MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Oh boy, the Bullsh%t rejections are back  (Read 5647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 07, 2016, 11:16 »
+4
The problem was rampant for a while, there was a lot, lot, lot of complaining which seemed to have no effect whatsoever.

There was a short period of time where it looked like the problem reviewers had been dealt with . . .

I feel like the problem reviewers had been moved over to the video side and were dispensing their particular brand of havoc in the video contributors world, but now it looks like they are back.

Oh joy, let the ridiculous rejections commence!


« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2016, 11:20 »
+1
I had uploaded a photo as editorial on SS. I am 100% sure I ticked the editorial box. I got it rejected. They wanted a model release. I uploaded it again and got it rejected for being too soft. But the absolute best is Bigstockphoto. They rejected 3 of my editorial photos because they don't like the description. All other agencies accepted these images. Bigstockphoto rejects photos both, SS and Fotolia have accepted.

Shelma1

« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2016, 11:24 »
+6
Yep. Everything of mine started being rejected again over the weekend for ridiculous reasons. Rendering of gradients, titles, keywords, edges, too many similar submissions (THAT'S a laughmarijuana, anyone?), whatever they can throw at you.

Meanwhile ports full of obviously stolen illustrations, icons with no differences except color, simple type anyone can do in MS Word, all sail right through.

what.

« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2016, 11:26 »
0
Over 93 million royalty-free stock images / Over 800,000 new stock images added weekly

Probably they are going to slow down now.

« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2016, 11:29 »
0
I have no problem with it if they reject a photo for technical reasons but for descriptions that perfectly describe an editorial photo....Why don't they just say they don't want that photo. They have better ones or enough or editorial won't sell......

« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2016, 11:58 »
+1
I know this is an SS thread, but I actually recently had an editorial iStock photo rejected because they said I should submit it as full commercial instead.

« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2016, 11:59 »
+3
Over 93 million royalty-free stock images / Over 800,000 new stock images added weekly

Probably they are going to slow down now.

They don't update that number, but if you look at any image, scroll down to see a live total. Right now it says:

99,917,192 royalty-free stock images / 837,058 new stock images added this week

We should roll over the 100 million mark some time tomorrow? Edited a few hours later as we're now at 99,936,641!! Perhaps later today if the Marijuana port/endless identical icons port and the random geometric shape vector ports get busy :)

Huge seas of crap with probably about 60 million worthwhile items...

I've uploaded over the last week and have seen mostly acceptances - often within 2 minutes of submitting. A batch of 10 images doesn't get looked at by a human in 2 minutes, so that has to be a fully automated "review".  There was one batch with a few rejections - much more like earlier in the year - but otherwise they were taking everything.

Other than "SS review is a total crapshoot" I really can't draw any conclusions :)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2016, 14:49 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2016, 12:11 »
+5
They should be generous and give away a free Shutterstock t-shirt to the contributer that has the 100M image.


« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2016, 13:05 »
+1
I'm having the same problem over at FT as well. My guess is that reviewer's are told to take only the best-of-the-best and reject everything else, problem is a lot of very good stock images and video are getting trashed because the whole process is very subjective.

And yeah, the 2 minute review is not an actual person reviewing a large portion of these images.

« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2016, 13:16 »
+1
I have the feeling that Bigstockphoto rejects one out of a few as if that's what they have to do. As if 100 percent acceptance is bad for the reviewer. I had 1 photo out of 75 rejected by iStock. Do reviewers look bad if they accept too many images? Bigstock rejected photos that are happily selling on Fotolia. SS rejected my bestseller on Fotolia twice.

Chichikov

« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2016, 13:19 »
+3
Over 93 million royalty-free stock images / Over 800,000 new stock images added weekly

Probably they are going to slow down now.

No, they want to reach the 100 000 000 asap for marketing reasons.
Maybe then they will slow down.

« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2016, 13:24 »
+4
Over 93 million royalty-free stock images / Over 800,000 new stock images added weekly

Probably they are going to slow down now.

No, they want to reach the 100 000 000 asap for marketing reasons.
Maybe then they will slow down.

LOL, probably mostly full of illegal clip-arts !!!
and those with legal ownership get 60% rejection  ;D

so funny, it hurts !!!
i 'm glad i stopped submitting ages ago, after the great atilla massacre...

« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2016, 14:48 »
+1
i played to get approved picture  n100000000.
i loosed, my picture were approved in less than a minute....

Insane.

« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2016, 04:35 »
+4
ok, its not ss but iS, but still, when anyone tops THIS let me know

We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission... for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons:
"Images of real life events, people, and actions that fall under the travel, social, and urban living category cannot be staged or posed. We want to see images of life as is, without influence from the photographer. Do not prompt or direct people; rather, photograph them as they are.

Btw, it is an image of my own kid eating ice cream. Sitting where we were at the time, accidentally,  eating ice cream she wanted, in clothes she picked up that morning. I mean, if nothing else, try to stage 4 yr old... Looks like i hit the wrong category, on the other hand, kid with ice cream again i would place under 'people' not food....

« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2016, 05:18 »
0
SHUTTERSTOCK STATS: 100,021,310 royalty-free stock images / 793,420 new stock images added this week

« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2016, 05:20 »
+3
If it was kid eating sprouts I could understand it

« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2016, 11:52 »
+3
I think the horrible weekend reviewer on SS are now working for Bigstock.  Every once in a while I get that person who rejects everything (inc. ones accepted at SS and elsewhere).   

Coming from an artist background, I find the poor lighting rejection on SS sometimes helpful and at other times annoying esp. as my more artistic use of light sells well on another stick agency.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 20:55 by Hildegarde »


« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2016, 11:57 »
+8
I think the horrible weekend reviewer on SS are now working for Bigstock.  Every once in a while I get that person who rejects everything (inc. ones accepted at SS and elsewhere).   

Coming from an artist background, I find the poor lighting rejection on SS sometimes helpful and at other times annoying esp. as my more artistic yse of light sells well on another stick agency.
Yes they seem to have a very specific view of good lighting....a world without shadows!

Rinderart

« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2016, 14:09 »
+2
I dont get rejections unless I screwed up and glad they noticed. Fixed and good. Got 2 landscapes rejected saying they need a reference Image??? what!! and sales were great in aug. Nose dive this Month. Losing Interest very quickly.

« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2016, 14:17 »
+1
I dont get rejections unless I screwed up and glad they noticed. Fixed and good. Got 2 landscapes rejected saying they need a reference Image??? what!! and sales were great in aug. Nose dive this Month. Losing Interest very quickly.

lauren, you're back??? i can't believe it???
i thought things got better with you and you became a reborn fan-boy of ss all over again LOL

glad to see even you are not immuned from the great SSBS in the sky!!!
(suffering is half the suffering when shared !!!)

« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2016, 14:44 »
+4
maybe the reviewers have to make their quota's for rejected images... if there is such a thing  ;D

k_t_g

  • Its your unbirthday too....
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2016, 22:48 »
+1
With all this needless rejecting of content, maybe "they" should remove the personal acceptance rate number. Pretty useless these days considering those bogus rejections are no ones fault and more of the pointless picking for rejection excuse.  ::)

Rinderart

« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2016, 00:23 »
+3
I dont get rejections unless I screwed up and glad they noticed. Fixed and good. Got 2 landscapes rejected saying they need a reference Image??? what!! and sales were great in aug. Nose dive this Month. Losing Interest very quickly.

lauren, you're back??? i can't believe it???
i thought things got better with you and you became a reborn fan-boy of ss all over again LOL

glad to see even you are not immuned from the great SSBS in the sky!!!
(suffering is half the suffering when shared !!!)

LOL call them as I see them. What I seriously don't get is instant reviews, sometimes a few minutes. That to me is a red flag that there is  a BOT reviewing. which if true is the saddest thing I've yet heard. we thought about this before But instant reviews and the numbers being added??

substancep

  • Medical, science, nature, and macro photography

« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2016, 14:10 »
0
I dont get rejections unless I screwed up and glad they noticed. Fixed and good. Got 2 landscapes rejected saying they need a reference Image??? what!! and sales were great in aug. Nose dive this Month. Losing Interest very quickly.

lauren, you're back??? i can't believe it???
i thought things got better with you and you became a reborn fan-boy of ss all over again LOL

glad to see even you are not immuned from the great SSBS in the sky!!!
(suffering is half the suffering when shared !!!)

LOL call them as I see them. What I seriously don't get is instant reviews, sometimes a few minutes. That to me is a red flag that there is  a BOT reviewing. which if true is the saddest thing I've yet heard. we thought about this before But instant reviews and the numbers being added??

Always wondered how bots would review things like "out of focus" or "poor exposure." Do they just compare the histogram to an "ideal" one, and use some kind of contast detection? Most of the reviews take half a day or more, but sometimes they get reviewed after fifteen minutes, and it may or may not be accepted.

« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2016, 17:16 »
0
ya, but that was yesterday !!!
see this new thread...
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=28352.msg464233;topicseen#new

« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2016, 19:26 »
+2
I recently had two out of a batch of 16 rejected. The two were just black and white versions of other images in the batch. Rejected for needing a property release (the color ones got accepted).

I honestly don't waste too much mental energy on this stuff. Eye-roll and move on.

« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2016, 16:15 »
+2
I recently had two out of a batch of 16 rejected. The two were just black and white versions of other images in the batch. Rejected for needing a property release (the color ones got accepted).

I honestly don't waste too much mental energy on this stuff. Eye-roll and move on.

Haven't we all at some point decided that the rejection reasons are some random click on any box and meaningless garbage. Yours backs this guess at how worthless the rejection reasons are and why SS changed to, don't ask, just resubmit. They know the reviews are total BS.


Shelma1

« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2016, 22:04 »
+4
My reviewer behaves for a week after I complain multiple times, then goes back to rejecting everything to get paid 5 times for each image. Now I'm thinking maybe I'd like to be a reviewer. I can click reject buttons very quickly. I'll be paid five times for each image I reject repeatedly, just hitting random buttons each time. Totally mindless way to make some dough. I could just sit by the pool and click that button over and over again. It'll be freaking awesome.

Rinderart

« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2016, 23:49 »
+1
My reviewer behaves for a week after I complain multiple times, then goes back to rejecting everything to get paid 5 times for each image. Now I'm thinking maybe I'd like to be a reviewer. I can click reject buttons very quickly. I'll be paid five times for each image I reject repeatedly, just hitting random buttons each time. Totally mindless way to make some dough. I could just sit by the pool and click that button over and over again. It'll be freaking awesome.

Actually 9 Years ago when I reviewed that was kinda the way it was.  But....Back in the day we got called on rejecting Images . I remember rejecting a Image with a crooked horizon and was quickly told to go back and approve it .....they said someday a buyer may need a crooked horizon.   TRUE!!! Honestly I still have nightmares on what I used to see. My record was 30,000 Images a Month. took about 6 Hours a day. we made pretty good Money then with good bonuses. and sometimes there weren't enough for our staff of 6 to review. We had to wait.

Rinderart

« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2016, 23:35 »
0
I recently had two out of a batch of 16 rejected. The two were just black and white versions of other images in the batch. Rejected for needing a property release (the color ones got accepted).

I honestly don't waste too much mental energy on this stuff. Eye-roll and move on.
Never send B&W of images in the same batch. EVER!!. separate by a bunch of other Pics. 40% of My Port everywhere is B&W. and MY  B&Ws way outsell My color versions. Good B&W is a lot More than 90% of what folks realize.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
6215 Views
Last post March 03, 2008, 17:29
by litifeta
5 Replies
5026 Views
Last post January 03, 2012, 17:43
by Suljo
6 Replies
1933 Views
Last post February 26, 2013, 18:16
by bad to the bone
7 Replies
3138 Views
Last post December 30, 2015, 09:03
by cobalt
4 Replies
997 Views
Last post September 24, 2020, 16:04
by Microstock Man

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle