MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Are you experiencing MASS REJECTIONS?  (Read 43994 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Slovenian

« Reply #125 on: July 11, 2011, 17:56 »
0
Guys, guys, guys, Baldrick is right.  SS dont want BETTER stuff they want DIFFERENT stuff and they dont give a crap whether you are top echelon or not.   They are not anything like IS who dont care what kind of boring crap is submitted as long as its TECHNICALLY good.  Different wont sell as well as mainstream for the contributor but its additional sales from the point of view of the business.

Them not caring about top echelon is great. I mean who-T-F are they? They just sold more than the others. So what? So  what? Some of them have done it just because they started among the first, but their photos are still varying from cr@p to average.

I don't completely agree on IS accepting all the cr@p as long it's technically perfect. IMO SS doesn't get DIFFERENT stuff, really conceptual or just not acceptable by some puritan code, e.g too violent, or just too tightly cropped (no copyspace). But some buyers need just that, for book covers etc. And that usually means ELs Wink. In this case I like IS better although I hate them ;)


« Reply #126 on: July 11, 2011, 18:10 »
0
Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.

Good luck in that.  We don't know what the standard is and seeing some of the rejects the top echelon gets smells of SS incompetence.  There is no pattern other than random.  We've asked over and over again for Anthony to define some kind of standard so we can comply and upload to those standards.  They come out and say to "just shoot better stuff".  What the Fk is up with that? They must be taking lessons from Istock.
Who is Anthony?
Please dont bring another agent into the debate.Thanks

Honestly, don't tell me what to do. I don't march to the beat of your drum.  And to educate you, Anthony is one of the head guys at SS and he manages the inspectors, so he is a viable name to mention here.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 18:12 by Mantis »

« Reply #127 on: July 11, 2011, 18:21 »
0
 ;D ;D ;D ;D

shank puts his fingers on every matter, there is no PP there my friend, you are the Yuri of the PP not the SS one! :)

« Reply #128 on: July 11, 2011, 18:39 »
0
how many images are too many images? i think SS went past it 2 years ago

« Reply #129 on: July 12, 2011, 00:40 »
0
Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.

There in lies the rub... 

The common theme of this whole thread is a lack of consistancy and not understanding what Shutterstock now want, I have no problem with the bar being raised, I'm relatively new to all this so it can only improve my peformance...  If it was a logical rejection pattern, if there is one I cannot see it and that also seems to be the case for many experienced and succesful submitters too.

« Reply #130 on: July 12, 2011, 01:35 »
0
how many images are too many images? i think SS went past it 2 years ago
They can never have too many images.  I often can't find anything like the photos I'm uploading and they still get rejected.  It's a big world and they would need billions of images to cover everything.  And fashion changes, people change, places change and the cameras we use improve each year.  They really should be encouraging us to keep producing new content.

Looks like I'm going to have to get my own site and sell direct.  I know people would buy some of the stuff that most of the big sites are now rejecting.  I think it's a crazy policy for the sites because lots of us will be looking at other ways to sell our new images now.

« Reply #131 on: July 12, 2011, 12:35 »
0
They can never have too many images.  I often can't find anything like the photos I'm uploading and they still get rejected.  It's a big world and they would need billions of images to cover everything.  And fashion changes, people change, places change and the cameras we use improve each year.  They really should be encouraging us to keep producing new content.

Looks like I'm going to have to get my own site and sell direct.  I know people would buy some of the stuff that most of the big sites are now rejecting.  I think it's a crazy policy for the sites because lots of us will be looking at other ways to sell our new images now.
My thoughts exactly. The buyers know what they want much better than the reviewers do. Let the buyers decide.

I too have begun to think lately about different ways to sell my images, and as a result I have been doing more searches on the stock sites. I have been shocked at how many gaps there are in the microstock inventories, how many subjects are not covered or covered very thinly. The total current microstrostock inventory could be several times larger than it is and still have room for many, many more images.

lisafx

« Reply #132 on: July 12, 2011, 12:49 »
0

Looks like I'm going to have to get my own site and sell direct.  I know people would buy some of the stuff that most of the big sites are now rejecting.  I think it's a crazy policy for the sites because lots of us will be looking at other ways to sell our new images now.

FWIW, I wouldn't regard your own site as the solution, in the short term.  Not unless you are prepared to invest a lot of time and money promoting it. 

My site has been up several months now.  After over $1k in investment, I've only had a couple of sales.  Lots of views, so people are definitely finding it, but nobody buying. 

Not that I am sorry I started it.  I feel like I have a lot more options now, but as far as monetary return - nada. 

« Reply #133 on: July 12, 2011, 12:56 »
0
how many images are too many images? i think SS went past it 2 years ago
They can never have too many images.  I often can't find anything like the photos I'm uploading and they still get rejected.  It's a big world and they would need billions of images to cover everything.  And fashion changes, people change, places change and the cameras we use improve each year.  They really should be encouraging us to keep producing new content.

Look at it from the agency's perspective. Its mainly a subscription based model where there really is no benefit to the agency to have 30 million images. For the buyer there can never be too much images to choose from. I would understand if its more of a pay per download model where each image is unique and has an actual download cost tied to it.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 12:59 by VB inc »

« Reply #134 on: July 12, 2011, 13:03 »
0
Getting off topic here:
Probably the agencies will have to extend their search functions where buyers can choose from a time period when the images were uploaded.
Fashion, maekeup and other factors are changing constantly so it would be useful for the buyers to filter that out instead of deleting "unwanted or outdated" content.

But I guess the agencies will wait until enough buyers complain about that before taking any action  ::)

« Reply #135 on: July 12, 2011, 13:20 »
0
I dont believe buyers will complain about the amount of results for their search, if I was a buyer I would look at most popular or newest to get fresh content, if there are hundreds and hundreds better.. SS is a subscription agency where a buyer can get 25 pics per day, if they miss a few no problem they have plenty more slots to download.. I really think they should clean their collection instead of these weirds rejections for pictures well produced..

and the true is that there are two types of reviewers, the ones that approved all pictures done in perfection.. and other that go to low commercial value or other reason when they feel they arent worth to SS which aint wrong, the only problem is the favoritism of some that I guess have "quick" reviews (not talking about top contributos but some that I keep track) and some of that were just as good as a "lower" contributor that might have less files online or sales.. but I dont believe they have a perfomance feature next to contributor during the reviewing... but who knows..

Shank_ali

    This user is banned.
« Reply #136 on: July 12, 2011, 13:36 »
0
Contributors  are obsessive by nature in microstock.They are often under the impression there next piece of work is going to make them $1000's.
If a company rejects a few a contributor might venture into a forum and let rip......
Just chill and go with the flow.....

« Reply #137 on: July 12, 2011, 13:41 »
0
Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.

that's precisely the problem - there IS no standard - rather it's random selection of reviewers ,many of whom do NOT follow the existing standards

one solution is a better search algorithm, rather than limiting the collection - netflix PAID for a contest to improve their recommendations algorothm.  no ms agency seems to be investing much effort in fine tuning the search based on buyer's needs.

for example, in the initial search limit the # of similars shown, BUT indicate there are similars so the buyer can choose how to continue
s
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 13:49 by cascoly »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #138 on: July 12, 2011, 13:46 »
0
Contributors  are obsessive by nature in microstock.They are often under the impression there next piece of work is going to make them $1000's.
If a company rejects a few a contributor might venture into a forum and let rip......
Just chill and go with the flow.....

I have no idea of your credentials.  You certainly have little knowledge of what I think.  Maybe it is time for you  to chill.   :P

« Reply #139 on: July 14, 2011, 15:55 »
0
I just submitted 2 - exactly 2 images to SS.  Identical shots, identical subject (a closeup of an industrial object), identical exposures.  The only difference is that one is on a black background, the other is on white.  Like I said - same camera settings, all I did in postprocessing was tweak the white/black points bit to get pure backgrounds.

Within an hour they'd been reviewed.  Yup, you guessed it. One was accepted, the other rejected for "noise".  


[sigh]
« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 16:14 by stockastic »

« Reply #140 on: July 17, 2011, 23:38 »
0
it's getting really difficult now  :-[

only the picture on the left got accepted. all the others rejected coz of similarity.... hmmmm.... for me every shot is quite different, isn't it. and also - if somebody is looking for an asian woman standing/walking with luggage on white background he/she won't find too many results....  ::)


Slovenian

« Reply #141 on: July 18, 2011, 03:26 »
0
it's getting really difficult now  :-[

only the picture on the left got accepted. all the others rejected coz of similarity.... hmmmm.... for me every shot is quite different, isn't it. and also - if somebody is looking for an asian woman standing/walking with luggage on white background he/she won't find too many results....  ::)




Not quite different, but who's buying shots isolated on white anyway? It's a loss of time, unless you're satisfied with a couple of DL/image per year (unless they're unique, which these aren't).


« Reply #142 on: July 18, 2011, 07:39 »
0
Slovenian what the heck are you shooting? I really think that you talk too much and dont do anything :P

it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wont have pictures online..

« Reply #143 on: July 19, 2011, 11:29 »
0
This is a double profession: photographer and soothsayer ...

« Reply #144 on: July 19, 2011, 12:14 »
0
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wont have pictures online..
I agree. If those pictures aren't good stock images then 90+% of what's on the microstock agencies isn't either. Good images IMO.

Slovenian

« Reply #145 on: July 19, 2011, 18:37 »
0
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wont have pictures online..
I agree. If those pictures aren't good stock images then 90+% of what's on the microstock agencies isn't either. Good images IMO.

Exactly, 90% is rubbish. Mostly total rubbish.

« Reply #146 on: July 19, 2011, 18:42 »
0
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wont have pictures online..
I agree. If those pictures aren't good stock images then 90+% of what's on the microstock agencies isn't either. Good images IMO.

Exactly, 90% is rubbish. Mostly total rubbish.

mate I would love to see your NON stocky stuff that sell like hot bread :P

Slovenian

« Reply #147 on: July 19, 2011, 18:46 »
0
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wont have pictures online..
I agree. If those pictures aren't good stock images then 90+% of what's on the microstock agencies isn't either. Good images IMO.

Exactly, 90% is rubbish. Mostly total rubbish.

mate I would love to see your NON stocky stuff that sell like hot bread :P

I won't bother posting it for you, you wouldn't understand it anyway ;) . Ignore back on, so pls just stop quoting me and save the time to come out with all that nonsense you always do by replying to people who didn't put you on ignore. Yet.

« Reply #148 on: July 19, 2011, 18:54 »
0
it is a nice picture, the true is that DT is almost demaning this or we wont have pictures online..
I agree. If those pictures aren't good stock images then 90+% of what's on the microstock agencies isn't either. Good images IMO.

Exactly, 90% is rubbish. Mostly total rubbish.

mate I would love to see your NON stocky stuff that sell like hot bread :P

I won't bother posting it for you, you wouldn't understand it anyway ;) . Ignore back on, so pls just stop quoting me and save the time to come out with all that nonsense you always do by replying to people who didn't put you on ignore. Yet.

there are really too much people like you here (like I am the king of the world and other sucks, I love that stuff) but I wont ignore you or other

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #149 on: August 02, 2011, 06:34 »
0
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
6352 Views
Last post August 14, 2008, 11:46
by dnavarrojr
1 Replies
3972 Views
Last post July 10, 2008, 15:38
by CofkoCof
29 Replies
11055 Views
Last post February 12, 2012, 11:32
by Artemis
9 Replies
5395 Views
Last post March 16, 2012, 04:22
by Druid
81 Replies
29787 Views
Last post November 09, 2018, 19:42
by thor_odt

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors