 14:49
Quote from: cascoly on February 17, 2012, 14:41
Quote from: Microstock Posts on February 16, 2012, 14:49
I've had a few of these personal rejection notes. It basically means the image will be accepted, so long as when you re-upload you add the requested info. in the caption and quote the original rejection reason in the comment to reviewer.

in my experience, after i supply the requested info, it's then rejected as 'not editorial', or these days for 'lack of composition'.

After putting the original file number and reason for rejection in the comment box?

yes - repeatedly

Mmm, did you remember to mention in the comment box that you're struggling to make your mortgage payments?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Most hilarious rejection ever (Read 7856 times)

janniswerner

BaldricksTrousers

Newsfocus1

Noedelhap

BaldricksTrousers

Perry

clickinchic

RT

janniswerner

heywoody

cathyslife

BaldricksTrousers

gillian vann

digitalexpressionimages

Microstock Posts

Batman

cascoly

cascoly

Microstock Posts

cascoly

Microstock Posts

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors