Author Topic: gutted by the appoval ratio - 3 in 94???? (Read 5643 times)

phildaint · « **on:** November 06, 2012, 15:09 »

Well i recently had 90 images pending, and only 3 got accepted, the vast majority for 'poor composition', now i'm no professional photographer but im pretty sure i can compose a picture correctly and my acceptance has never ever been anywhere near that low.

Is there a way to flag it up so i can re-submit or do i just have to bite the bullet and move on (they have been accepted at other sites)

Phil

modviz · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2012, 15:20 »

Take heart. I find myself in the same situation with SS where almost
everything is being rejected. In my case it's almost always "focus"
issues. I've been very careful when submitting. Always checking the
image at 100% and yet I'm still getting that same rejection reason.

I wonder now if a contributor has a lower acceptance ratio than SS's
standard, they now reject everything. $:-\$

I'm now submitting one image at a time. When it's rejected I send an
email to support and see if they agree with the assessment. Reducing
the image by 20% will also be part of my gameplan.

phildaint · « **Reply #2 on:** November 06, 2012, 15:29 »

I've sent an email to support querying it so hopefully i will be able to re-submit them all. its just a wounder when iv spent lots of time key wording etc

noodle · « **Reply #3 on:** November 06, 2012, 15:42 »

its hard to pass judgement w/o seeing the images

you can always post a few to the forum over there for critique, and the guys will tell you what they think

SS can be a bugger on somedays though - sometimes I think if the reviewer sees a few OOF , he will just tag the whole lot w/o actually reviewing each image

sometimes its unfair, I agree, but try downsizing a little as suggested, and send in small batches at a time

emblem · « **Reply #4 on:** November 06, 2012, 16:21 »

Its hard to believe that a company like SS has had this inconsistency problem with their reviewing for so long. I don't ever submit more than 10 images at a time...its just too risky to submit more than that in one batch.

Poncke · « **Reply #5 on:** November 06, 2012, 16:44 »

100% approvals lately, but getting over 90 rejected sucks big time

JPSDK · « **Reply #6 on:** November 06, 2012, 17:22 »

Phil,
Let us see the pictures.
Also, when you say 90 pictures. That is many.
It makes me think.

stockastic · « **Reply #7 on:** November 06, 2012, 17:24 »

Recently I had a string of senseless "focus" rejections but it ended - at least for now. I think they're using software to screen for focus ahead of the reviewers, and they're tuning it by trial and error. I resubmitted a couple of the focusc rejections and they were quickly approved, probably because a human reviewer actually looked at them the second time.

Submitting 90 at a time is asking for trouble.

Poncke · « **Reply #8 on:** November 06, 2012, 17:26 »

I dont believe in checking for focus by machines, how would it deal with DOF?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2012, 17:40 »

I've been getting lots of focus rejects too - does downsizing help? I normally forget it and move on but there seem so many of late.

stockastic · « **Reply #10 on:** November 06, 2012, 17:42 »

Quote from: Poncke on November 06, 2012, 17:26

I dont believe in checking for focus by machines, how would it deal with DOF?

It probably wouldn't, unless maybe for model shots, where it could identify a face. The micros want everything in an image to be in perfect focus, they don't want any sort of creative DOF. If they're actually using a software screen that basically looks for edges, they realize they'll be rejecting some good and salable photos, and they don't care, because they think they're saving money overall on reviewing costs. Just my opinion, but I think we'll find out this is happening.

Poncke · « **Reply #11 on:** November 06, 2012, 17:45 »

Quote from: stockastic on November 06, 2012, 17:42

Quote from: Poncke on November 06, 2012, 17:26
I dont believe in checking for focus by machines, how would it deal with DOF?

It probably wouldn't, unless maybe for model shots, where it could identify a face. The micros want everything in an image to be in perfect focus, they don't want any sort of creative DOF. If they're actually using a software screen that basically looks for edges, they realize they'll be rejecting some good and salable photos, and they don't care, because they think they're saving money overall on reviewing costs. Just my opinion, but I think we'll find out this is happening.

I know for fact loads of people have images with use of DOF and they are not rejected. I have images with use of DOF and are accepted across the board

stockastic · « **Reply #12 on:** November 06, 2012, 17:49 »

Quote from: Poncke on November 06, 2012, 17:45

Quote from: stockastic on November 06, 2012, 17:42
Quote from: Poncke on November 06, 2012, 17:26
I dont believe in checking for focus by machines, how would it deal with DOF?

It probably wouldn't, unless maybe for model shots, where it could identify a face. The micros want everything in an image to be in perfect focus, they don't want any sort of creative DOF. If they're actually using a software screen that basically looks for edges, they realize they'll be rejecting some good and salable photos, and they don't care, because they think they're saving money overall on reviewing costs. Just my opinion, but I think we'll find out this is happening.

I know for fact loads of people have images with use of DOF and they are not rejected. I have images with use of DOF and are accepted across the board

Like I said, I'm now getting accepted too. I can't explain that, or prove my suspicion, but whatever is happening, it's obvously changing from time to time. The use of software to screen images is inevitable because the potential cost savings are huge. If it isn't happening today, it will be eventually. They might be trying it out, intermittently, while refining it.

I seem to recall that their public statements leading up to the IPO contained apparent references to software screening as part of the review process...?

phildaint · « **Reply #13 on:** November 08, 2012, 18:12 »

Still waiting on a reply from ss, how long does it normally take to get a response?

enstoker · « **Reply #14 on:** November 09, 2012, 03:43 »

My advice for SS, if You are beginner:
batch with 15 files max !

When You will have good acceptance ratio, post 30 max.

Enjoy

modviz · « **Reply #15 on:** November 09, 2012, 09:47 »

A follow up to my earlier comment on this topic.

SS got back to me after I asked them to re-examine an image that had been rejected because of "poor focus" issues. They saw nothing wrong with the image and felt it was "an error" made by the "reviewer". It took about a week for the feedback.

Looking back over the past two months when focus became a dominant if not obsessive issue for rejections I am going to resubmit the ones that I truly believe in and would encourage all of you who have suffered the same fate to do the same.

phildaint · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2012, 19:06 »

Just a quick update, after a week of waiting, they have all been re-reviewed and lots of green approved notes

13 rejected which i can live with!

This takes me over the 500 online mark which isn't bad for under 2 months i guess

Thanks for your input

zoomfeet77 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 21, 2012, 02:18 »

This is what I hate about the review process. I had so many rejected myself and after waiting another week for a second review, they all got accepted. Total BS... They definitively use some sorta software or their reviewers just don't really look all that carefully.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #18 on:** November 21, 2012, 02:26 »

Are you mad? why do you put up 90 shots in one single batch? spread them out instead, 30 at a time or something.

Poncke · « **Reply #19 on:** November 21, 2012, 15:26 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on November 21, 2012, 02:26

Are you mad? why do you put up 90 shots in one single batch? spread them out instead, 30 at a time or something.

That just slows him down, with one review every week, it takes 3 weeks to get 90 images across.

gillian vann · « **Reply #20 on:** November 21, 2012, 15:38 »

I upload in much smaller batches, but then I'm only just approaching 200 after 8months.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #21 on:** November 21, 2012, 23:18 »

BS!!!!!

For those saying small batches only that is total BS!!!!

There are many who submit well over hundreds at a time and some thousands.

It has nothing to do with how many you submit!

tab62 · « **Reply #22 on:** November 21, 2012, 23:33 »

I agree! I have sent in batches over 50 and nail 85% or higher and other times I get nailed. I think the subject material is critical - if you submit travel pics they better be * good and interesting! If it is something that they need they will be a little bit more forgiving on the tech stuff (I said a little bit)...

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #23 on:** November 22, 2012, 01:55 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on November 21, 2012, 23:18

BS!!!!!

For those saying small batches only that is total BS!!!!

There are many who submit well over hundreds at a time and some thousands.

It has nothing to do with how many you submit!

Well if thats the case? why complaining in the first place. So they were rejected! I would have thought it goes with the territory? no?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: gutted by the appoval ratio - 3 in 94???? (Read 5643 times)

phildaint

modviz

phildaint

noodle

emblem

Poncke

JPSDK

stockastic

Poncke

Pauws99

stockastic

Poncke

stockastic

phildaint

enstoker

modviz

phildaint

zoomfeet77

ClaridgeJ

Poncke

gillian vann

ruxpriencdiam

tab62

ClaridgeJ

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors