pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock - "Title" rejection  (Read 4255 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 20, 2008, 11:37 »
0
This is something new for me: rejection due to title.

Here is a very small thumbnail of the image:


The title is: Raw Walnuts Background
The description is: Walnuts still in shell right after they were collected from the ground (not washed, dirt and plant debris visible)

Here is the rejection reason: Title--Titles may not contain camera name, web addresses, or other unnecessary information.

So obviously they are talking about unnecessary information. I actually think that they meant the description instead of the title. I only write a long description to fulfill the stupid requirement at BigStock (7 words minimum).

So, what to do? Should I resubmit and cut the title and description to an absolute minimum?

Have you guys ever had this rejection???

P.S. I am not mad at SS, just a little surprised that they have a problem with the title.


vonkara

« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2008, 11:46 »
0
Bad rejection unless RAW is a copyrighted word and I think not, because this word is used by all companies. EX NEF RAW ... for Nikon. NEF is probably copyrighted but not RAW.

« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2008, 11:48 »
0
I think that stupid editor thought RAW to be type of the file instead of "raw" in common language...

« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2008, 11:56 »
0
Shuttertock picks up the description as the title. 

« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2008, 11:58 »
0
you tried to make minimum 7 words and you made 19 words. hhh. I think there is unnecessary information issue here.

yes, you can resubmit, with corected title, and make a note to editor that you fixed the problem.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 12:00 by Chode »

« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2008, 23:49 »
0
yeah i have had a few silly ones over the past few days. Think they have reviewer issues again.

DanP68

« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2008, 00:06 »
0
The title rejection problem has been going on for a couple months.  A little searching will find this topic coming up frequently on the SS boards.  It's annoying to say the least.  I'd assume it to be an occasional  glitch in the way they import the EXIF data, but who knows.

« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2008, 01:43 »
0
Notice the image number 1167 etc compared to approved images at 3.4 million; this suggests a rejection rate of 70%.

DanP68

« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2008, 01:52 »
0
What's the time frame on that estimation Hatman?  Or is that all-time?  It suggests a lot of newer contributors flocking to microstock flame out rather quickly.

Makes me feel like I am definitely surviving at SS.  I suppose my acceptance rate is around 60-65% these days, though I haven't done the math lately.  I had a conversation with one of the larger SS contributors a few weeks back, and he felt the vast majority of SS contributors have their images either rejected, or accepted with little in the way of sales.  The estimation was that a very small percentage receive payouts before quitting.

Perseverance is key everywhere, but especially at SS.

« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2008, 08:01 »
0
Title rejection "Black #1". Photo was a model with jet black hair. Black #1 is a standard label for "true black" in hair color. It is not trademarked or copyrighted in any way...oh well  ???


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
9824 Views
Last post May 02, 2008, 07:24
by Dreamframer
7 Replies
2652 Views
Last post December 21, 2010, 12:36
by seawhisper
9 Replies
5646 Views
Last post March 22, 2011, 13:12
by donding
21 Replies
4554 Views
Last post August 27, 2013, 22:10
by Uncle Pete
2 Replies
2192 Views
Last post December 19, 2015, 07:47
by max headroom

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results