MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: From 100% approval to rejection over night  (Read 11626 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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1690 Views
Last post June 29, 2007, 13:28
by Istock News
9 Replies
4252 Views
Last post February 10, 2009, 04:25
by michealo
70 Replies
10181 Views
Last post February 05, 2014, 09:05
by Sean Locke Photography
14 Replies
2753 Views
Last post March 27, 2015, 09:38
by Jo Ann Snover
9 Replies
2289 Views
Last post November 12, 2015, 13:39
by wordplanet

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results