MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: From 100% approval to rejection over night  (Read 11703 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 24, 2010, 01:57 »
0
I am not normally one to moan  ::) and I tend to keep my head down but recently I have noticed that my approval rating for my illustrations on shutterstock has flipped from pretty much 100% to 100% rejection. I understand that rejection is all part of the game and its just something that you have to take but the thing that worries me is the swing.

The main reasons have been either "Too Simple--Overly simple vector" or "Too many on site--We do not need this image at this time". If my images were not selling or just one type of (category) image I would understand but I have they are not. Has anyone else had the same issues?


« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2010, 03:12 »
0
I'd take their responses at face value. Sounds to me that they want some originality not just endless cookie-cutter variations of well-worn themes. Maybe it is what the subscribers are telling SS.

« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2010, 03:22 »
0
The first reason looks more like an IS rejection...strange

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2010, 06:05 »
0
I'd take their responses at face value. Sounds to me that they want some originality not just endless cookie-cutter variations of well-worn themes. Maybe it is what the subscribers are telling SS.

If that is the case, why not telling us in an official post about the change of policy? It would stop endless summer conspiration theories. Communication, please.

« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2010, 06:21 »
0

« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2010, 06:47 »
0
It's a new reviewer. I guess it's nothing else.

« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2010, 06:58 »
0
"i took shots of sunflowers,horses,boats,fruit...loads of stuff and it is all "limited commercial value" or " we don't need this image at this time". "

Sounds like SS is tired of getting the same old walk around weekend stuff from people who just shoot for fun.  "loads of stuff" .  Probably same applies to vectors.

OMG, I agree with rinder!

« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2010, 15:53 »
0
I only just started uploading again a few days ago - and yes, it's the same for me.
100% rejected!

« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2010, 21:58 »
0
yes more and more rejection coming up at this summer...............................

ragsac

  • I radiate Love and Happiness!
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2010, 03:34 »
0
Me too 22 out of 22 rejected.

« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2010, 04:52 »
0
me too! all abstract background and seamless vector also rejected.

« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2010, 06:03 »
0
me too! all abstract background and seamless vector also rejected.
so what kind of vector they want??SS please tells us...............

« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2010, 06:08 »
0
me too! all abstract background and seamless vector also rejected.
so what kind of vector they want??SS please tells us...............
I guess the type that is more detailed and are one offs...the kind that you do not want to give away for a few cents!

« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2010, 10:07 »
0
Interesting change for Shutterstock. I assumed they'd have to fix their vector collection eventually, but I thought they would start by removing files. I guess they decided to put a bouncer at the door first. I rarely look through the collection. Are there really that many abstract backgrounds?

« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2010, 13:12 »
0
Summer holidays. August. Everybody go away with family . 100% face change too incredible turn face for even Shutterstock. The rejection must be due to substitute reviewers . Thank you for warning. I will withdraw my submission until I see indication  regular reviewers back from vacation.

« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2010, 13:37 »
0
Summer holidays. August. Everybody go away with family . 100% face change too incredible turn face for even Shutterstock. The rejection must be due to substitute reviewers . Thank you for warning. I will withdraw my submission until I see indication  regular reviewers back from vacation.
Sadly not the case it seems like they have made a policy change, I have just got a reply from shutterstock

"As Shutterstock's collection continues to grow, the need for certain types of common images decreases. Your recently rejected images fall into this category.  This is not to say we have quit approving these types of image completely, only that we have become more selective with them. If a flag or abstract image is particularly dynamic, we will certainly accept it. "

« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2010, 13:48 »
0
I don't think shutterstock should do this.  New images sell well because they get a good placement in the search.  Why don't they tackle the old files that are very hard to find, were accepted when standards were much lower and never sell?

It might make more sense for some of the other sites without the new images bias to tighten up their standards but crestock proved that doesn't work and I think it has been a failure for DT too.


« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2010, 14:06 »
0
It's like the other thread.

"Cut all out the crap out of the sites to make it easier for buyers!  Except for mine."

« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2010, 14:17 »
0
It's like the other thread.

"Cut all out the crap out of the sites to make it easier for buyers!  Except for mine."

That's what I was thinking. Or maybe the agencies should implement a buy one of my files and get somebody else's crap for free.  ;D

« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2010, 13:33 »
0
By certain chance, do anyone with big reversal question rejection? Maybe it is reviewers revenge for question objection. Many week back I do same because 100% approval reversal and after that more 100% rejection with all composition poor.
Suspicion because set of photos all from 5 previous batch of 100% approval done in 12 hours. Then rejection with turnaround review of 3-4 days delay.

I am convince still not is Shutterstock new policy. But is lazy reveiwer same usage of "poor lighting, composition , trademark problem possibility,etc"  .
Best to sit on behind until regular reviewers with brains in head return from vacation.

« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2010, 17:14 »
0
Best to sit on behind until regular reviewers with brains in head return from vacation.
With just 1/3 of your pictures from DT on SS (116), Joseph, maybe the problem is with you and not with SS.

« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2010, 17:34 »
0
Sorry FD regular, pls explain.

I happen to like Shutterstock very very much.  Each month since I started with Shutterstock, very very recently, each month was my BME.
And this month is even more, and still not the end of month yet.
I make more just in this short time with Shutterstock than I have with any other sites in many many many more months, .

I do not give many of my stuff to other sites because I do not have the time to upload there.  So all I have mostly is with Shutterstock.

I don't know what you are implying . So please again explain yourself.

P.S.
the only time I had 100% rejection. Every photo was from the same shoot of the images that have been selling well on Shutterstock. And also, the images were approved by Istock.  So unless you know something I don't. Please enlighten me
with your intelligence.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2010, 21:09 by lefty »

« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2010, 02:06 »
0
It's like the other thread.

"Cut all out the crap out of the sites to make it easier for buyers!  Except for mine."
It would be interesting to see how many of your best selling images would be rejected for LCV, if you dropped the crown and uploaded there.

Reviewing is subjective and it is hard for experienced microstockers to know what will sell, what chance does an inexperienced reviewer have?  I just had one rejected for LCV that should sell well, they accepted 2 landscapes that probably wont.  I just don't see the logic in accepting images that don't sell much and rejecting ones that would make them and us money.  It happened to me a lot with DT and I have stopped uploading, my sales there have tanked and they are making less money from me.  The buyers will just go to other sites, if they can't find what they want.

I am all for deleting files that are 2 or 3 years old that haven't sold.  The sites have millions of those and should remove them automatically.

« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2010, 07:02 »
0
I am all for deleting files that are 2 or 3 years old that haven't sold.  The sites have millions of those and should remove them automatically.
DT does it. On IS, they end up in the $ bin. That doesn't mean an image has LCV. It can sell OK on other sites.

« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2010, 09:28 »
0
It's like the other thread.

"Cut all out the crap out of the sites to make it easier for buyers!  Except for mine."
It would be interesting to see how many of your best selling images would be rejected for LCV, if you dropped the crown and uploaded there.

Reviewing is subjective and it is hard for experienced microstockers to know what will sell, what chance does an inexperienced reviewer have?  I just had one rejected for LCV that should sell well, they accepted 2 landscapes that probably wont.  I just don't see the logic in accepting images that don't sell much and rejecting ones that would make them and us money.  It happened to me a lot with DT and I have stopped uploading, my sales there have tanked and they are making less money from me.  The buyers will just go to other sites, if they can't find what they want.

I am all for deleting files that are 2 or 3 years old that haven't sold.  The sites have millions of those and should remove them automatically.

In spite of appearance , I am not objecting to rejection. IStock for 90% of the time, I agree with rejection
because the astute reviewer(s) show me the problem. ie. specific.  Some special ones even explain the cause and how I can correct that. So I resubmit and got approval.
Only cannot understand the non objective rejection.
As sharpshot point out, it is highly subjective.
Scout can overturn many time the subjective rejection. But Shutterstock do not have Scout.

I mean that objective rejection , 10 different reviewer can agree. It is identifiable and cannot be overturn.
But LCV, poor composition, and other subjective rejection do not always point to objective review and can be abuse.

Like Sharpshot say, I just don't see the logic in accepting images that don't sell much and rejecting ones that would make them and us money. 
Point only to self interest of reviewer. I am confident Shutterstock most reviewers do not wish ill on contributor
but post here and in Shutterstock forum say there is indication of one rogue reviewer.

« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2010, 09:54 »
0
I am confident Shutterstock most reviewers do not wish ill on contributor
but post here and in Shutterstock forum say there is indication of one rogue reviewer.

This is more of a policy change than one grumpy reviewer. SS appears to have clamped down on abstract backgrounds and other things on the illustration side that they have too many of. There are several threads and many illustrator contributors complaining about it on SS. gubh83 has links to those threads above if you want to read more about it. From a general standpoint, this doesn't seem like anything new. Agencies get more picky and standards for acceptance go up. The agencies usually don't release a statement saying they've made a policy change, so most of us find out the hard way, rejections.

« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2010, 10:10 »
0
It's like the other thread.

"Cut all out the crap out of the sites to make it easier for buyers!  Except for mine."
It would be interesting to see how many of your best selling images would be rejected for LCV, if you dropped the crown and uploaded there.

Well, I wasn't specifically talking about me.  I was trying to put into words what I think everyone feels.


« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2010, 10:12 »
0
I am confident Shutterstock most reviewers do not wish ill on contributor
but post here and in Shutterstock forum say there is indication of one rogue reviewer.

This is more of a policy change than one grumpy reviewer. SS appears to have clamped down on abstract backgrounds and other things on the illustration side that they have too many of. There are several threads and many illustrator contributors complaining about it on SS. gubh83 has links to those threads above if you want to read more about it. From a general standpoint, this doesn't seem like anything new. Agencies get more picky and standards for acceptance go up. The agencies usually don't release a statement saying they've made a policy change, so most of us find out the hard way, rejections.

Wow, that is bad news . I just joined Shutterstock and they sell well for me. Does it indicate I will have to be seeing more rejections even if I submit future work that compliment my best sellers?
Any experienced Shutterstock contributorship insight will be much appreciated.
So sorry I am a late comer for Shutterstock. Because each month I get BME from them. Is this sustainable?
Cthoman?

« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2010, 10:17 »
0
It's like the other thread.

"Cut all out the crap out of the sites to make it easier for buyers!  Except for mine."
It would be interesting to see how many of your best selling images would be rejected for LCV, if you dropped the crown and uploaded there.

Well, I wasn't specifically talking about me.  I was trying to put into words what I think everyone feels.

Yes, that was the impression I get from sjlocke comment. The me implicate you me everyone incl sjlocke.
Simply put how he think everyone feels. Agree.

« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2010, 11:53 »
0
Wow, that is bad news . I just joined Shutterstock and they sell well for me. Does it indicate I will have to be seeing more rejections even if I submit future work that compliment my best sellers?
Any experienced Shutterstock contributorship insight will be much appreciated.
So sorry I am a late comer for Shutterstock. Because each month I get BME from them. Is this sustainable?
Cthoman?

I assume you can't keep having BME forever.  If you do, then I want your secret. ;D I wasn't affected by this change at SS, but other reviewal changes at IS have hit me. So, I can understand how the other contributors feel. It sucks.

« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2010, 15:38 »
0
Wow, that is bad news . I just joined Shutterstock and they sell well for me. Does it indicate I will have to be seeing more rejections even if I submit future work that compliment my best sellers?
Any experienced Shutterstock contributorship insight will be much appreciated.
So sorry I am a late comer for Shutterstock. Because each month I get BME from them. Is this sustainable?
Cthoman?

I assume you can't keep having BME forever.  If you do, then I want your secret. ;D I wasn't affected by this change at SS, but other reviewal changes at IS have hit me. So, I can understand how the other contributors feel. It sucks.

OK, talk to me in 9 months. If after annual anniversary #1 I have 12 months BME I will offer you my secret for a good nominal fee . Thank you for your kind quick response. Good luck to you too.

« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2010, 16:07 »
0
I just had an opposite experience where they rejected 8 from a batch of 9 (I thought they were good stuff and got angry for the rejection). But when I went to shutterstock site they were all approved. I'm guessing someone clicked some wrong buttons or my batch got flagged because the rejections didn't follow my 90+% approval rate and someone took another look... (?)

« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2010, 16:58 »
0
I am sure I am one of their best selling photographers, having 10k+ images online, but I am still getting flawless images rejected because of poor lighting or bad focus... or my personal favourite the image is not good for stock. Funny, I would be happy to take a look at the portfolio of that reviewer :) But I don't have to because I can see what a heap of junk they accept every single day.

Anyway, the majority of the Shutterstock reviewers are good and well trained. But they definitely have some very untrained guys... I mean untrained in photography at all. When you meet these guys you can decide how to react: be angy or laugh. When I get that kind of rejections, especially  when it is not just one image but let's say half of the batch I am usually getting very angry first. Secondly I am always thinking on to write an email to support (I never did) because finally I laugh on it and move on.

« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2010, 17:12 »
0
Again I had a huge batch all rejected right now , every single one , last time it happened i sent all again and they were ALL accepted , im talking about 30+ different style images and illustrations.

It seems that beginning of the week is for rejecting , after Wednesday it gets approved

« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2010, 17:25 »
0
Quote
poor lighting or bad focus
A lot of these lately for me, never used to get these. Funny thing i've been staggering my uploads and mixing up my shoots so similar images from the same shoots used to get through almost completely, now sometimes 50% of these groups of shots get rejected for these two reasons. I was wondering if there was a new reviewer, or two.

« Reply #35 on: September 29, 2010, 08:43 »
0
Im struggling to get accepted - had a lot of photgraphs rejected for poor focus - while I can live with the other reasons given this seems bizarre - all the images have been accepted on other sites. I guess I need to hope I get a more sympathic review next time!

« Reply #36 on: September 29, 2010, 15:35 »
0
Im struggling to get accepted - had a lot of photgraphs rejected for poor focus - while I can live with the other reasons given this seems bizarre - all the images have been accepted on other sites. I guess I need to hope I get a more sympathic review next time!
They like all the image to be in focus.  They reject most of mine that have shallow focus, even if they are good stock images.  All the sites have their quirky rejection reasons unfortunately.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1707 Views
Last post June 29, 2007, 13:28
by Istock News
9 Replies
4275 Views
Last post February 10, 2009, 04:25
by michealo
70 Replies
10249 Views
Last post February 05, 2014, 09:05
by Sean Locke Photography
14 Replies
2800 Views
Last post March 27, 2015, 09:38
by Jo Ann Snover
9 Replies
2329 Views
Last post November 12, 2015, 13:39
by wordplanet

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results