Florin1961 has asked me to raise this issue on his behalf on MSG (due to him struggling a bit with his English). Hope I can reflect his dissatisfaction and message correctly:

1. The period between an image being accepted and visible in the database seems very long.
2. There is no consistency in what an acceptable standard is. What is acceptable the one time is rejected the next.
3. He has questioned some of the rejections and they admitted to their mistake and promised to rectify it, but did nothing after that. So, the issue is still unresolved although they said they will fix it.

Florin1961 is a sales manager at a large business and find the lack of consistency and clear and proper decision making especially frustrating.

1) It has been 72hrs for some time now, even if you cant see it it is searchable.

2) Different reviewers with different ideas on what has CV, which is subjective depending upon which reviewer is reviewing your images at the time.

3) Mass produced letter for everyone who questions the review process, just resubmit with a note stating what you fixed and move on.

My Take is this is normal op at any given time and that Florin1961 is still new to this somewhat and therefore a NEWB.

Stop worrying about what you have no control over upload more and keep on getting it, move on.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on October 31, 2012, 23:16

1) It has been 72hrs for some time now, even if you cant see it it is searchable.

2) Different reviewers with different ideas on what has CV, which is subjective depending upon which reviewer is reviewing your images at the time.

3) Mass produced letter for everyone who questions the review process, just resubmit with a note stating what you fixed and move on.

My Take is this is normal op at any given time and that Florin1961 is still new to this somewhat and therefore a NEWB.

Stop worrying about what you have no control over upload more and keep on getting it, move on.

Sound advice. Does not help to ponder too much about what you can not change.

^^ This correct.  When I feel strongly about an image or series of images and they get rejected, I either resubmit with a note or send an email to contributor help and ask for a re-evaluation.  Here's the kicker.  Sometimes I hear back from them and other times I do not.  The last time I did this they responded, re-reviewed my images and accepted all of them.  So if you believe in your work then fight for every one you feel is a winner.  I have had two images recently that are nice but simply were not worth fighting the rejection..both considered trademark violations.  I just didn't want to fight that battle because it's their policies that also account for rejections, not necessarily image technical quality and marketability (LCV).

No matter how big or how small, all the sites use people to evaluate the images. Every persons experience, like and dislikes differ and ALL are prone to errors. The sites can just train their reviewers up to a certain point and then subjective selection will always be required in the final instance (what will sell).
If a refusal is bound to cost you income and the rejection is technical (and you have the time and the site is one who is prepared to listen to reason), then I think it is worth the fight, else, just move on.

If i was a reviewer I would reject all things cats, as I really dislike cats.

Considering some site's rejection rate, it seems like they dislike contributors. 

Florin explained a bit more to me now and I think I understand his frustration. He is still trying to get approval as contributor and wondered why they can not approve a person based on his Bigstock portfolio. If I understand correctly they actually rejected some of his images for not being commercial while they can actually find the image on BS with sales. He feels that this can be established with a software link between the two databases. Images are rejected by them which have been approved and are selling well on BS. This is apparently the point he made to them and what they agreed to, but still did not accept his images.
Hope I explained his predicament better this time round.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on October 31, 2012, 23:16

2) Different reviewers with different ideas on what has CV, which is subjective depending upon which reviewer is reviewing your images at the time.

Still falls back to the fact that CV is subjective.

Falling back on previous reviewer's decisions can at least create more consistency. That is the point.

Quote from: CD123 on November 03, 2012, 00:12

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on November 02, 2012, 23:15

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on October 31, 2012, 23:16

2) Different reviewers with different ideas on what has CV, which is subjective depending upon which reviewer is reviewing your images at the time.

Still falls back to the fact that CV is subjective.

Falling back on previous reviewer's decisions can at least create more consistency. That is the point.

It's not falling back on a previous reviewers decision it is that they are different reviewers with different thoughts on what has CV.

one solution would be to have any images rejected for subjective reasons - LCV, framing, composition, etc automatically be sent to a second reviewer and only rejecting if both agree.

this would be a much more reasonable (and fair) approach, but unlikely. 

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on November 03, 2012, 08:01

Quote from: CD123 on November 03, 2012, 00:12

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on November 02, 2012, 23:15

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on October 31, 2012, 23:16

2) Different reviewers with different ideas on what has CV, which is subjective depending upon which reviewer is reviewing your images at the time.

Still falls back to the fact that CV is subjective.

Falling back on previous reviewer's decisions can at least create more consistency. That is the point.

It's not falling back on a previous reviewers decision it is that they are different reviewers with different thoughts on what has CV.

one solution would be to have any images rejected for subjective reasons - LCV, framing, composition, etc automatically be sent to a second reviewer and only rejecting if both agree.

this would be a much more reasonable (and fair) approach, but unlikely.

This has worked for me a few times.

can only understand the last rejection because of the crane, other are ridiculous, I am also sure you have took a version of the big ben with sky on a side no?

In my humble opinion (and I say it in all honesty as I do not see myself as an expert), the second image I can imagine that they felt that you have too much of the structure blow the clock (sort of stuck between taking the whole tower and zooming in on only the clock). The second can be the crane and rooftops. A problem you would not have had if you where closer to the bridge or zoomed in on it more. The first one is a closer call. The fact that your image barely misses the ground (just above ground level) might cause the rejection. They probably wanted either more tilt up or down or move back and get ground and structure in one shot. So you are sort of stuck between two shot alternatives from framing perspective.
This is just what I think they might have thought (but I might be completely wrong about them having it slightly right).

In my humble opinion (and I say it in all honesty as I do not see myself as an expert), the second image I can imagine that they felt that you have too much of the structure blow the clock (sort of stuck between taking the whole tower and zooming in on only the clock). The second can be the crane and rooftops. A problem you would not have had if you where closer to the bridge or zoomed in on it more. The first one is a closer call. The fact that your image barely misses the ground (just above ground level) might cause the rejection. They probably wanted either more tilt up or down or move back and get ground and structure in one shot. So you are sort of stuck between two shot alternatives from framing perspective.
This is just what I think they might have thought (but I might be completely wrong about them having it slightly right).

Ok, you caught me at Canterbury: I had to avoid a host of tourists standing on the grass in front of the cathedral basically forever (when a group of 40 entered the cathedral, the next group came and so on...)

But in the case of Big Ben and Tower Bridge, I submitted similar pictures at different levels of zoom and cropping as well, and had them rejected as well last week for the same reason.

the problem at SS sometimes is that one day they (reviewers) wake up and want a blue sky with plenty copy-space (too bad that day you decided to have your subject on all frame), on the other day they want the object on the full frame (the day you decided to give them a picture with copy-space) 

The layers tip works, indeed. But I am too lazy for such things lately, especially since everything I do seems to have little effect (I guess it's what they call hitting the wall).
The most I can do is blurring people out like this: most times they even accept such pictures, much to my surprise. It works better visually in a square than in front of a single building.

I think it would be really interested to see a name attached with a review on Shutterstock.  To get to see who the reviewer was.  The only site that does this (that I know of) is photodune.  kudos to them.

I think it would be really interested to see a name attached with a review on Shutterstock.  To get to see who the reviewer was.  The only site that does this (that I know of) is photodune.  kudos to them.

DT does something similar too, when you contact them regarding a rejection, kind of an account manager that contacts the reviewer and then he/she let us know why it was reviewed that way, that said I have given up on that because they are always right

the 'poor framing', lack of composition , etc, rejections are just another auto-reject-reason many reviewers use when their LCV key wears out

Thanks for all your answers...

Oh I guess it all depends at what stage you are currently with the micro stock pendulum, are you chasing quantity currently or are you focusing on quality to get your approval rates up

I started with quantity: it worked 5 years ago

then moved to quality: it worked when sales of new pictures were almost immediate at SS

and now I am trying to find a balance: enough technical quality without spending too much time, i.e. avoiding complicate shots - which may well lead to this (point taken!) in some cases:

the 'poor framing', lack of composition , etc, rejections are just another auto-reject-reason many reviewers use when their LCV key wears out

I could resubmit with a note (I do at times) and they would probably accept those pictures, but it's not the point here. We just need some consistency.

I am not even complaining about rejections in general (my approval rate is quite good at all sites, including shutterstock) but about random rejections of an entire batch now and then - with a single reason for all pictures, which doesn't seem to apply - so this could actually be a good solution:

I think it would be really interested to see a name attached with a review on Shutterstock.  To get to see who the reviewer was.  The only site that does this (that I know of) is photodune.  kudos to them.

yeo. It happens. I think SS has a surge of images coming in and the reviewers have been told to get tough and new reviewers starting. Same for me - blanket composition rejections .

Quote from: Les on December 17, 2012, 16:21

Today, one of my images (black silhouetted object placed in the middle of a white background) was rejected because of:
Composition--Poor framing, cropping, and/or overall image composition
Yes, a highly coveted isolated object just waiting to be cut out and placed on another canvass.
 
Before I resubmit it, will it be enough to move it horizontally to the left or right third, or should I offset it also vertically?

BTW, I noticed that today the SS shares dropped about a dollar. Could be, that was the real rejection reason.

Les, just make sure the object is not too small in comparison to the white area. Not from this site, but I had a rejection because the size of the object fell below the size of the acceptable image size. Can be due to lack of such a description it might have been rejected with this note. Not saying it is, but just check 

You may also wish to double check the BG just to be sure there is nothing that may have accidentally been missed.  I know this would usually be a lighting rejection, but it's possible they just hit the wrong button.  It's idiotic to reject isolations for composition unless, as CD123 points out, its for too much white (or black) surrounding the subject.  I've seen several comments about this happening recently, and not just on SS.  DT will tell you to reduce the size of the BG.  If you feel the BG is the correct size, just resubmit with a note to the reviewer that this is an isolation (or on-white if it has shadows) and that composition rejections don't apply to this type of image.  Hopefully you will get a reviewer who knows what he's doing.

I had 4 isolation images (of 4 different animals) all rejected for composition last week.  I think its just a reviewers "i dont like that" personal preference and a random reason from there.

Now why do they not just put a %&^%$#@#$ review note on their list which states "Rejected: Personally I just think your picture sucks. If you want, submit again, but if you get the same response again, your picture sucks." 

How many people really know the difference between "Isolated" and "On white"?

I bet less than 50%.

Why because look at all the images listed as isolated that are on white.

There is a big difference and most people dont have any idea!

Whats that got to do with the OP ?

A few post's above.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on December 17, 2012, 19:30

How many people really know the difference between "Isolated" and "On white"?

I bet less than 50%.

Why because look at all the images listed as isolated that are on white.

There is a big difference and most people dont have any idea!

Whats that got to do with the OP ?

Sorry Les. For one moment thought there might still be a small bit of logic to be found in some of these rejections. Seems like I was over optimistic.