Author Topic: Inconsistent reviewing (Read 34690 times)

Ron · « **Reply #25 on:** September 08, 2013, 10:42 »

Quote from: modviz on September 08, 2013, 10:14

We agree to disagree....regardless. SS rejected 90%
of my batch because of "poor focus" issues. That same
batch had a 100% acceptence from DP and 123RF.

Are DP and 123rf standards really that much lower?

Yes, Much lower.

tab62 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 08, 2013, 10:49 »

Like the reviews the standards bounce all over as well. I heard of someone that had 2,000 images on Canstock and than submitted to GL where they took less that 150 of their images!

Bottom line- is that their is no across the board standard or review process and probably never will be...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #27 on:** September 08, 2013, 11:28 »

that is quite low, what subjects are we talking about Tom?

tab62 · « **Reply #28 on:** September 08, 2013, 11:48 »

mostly objects- too common for sure. Flowers, veggies and daily objects on white. GL is tough on these things! GL is okay on taking people shots...

heywoody · « **Reply #29 on:** September 08, 2013, 12:29 »

Quote from: tab62 on September 08, 2013, 10:49

.... I heard of someone that had 2,000 images on Canstock and than submitted to GL where they took less that 150 of their images! ....

Wondering why he bothered

luissantos84 · « **Reply #30 on:** September 08, 2013, 12:39 »

Quote from: heywoody on September 08, 2013, 12:29

Quote from: tab62 on September 08, 2013, 10:49
.... I heard of someone that had 2,000 images on Canstock and than submitted to GL where they took less that 150 of their images! ....

Wondering why he bothered

guess he didn't knew lol

tab62 · « **Reply #31 on:** September 08, 2013, 12:43 »

he knows now lol!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #32 on:** September 08, 2013, 15:01 »

The "focus nazi" who popped up a few months ago seems to be back.

modviz · « **Reply #33 on:** September 08, 2013, 17:00 »

I'll be curious to see how DT responds to those same 30
images. Reviewing, of course, is a lot slower than DP and
123RF and they tend to be almost as critical as SS. Will they
too reject 95% of my batch because of focus issues? Stayed
tuned!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #34 on:** September 08, 2013, 17:10 »

Quote from: modviz on September 08, 2013, 10:14

Are DP and 123rf standards really that much lower?

IS (May 2000) - 15.6 Million files
SS (July 2003) - 29 Million pictures - 163,407 pictures added this week
DT (2000 - 2004) - 18.6 Million files - 571,704 monthly pictures
123RF (June 2004) - 22 Million pictures - 205,468 files added this week
FT (November 2005) - 24 Million pictures
DP (November 2009) - 17 Million files - 167,609 files added this week

Pauws99 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 09, 2013, 01:00 »

and also SS must get more submitted.

Phadrea · « **Reply #36 on:** September 19, 2013, 11:07 »

Again, almost a whole batch rejected. One was for focus and yet it was taken on a tripod ! Another for focus and yet it's a background close up as sharp as it needs to be. How utterly demoralizing. It doesn't pay to upload in batches because you might just get them all reviewed by someone who wants to ruin your day.

Asthebelltolls · « **Reply #37 on:** September 19, 2013, 21:58 »

Yes Herg, me too...out of 30 submissions, 3 maybe accepted. I now submit no more than 5 pix. I wonder if SS is trying to reduce submissions. Lets face it they're the only agency still making money for contributers. I wonder if they're now inundated with submissions.

Ron · « **Reply #38 on:** September 20, 2013, 05:14 »

45/55 rejected - gutted

As if I can no longer take any photos.

Gutted, so much work went into that batch. Its like they rip your heart out.

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** September 20, 2013, 05:23 »

Quote from: Herg on September 19, 2013, 11:07

Again, almost a whole batch rejected. One was for focus and yet it was taken on a tripod !

Saying nothing about your photo which I haven't seen, there is nothing about using a tripod that aids focussing.
It can help avoid camera shake, but that's a different issue; and does nothing to help subject movement.
So three reasons for a photo to look unsharp, and a tripod can only help with one of them.
Again, not referring to your particular photo.

bunhill · « **Reply #40 on:** September 20, 2013, 05:24 »

Everyone: Why not upload a few full sized watermarked examples of the rejected images to, say, Dropbox and post the links here. Let the forum see if they can spot something which perhaps you have missed ?

Even very experienced photographers sometimes miss things. The iStock forums, for example, used to often have rejection complaints from time-served photographers.

JPSDK · « **Reply #41 on:** September 20, 2013, 22:06 »

Ja, let us see some pictures, else its kind of pointless and only a whining thread.

That said. Shutterstock has the "focus" rejection, but that could cover many things, such as placement of focus and sharpness, which is not the same.

A picture can be perfectly in focus and not sharp, fx fresh slimy fish or concrete structures in very diffused light.
Contrast in the focus area plays a role.

Fx I had some pictures of oiltanks, taken in diffused light, they were perfectly in focus, but did not look sharp because of low contrast, and the grass in the foreground was out of focus and such left the whole image with a blurry appearance.

Shutter rejected, others took them:

BK · « **Reply #42 on:** November 16, 2013, 16:46 »

I'm just growing so sick of the rejections at SS. 2 identical images except 1 is portrait and 2 is landscape. 1 accepted. 1 rejected. Last month the IS partner program was my top earner. It would actually be nice if that trend continued, so I wouldn't have to feel so dependent on SS and their schizophrenic reviewers.

stockastic · « **Reply #43 on:** November 16, 2013, 17:17 »

What was the rejection reason?

cascoly · « **Reply #44 on:** November 17, 2013, 01:52 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on August 15, 2013, 04:26

As reviewers are not machines (I hope) they are subject to error. It can happen.
When it happens I answer to the rejection email asking a new review.
90% of the times the images are then accepted (if they are good).

if that happens so consistently, it's not an error by the reviewer - it's incompetence!

heywoody · « **Reply #45 on:** November 17, 2013, 06:29 »

•   Acceptance criteria are set by the sites, not the reviewers – look what’s happened at IS
•   The bar at SS is high
•   Great images will be accepted, poor images will be rejected, those about the level of the bar (borderline) can get apparently inconsistent reviews based on individual judgement
•   Mistakes happen, it’s a human process
•   Sites do NOT lose money if images are rejected as there is virtually always something equally suitable in the database.

aly · « **Reply #46 on:** November 20, 2013, 19:54 »

I am at a loss lately as all my last 3 batches have been rejected for the SAME reason -POOR LIGHTING and cropping even the illustrations when in the past they were accepted. Is the machine out of order or what t???Getting very fed up with the inconsistencies here .Need to review the review process.

Clodio · « **Reply #47 on:** November 21, 2013, 07:24 »

The same thing happened to me twice in the last two weeks, and to a photographer friend of mine too. All photos rejected for POOR LIGHTING. Normally I have an acceptance rate of 75-80% on SS...

Very disappointing.

Mantis · « **Reply #48 on:** November 21, 2013, 08:47 »

Quote from: heywoody on November 17, 2013, 06:29

•   Acceptance criteria are set by the sites, not the reviewers – look what’s happened at IS
•   The bar at SS is high
•   Great images will be accepted, poor images will be rejected, those about the level of the bar (borderline) can get apparently inconsistent reviews based on individual judgement
•   Mistakes happen, it’s a human process
•   Sites do NOT lose money if images are rejected as there is virtually always something equally suitable in the database.

For the most part in MS we are all a commodity now.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #49 on:** November 22, 2013, 14:31 »

Today I have got a rejection for "Dust and Scratches" for a perfectly clean image…
I never seen this reason for a rejection before.
And if my sensor was dirty for this image why it was clean for other images of the series?

(I prefer to laugh about it…)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Inconsistent reviewing (Read 34690 times)

Ron

tab62

luissantos84

tab62

heywoody

luissantos84

tab62

Pauws99

modviz

luissantos84

Pauws99

Phadrea

Asthebelltolls

Ron

ShadySue

bunhill

JPSDK

BK

stockastic

cascoly

heywoody

aly

Clodio

Mantis

Beppe Grillo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors