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?

The first reason looks more like an IS rejection...strange

Several topics at Shutterstock are talking about this. They've changed their policy without announcement.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt88834.html

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=87907

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=88744

"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!

yes more and more rejection coming up at this summer...............................

me too! all abstract background and seamless vector also rejected.

Quote from: keo on August 25, 2010, 04:52

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!

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Quote from: sjlocke on August 25, 2010, 14:06

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.