Author Topic: Resubmitting Rejected Content (Read 16019 times)

anathaya · « **on:** September 06, 2015, 21:17 »

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/76899-resubmitting-rejected-content

Quote

If you disagree with a content review, you do not need to contact us, instead you are welcome to resubmit your content for a secondary review through the normal submission process.

Simply upload your rejected content and after you click submit, select the "previously submitted content" option from the drop down menu Note to the Reviewer. Your content will be reevaluated while taking into consideration the previous rejection reasons.

To learn more about our review process and standards, we recommend that you read the following article from our Support Center:
http://support.shutterstock.com/contributor/articles/kbat02/000006568

To learn how to use the Note to the Reviewer, please read this:
http://support.shutterstock.com/contributor/articles/kbat02/000007489

Thomas from France · « **Reply #1 on:** September 06, 2015, 23:39 »

They don't want us to contact them anymore.

hairybiker777 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 06, 2015, 23:52 »

I just tried this. I have an image that IMO is one of my better ones, shot into the sun with strong late afternoon light, and just the kind of image that I imagine the pre-review software will weed out as being sub-standard. When I resubmitted it with the "previously submitted content" flag set, it got rejected immediately with the exact same reason as the first time. I don't think SS have had human eyes look at it on either occasion. Extremely frustrating... I seem to have gone from near-100% acceptance to near 100% rejection in a couple of months. Sales there are down too!

Luckily, this has coincided with a nice upturn for me at FT since the FT/Adobe love-in started, and all of a sudden images seem to be selling a lot more in the $10-20 range over there compared to predominantly $0.33 - $2.30 at SS. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away

Rinderart · « **Reply #3 on:** September 07, 2015, 16:31 »

Quote from: Thomas from France on September 06, 2015, 23:39

They don't want us to contact them anymore.

they certainly don't . No people involved.

weymouth · « **Reply #4 on:** September 08, 2015, 01:19 »

Quote from: Rinderart on September 07, 2015, 16:31

Quote from: Thomas from France on September 06, 2015, 23:39
They don't want us to contact them anymore.

they certainly don't . No people involved.

True. Some contributor relations nowadays?

Dumc · « **Reply #5 on:** September 08, 2015, 01:28 »

Quote from: Thomas from France on September 06, 2015, 23:39

They don't want us to contact them anymore.

And I'm not surprised. Probably hundreds of people emailing them daily why their images haven't been accepted. And most of them were probably rejected with a good reason.

anathaya · « **Reply #6 on:** September 08, 2015, 02:39 »

http://support.shutterstock.com/contributor/articles/kbat02/000007489

Quote

Q: how about resubmitting previously approved content?
A: Use the new option: “Previously submitted content with corrections”

Why would someone do that?

Dumc · « **Reply #7 on:** September 08, 2015, 02:48 »

I've done that. Re-processed image in PS that looked much better then the first time.

anathaya · « **Reply #8 on:** September 08, 2015, 04:59 »

Quote from: Dumc on September 08, 2015, 02:48

I've done that. Re-processed image in PS that looked much better then the first time.

Do they accept two differently processed versions of same image?

Dumc · « **Reply #9 on:** September 08, 2015, 05:38 »

I don't know, I deleted first image and re-uploaded new version.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 08, 2015, 07:01 »

Quote from: anathaya on September 08, 2015, 04:59

Quote from: Dumc on September 08, 2015, 02:48
I've done that. Re-processed image in PS that looked much better then the first time.
Do they accept two differently processed versions of same image?

Yes, that can happen. When resubmitting an improved version, make sure that the new one gets approved before deleting the old one. In that case you will have two versions of the same one until you delete the old one.

A few years ago I noticed that I had submitted some with a wrong color profile. I prepared a bunch of improved ones and resubmitted them with a note that they were the same as previously accepted images just with an improved color profile. I was surprised when some of them were rejected for focus, lighting or other reasons, even though they were fine and sold OK even though the color was slightly off. I had assumed that improved versions of previously accepted images also would be accepted, but that was naive. I was glad I had not deleted the original ones first. After that I decided resubmitting improved versions was too much trouble and not worth the effort.

chuckcars · « **Reply #11 on:** September 08, 2015, 18:19 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on September 08, 2015, 07:01

Quote from: anathaya on September 08, 2015, 04:59
Quote from: Dumc on September 08, 2015, 02:48
I've done that. Re-processed image in PS that looked much better then the first time.
Do they accept two differently processed versions of same image?

Yes, that can happen. When resubmitting an improved version, make sure that the new one gets approved before deleting the old one. In that case you will have two versions of the same one until you delete the old one.

A few years ago I noticed that I had submitted some with a wrong color profile. I prepared a bunch of improved ones and resubmitted them with a note that they were the same as previously accepted images just with an improved color profile. I was surprised when some of them were rejected for focus, lighting or other reasons, even though they were fine and sold OK even though the color was slightly off. I had assumed that improved versions of previously accepted images also would be accepted, but that was naive. I was glad I had not deleted the original ones first. After that I decided resubmitting improved versions was too much trouble and not worth the effort.

Yesterday, I had a rejected image for the reason of data, keywords, or keywords that did not fit the image. So, I was upset enough to go ahead and delete from the FT site before resubmitting. Now, when resubmitting, I have to rebuild the keywords. Not too big of an issue. BTW, they are all relevant and accurate. I should have waited to delete in order to save a few steps.

Its a lesson I won't forget.

Rinderart · « **Reply #12 on:** September 08, 2015, 20:45 »

Quote from: Dumc on September 08, 2015, 01:28

Quote from: Thomas from France on September 06, 2015, 23:39
They don't want us to contact them anymore.

And I'm not surprised. Probably hundreds of people emailing them daily why their images haven't been accepted. And most of them were probably rejected with a good reason.

I totally agree.

Alfa156Melb · « **Reply #13 on:** September 09, 2015, 00:59 »

I resubmitted 3 rejected images to SS as per the above posts a couple of days ago - the reason I did is that they accepted a similar image (same set) that was worse than the ones they rejected!

Anyway, they accepted all three this time round.

I guess it depends on who's reviewing.

dirkr · « **Reply #14 on:** September 09, 2015, 03:10 »

I think that last policy change is the closest they will get to admitting their review process is broken.
Now they allow to resubmit (even without changes) and essentially re-try as often as we want. Until we are met by a reviewer who lets the image pass...

anathaya · « **Reply #15 on:** September 09, 2015, 04:08 »

Now reviewers are going to reject more as no one is gonna complain, but resubmit.
Also, rejections means more pay for reviewers, as they get more and more resubmissions to review.
I'm not sure where this is gonna end... $:-\$

Mantis · « **Reply #16 on:** September 09, 2015, 07:45 »

Quote from: dirkr on September 09, 2015, 03:10

I think that last policy change is the closest they will get to admitting their review process ~~is broken~~ is wholly or partially automated, causing, in part, unjustified rejections.
Now they allow to resubmit (even without changes) and essentially re-try as often as we want. Until we are met by a reviewer who lets the image pass...

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #17 on:** September 09, 2015, 11:10 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 09, 2015, 07:45

Quote from: dirkr on September 09, 2015, 03:10
I think that last policy change is the closest they will get to admitting their review process ~~is broken~~ is wholly or partially automated, causing, in part, unjustified rejections.
Now they allow to resubmit (even without changes) and essentially re-try as often as we want. Until we are met by a reviewer who lets the image pass...

If it was automated we'd have consistent reviews, not one day pass, same the next fail, resubmit and they passed. It's broken. Reviews are inconsistent and unpredictable. Either training or they just don't care and make easy money on fast rejections.

Mantis · « **Reply #18 on:** September 10, 2015, 07:23 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on September 09, 2015, 11:10

Quote from: Mantis on September 09, 2015, 07:45
Quote from: dirkr on September 09, 2015, 03:10
I think that last policy change is the closest they will get to admitting their review process ~~is broken~~ is wholly or partially automated, causing, in part, unjustified rejections.
Now they allow to resubmit (even without changes) and essentially re-try as often as we want. Until we are met by a reviewer who lets the image pass...

If it was automated we'd have consistent reviews, not one day pass, same the next fail, resubmit and they passed. It's broken. Reviews are inconsistent and unpredictable. Either training or they just don't care and make easy money on fast rejections.

From their SEC filing:

"Each of our images has been vetted by a member of our review team for standards of quality and relevance. We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 10, 2015, 07:53 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 10, 2015, 07:23

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on September 09, 2015, 11:10
Quote from: Mantis on September 09, 2015, 07:45
Quote from: dirkr on September 09, 2015, 03:10
I think that last policy change is the closest they will get to admitting their review process ~~is broken~~ is wholly or partially automated, causing, in part, unjustified rejections.
Now they allow to resubmit (even without changes) and essentially re-try as often as we want. Until we are met by a reviewer who lets the image pass...

If it was automated we'd have consistent reviews, not one day pass, same the next fail, resubmit and they passed. It's broken. Reviews are inconsistent and unpredictable. Either training or they just don't care and make easy money on fast rejections.

From their SEC filing:

"Each of our images has been vetted by a member of our review team for standards of quality and relevance. We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm

My guess is that the software doesn't reject, but flags any images with potential problems. A lazy reviewer probably just goes and rejects them all, giving us batches with 100% rejections, while someone who is more assiduous will look at each image and accept them if they are OK. Or at least that would explain the current inconsistency among reviewers.

Mantis · « **Reply #20 on:** September 10, 2015, 07:57 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on September 10, 2015, 07:53

Quote from: Mantis on September 10, 2015, 07:23
Quote from: YadaYadaYada on September 09, 2015, 11:10
Quote from: Mantis on September 09, 2015, 07:45
Quote from: dirkr on September 09, 2015, 03:10
I think that last policy change is the closest they will get to admitting their review process ~~is broken~~ is wholly or partially automated, causing, in part, unjustified rejections.
Now they allow to resubmit (even without changes) and essentially re-try as often as we want. Until we are met by a reviewer who lets the image pass...

If it was automated we'd have consistent reviews, not one day pass, same the next fail, resubmit and they passed. It's broken. Reviews are inconsistent and unpredictable. Either training or they just don't care and make easy money on fast rejections.

From their SEC filing:

"Each of our images has been vetted by a member of our review team for standards of quality and relevance. We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm

My guess is that the software doesn't reject, but flags any images with potential problems. A lazy reviewer probably just goes and rejects them all, giving us batches with 100% rejections, while someone who is more assiduous will look at each image and accept them if they are OK. Or at least that would explain the current inconsistency among reviewers.

This is the debate. "What does the software do?" That is the unknown. Could be a fun thread to predict what it does. One thought I had was the focus rejections that were so prominent in the last 6-12 months. That "seems" to have relaxed a bit. I wonder (and I have no flipping clue) if the software was doing that and it has since been tweaked?

wordplanet · « **Reply #21 on:** September 10, 2015, 12:48 »

I had an image rejected because the reviewer said it should be editorial today (I was on the fence as to whether it would be necessary), so I revised the caption, re-uploaded it and clicked the "resubmitted image" tab with some trepidation since you can no longer leave a note. Not 10 minutes later I had a "Status of your Submitted images" email pop up and assumed it would be a rejection, but the image was approved so they must have a way of comparing a resubmitted one to a prior reject. Super fast review.

Dumc · « **Reply #22 on:** September 10, 2015, 13:01 »

It would be much better if they would spend all this energy on image spam rather than on rejections.

Alfa156Melb · « **Reply #23 on:** September 10, 2015, 18:11 »

I thought that software only rejected images for incorrect size, format and whatnot.

Mantis · « **Reply #24 on:** September 10, 2015, 18:31 »

Quote from: Alfa156Melb on September 10, 2015, 18:11

I thought that software only rejected images for incorrect size, format and whatnot.

Why would they need proprietary software for that?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Resubmitting Rejected Content (Read 16019 times)

anathaya

Thomas from France

hairybiker777

Rinderart

weymouth

Dumc

anathaya

Dumc

anathaya

Dumc

sgoodwin4813

chuckcars

Rinderart

Alfa156Melb

dirkr

anathaya

Mantis

YadaYadaYada

Mantis

sgoodwin4813

Mantis

wordplanet

Dumc

Alfa156Melb

Mantis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors