Author Topic: Reviewers went crazy (Read 11237 times)

Massimo · « **on:** December 10, 2013, 10:07 »

Salve,
what is going on with SS??

I have many pictures on many agencys and know how crazy some rejections can be - but until now SS was one of the most serious agencies.
But since a while i find so absurd & crazy rejections (out of focus = not true / noise, but other images of the same shoot with much more !!!! noise have been accepted and much more)

and the most funny:
one images shows a plain object (no depth in the image) and the reviewer says "focus not where we think it should be".
The focus is on the object - shot with a Hasselblad and its so sharp you can make prints as big as houses from it!!
so he wants to have it out of focus

arghhh...that is so f************************* how these amateur-reviewers waste a desogners / fotographers time!!

Why dont they hire some people who can do a good job??

i think i will delete my account

massimo (pissed off)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1 on:** December 10, 2013, 10:33 »

I've had those too. The point is the focus is not where they think it should be.

I got a new one today - styling rejection on plates of food. The funny thing was that I had been worrying about them looking too much like something out of a five-star hotel and thinking they might not be good for blogs etc.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #2 on:** December 10, 2013, 11:18 »

Yes, I have the impression that it happens too much often now.

There is already a thread about inconsistent rejections.
I should be better to post anything about these rejections there to show to Shutterstock that the problem is really serious. If for any inconsistent rejection we open a thread our laments will have less effect than if they are all grouped in one single thread.

The thread is this one:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/inconsistent-reviewing/msg355435/

Pixart · « **Reply #3 on:** December 10, 2013, 11:20 »

Must be a new batch of Reviewers, there was a Reviewer's job posting on their site a couple weeks ago. Seems like every year this time the rejections get wonky.

JPSDK · « **Reply #4 on:** December 10, 2013, 11:22 »

Could be a machine, if a machine searches for contrasts to determine focus and sharpnes, it wouldnt find any difference in sharpness in a flat image.

peresanz · « **Reply #6 on:** December 10, 2013, 13:43 »

Scott,

I sent an email to [email protected] regarding rejections last Dec 2nd and have had no reply yet. What's the normal time I can expect I have a response?

stockastic · « **Reply #7 on:** December 10, 2013, 18:17 »

Bottom line, something is going on there with regard to "focus" rejections. I've gotten some crazy ones too. If I resubmit with a (polite) note, they're accepted - but what a waste of time.

I'm the guy who keeps saying SS is now using software for a first-pass inspection - i.e. they have a focus 'bot. They know isn't perfect but are counting on us to resubmit and when that happens it goes straight to a human.

Hardly anyone seems ready to believe this, but on the other hand SS isn't denying it. One thing I can say with confidence - if they haven't already automated parts of their inspection, they will, and soon.

pancaketom · « **Reply #8 on:** December 10, 2013, 19:40 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 10, 2013, 18:17

Bottom line, something is going on there with regard to "focus" rejections. I've gotten some crazy ones too. If I resubmit with a (polite) note, they're accepted - but what a waste of time.

I'm the guy who keeps saying SS is now using software for a first-pass inspection - i.e. they have a focus 'bot. They know isn't perfect but are counting on us to resubmit and when that happens it goes straight to a human.

Hardly anyone seems ready to believe this, but on the other hand SS isn't denying it. One thing I can say with confidence - if they haven't already automated parts of their inspection, they will, and soon.

That wouldn't surprise me much, they also might have something that looks at the histogram and rejects for "light" if it doesn't fit what the program thinks it should be.

tickstock · « **Reply #9 on:** December 10, 2013, 19:42 »

mike ledray · « **Reply #10 on:** December 10, 2013, 20:34 »

I LOVE Shutterstock!

aly · « **Reply #11 on:** December 10, 2013, 21:33 »

Yes I feel very frustrated with last few weeks of reviewing and have just sent off a whole batch asking for another person to look at them as the same old reasons are wearing thin-poor composition, cropping, out of focus, white balance incorrect, poor rasterizing, focal point not correct, etc, etc. I shall wait hopefully for a reply. Some are rejected completely yet one out of the whole batch is accepted. How? Why? Do they fall asleep or what. Please SS I wish you may review your reviewers!

scottbraut · « **Reply #13 on:** December 11, 2013, 00:18 »

Hello,

Regarding reviews - as you would expect, review objections fall into three categories:

A. The review was correct according to our standards.
B. The review determination was on the line, meaning that there were legitimate questions about the quality of the image relative to our standards, but a more forgiving review could get the image into the collection.
C. The review determination was in error and will be reversed, either because the reviewer accidentally selected the wrong rejection reason or because the senior review team felt the reviewer hadn't made the best determination.

We train and review the reviewers, but a Support ticket will help us look into the exact complaint if you feel strongly that a specific review determination was unfair or inaccurate.

Best,

Scott

peresanz · « **Reply #14 on:** December 11, 2013, 02:19 »

Quote from: scottbraut on December 11, 2013, 00:04

Quote from: peresanz on December 10, 2013, 13:43
Scott,

I sent an email to [email protected] regarding rejections last Dec 2nd and have had no reply yet. What's the normal time I can expect I have a response?

Hi Peresanz,

When did you send the email? In general, our weekday turnarounds for a first reply are within 24 hours (up to 48 hours during weeks with high inquiry volume), but the turnaround could depend on whether the issue had to be escalated. If you haven't heard back within 48 hours during the week, feel free to reach out again. If it's an inordinate amount of time (i.e., days have gone by), then I would certainly reach out.

Best,

Scott

Hi Scott,

I sent the email to [email protected] on December 2. Do you want me to re-send the email? do I put a Cc to someone just to check that the email goes out properly?

Regards,
Pere

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #15 on:** December 11, 2013, 05:05 »

Quote from: Massimo on December 10, 2013, 16:11

maybe i should go exclusive with DP - i have a AR there around 98% with over 12.000 images and not such stupid rejections

You are probably too much good for Shutterstock.
Don't lose your time to sell you off on sites like these, you are not for them.
You deserve more to be exclusive on Yay or Cuscaster…

Mantis · « **Reply #16 on:** December 11, 2013, 08:49 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on December 11, 2013, 05:05

Quote from: Massimo on December 10, 2013, 16:11

maybe i should go exclusive with DP - i have a AR there around 98% with over 12.000 images and not such stupid rejections

You are probably too much good for Shutterstock.
Don't lose your time to sell you off on sites like these, you are not for them.
You deserve more to be exclusive on Yay or Cuscaster…

heheheheheh

AYA · « **Reply #17 on:** December 11, 2013, 09:50 »

Quote from: scottbraut on December 11, 2013, 00:18

Hello,

Regarding reviews - as you would expect, review objections fall into three categories:

A. The review was correct according to our standards.
B. The review determination was on the line, meaning that there were legitimate questions about the quality of the image relative to our standards, but a more forgiving review could get the image into the collection.
C. The review determination was in error and will be reversed, either because the reviewer accidentally selected the wrong rejection reason or because the senior review team felt the reviewer hadn't made the best determination.

We train and review the reviewers, but a Support ticket will help us look into the exact complaint if you feel strongly that a specific review determination was unfair or inaccurate.

Best,

Scott

Hi Scott,
it is great of you to take part in the forum considering the hostility going on and thank you for the solutions you offered. Can I suggest one thing? I think the frustration around the reviewers comes from the fact that it's so inconsistant AND so drastic. It doesn't make much sense that a batch be rejected 100% and a second batch from the same serie be accepted 100% the next week.
I think a lot of contributors are feeling insulted because it doesn't seem to be very respectful of their time or creativity. As for myself, I am waiting until this unjustified rejection phase passes befor submitting my work.
The solutions you offer are very nice but until contributors can actually understand the logic behind the reviewers decision, I mfeel like tempers are going to flare on this Forum.

I hope to hear from you to get more understanding,

Julie

JPSDK · « **Reply #18 on:** December 11, 2013, 10:56 »

We would actually undersstand, if you said it was a machine to save money, and we had an automated way of reuploading without having to send the files through the net again.

On the other hand, that would not work, as people would just reupload all their files and cause a traffic jam.

So it is hopeless unless you come up with something smart.

But we would understand that you wanted to save money on reviews, we are all in the same boat, and want the business to thrive.

dirkr · « **Reply #19 on:** December 11, 2013, 14:03 »

Maybe an easy fix would be to flag any big difference in acceptance rate (the often mentioned close to 100% rejection of a batch from a contributor who normally has close to 100% acceptance rate).

If a review leads to such difference (that's easy to spot fully automated) it is sent to a senior reviewer for double checking before it is published to the contributor.

That would fulfill several purposes:
avoid frustration for contributors
avoid additional load on the review team through re-submissions
provide an automated quality check on reviewers

peresanz · « **Reply #21 on:** December 11, 2013, 16:19 »

Quote from: anthonycorreia on December 11, 2013, 15:58

Quote from: peresanz on December 10, 2013, 13:43
Scott,

I sent an email to [email protected] regarding rejections last Dec 2nd and have had no reply yet. What's the normal time I can expect I have a response?

Dear peresanz,

We normally answer questions like yours within 24hrs or less. For your specific question, another dept needed to be engaged which caused the delay you experienced, unfortunately. Please accept my apologies and know that a member of my staff is working on resolving your case immediately.

Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Contributor Success
Shutterstock|Bigstock

Dear Anthony,

Many thanks for your reply. I really appreciate your coming here to the microstocks group
and your attitude when dealing with contributors. The more I have to deal with other agencies the clearer the
difference is too.

Regards,
Pere

scottbraut · « **Reply #22 on:** December 11, 2013, 19:11 »

Hi Julie,

Thanks. We understand that people want consistent and clear reviews and it's our goal to provide them. Occasional mistakes can happen, and although everyone is held to the same standards, it's possible to get different reviewers for different submissions.

The good news is that on a quantity basis (i.e., relative to the millions of images that we review and the 30 million images that we now have in the collection), the number of complaints that we receive is relatively small.

That being said, we believe that every review matters and we welcome feedback. We provide a formal grievance process specifically for the purposes of giving reviewers feedback and correcting any situations in which you feel that a rejection was provided in error. We audit and "review the reviewers," but sending an email to Support is the most direct way for us to look at the individual images in question.

Best,

Scott

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #23 on:** December 11, 2013, 19:54 »

I've said this before about reviewing in general, not specificially about SS, but I'll say it again: in any human assessment of art materials there is always going to be some variation in standards, just as there are variations in the quality of work individuals produce. I don't think any of us know precisely what it is that reviewers look for. I happen to have a very good acceptance rater - 90% +, mostly - so it does come as a bit of a shock when I get a batch where 9 out 0f 10 are rejected. However, I can see that I might be working at just slightly better than the required standards, so an off-day for me, or an inspector who is feeling a bit grumpy, might tip the whole assessment against me.

We all scream and shout about how our wonderful work is rejected by blind idiots, but a decade in this game has persuaded me that the inspectors/reviewers, whatever they are called, do a damned good job. I can look back at files where I had a hissy-fit over rejections seven or eight years ago and wonder how I could ever have submitted such rubbish. There were even some files a year or 18 months ago that I got upset over being rejected - but I've since returned to them and found they could be enormously improved (after which they got accepted).

So while there will always be some marginal or doubtful decisions, I really don't have a lot of time for those who shout down the reviewers. Without them, many of us would never have reached the standard that we have, and I for one am a lot better for it, and not just because of shooting stock.

heywoody · « **Reply #24 on:** December 12, 2013, 17:55 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 11, 2013, 19:54

I've said this before about reviewing in general, not specificially about SS, but I'll say it again: in any human assessment of art materials there is always going to be some variation in standards, just as there are variations in the quality of work individuals produce. I don't think any of us know precisely what it is that reviewers look for. I happen to have a very good acceptance rater - 90% +, mostly - so it does come as a bit of a shock when I get a batch where 9 out 0f 10 are rejected. However, I can see that I might be working at just slightly better than the required standards, so an off-day for me, or an inspector who is feeling a bit grumpy, might tip the whole assessment against me.

We all scream and shout about how our wonderful work is rejected by blind idiots, but a decade in this game has persuaded me that the inspectors/reviewers, whatever they are called, do a damned good job. I can look back at files where I had a hissy-fit over rejections seven or eight years ago and wonder how I could ever have submitted such rubbish. There were even some files a year or 18 months ago that I got upset over being rejected - but I've since returned to them and found they could be enormously improved (after which they got accepted).

So while there will always be some marginal or doubtful decisions, I really don't have a lot of time for those who shout down the reviewers. Without them, many of us would never have reached the standard that we have, and I for one am a lot better for it, and not just because of shooting stock.

Good balanced assessment

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Reviewers went crazy (Read 11237 times)

Massimo

BaldricksTrousers

Beppe Grillo

Pixart

JPSDK

scottbraut

peresanz

stockastic

pancaketom

tickstock

mike ledray

aly

scottbraut

scottbraut

peresanz

Beppe Grillo

Mantis

AYA

JPSDK

dirkr

anthonycorreia

peresanz

scottbraut

BaldricksTrousers

heywoody

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors