MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock rejecting clips and photos like crazy for no good reason recently.  (Read 2033 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 22, 2019, 09:28 »
0
They label almost everything "similar content".  They reject their own model release form as "invalid".  what is going on there?

They are stupid AF. 


« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2019, 12:42 »
+9
Seems like Shutterstock is trying to suppress content to let Adobe take the lead in sales.


Now if only Adobe would accept editorial content from all contributors. I think they would pull ahead.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2019, 12:47 »
+1
Seems like Shutterstock is trying to suppress content to let Adobe take the lead in sales.


Now if only Adobe would accept editorial content from all contributors. I think they would pull ahead.

Yeah Baby!

They label almost everything "similar content".  They reject their own model release form as "invalid".  what is going on there?

They are stupid AF. 

Unpredictable, yes they have gone wild on rejecting similar, overboard, just nuts. On the other hand, I was looking through old "rejects" from SS and thought I'd toss one at them, that I liked enough to take the time. Accepted in minutes. This isn't the first time for that. I'm being very selective and only re-sending images that the content or concept might have a chance. I'm trying to remember the last rejection for image quality?

Yes I've had similar rejections for different images of the same subject. Fine, they can play that game, I don't agree, and I rarely have anything similar to start with. Just out of control.


« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2019, 14:46 »
0
It's a program filter, not human revisors.

A nightmare for me.

Point to agencies with human revisors, istock or Alamy.

« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2019, 15:48 »
+3
It's all about AI...i don't think any human being can be so inconsistent and stupid on curation...

« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2019, 17:08 »
+3
I think that SS can't manage the new stuff, millions of files every day. That's all.

Every batch I upload is reviewed in seconds or in a few minutes. Always. The last one 30 pictures, less than one minute and 26 rejections for similar content.

I don't know why some ports are full of spam and in the other hand some of us have random rejections on our files every time we upload them. Maybe the program filters are oriented in some way and a human clicks the program suggestion.

Anyway I need holidays from SS.




« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2019, 03:10 »
+3
It's all about AI...i don't think any human being can be so inconsistent and stupid on curation...
I don't believe AI can be inconsistent. It is not one reviewer. Seems to me the quality control on reviewers is broken. If reviewers receive next to no training or supervision and are required to review at a ridiculous pace I wouldn't be surprised if some go bat dropping crazy.

« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2019, 05:11 »
+1
I have just had a load of landscape photos, with no people or content across a range of locations rejected for non licensable content.

I asked for clarification, explaining I had checked their known restrictions page for Europe, cannot see what the issue was and could they explain what the issue was. I had a reply quoting my description for the example image I sent and that "comes under the Geographic locations which is a part of Non-Licensable Content" so I am none the wiser.

Decided to park the batch for a month or so and try again.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2019, 05:47 »
0
Any AI with massive bugs will do a better job than the monkeys they've hired as of late

« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2019, 07:57 »
0
Have you tried to delete the exif to skip the automatic rejections?

« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2019, 10:23 »
0
It's all about AI...i don't think any human being can be so inconsistent and stupid on curation...
I don't believe AI can be inconsistent. It is not one reviewer. Seems to me the quality control on reviewers is broken. If reviewers receive next to no training or supervision and are required to review at a ridiculous pace I wouldn't be surprised if some go bat dropping crazy.

AI it's very inconsistent...look at the keyword tool on any agencies...it can go pretty close but there will be always some mistakes..

« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2019, 10:59 »
0
...the full bearded skinny jeans from NY may not get enough soy latte

Shelma1

« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2019, 11:49 »
+4
I uploaded files buyers specifically requested with elements theyve already approved and they rejected them for not having reference images. I really dont know if I can be bothered re-uploading with screen shots from their own freaking site in order to make 38 cents. I haven't uploaded anything since their stupid requirement to make the illustrations as large as billboards and wouldn't have bothered with these if they hadnt been requested.

« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2019, 13:18 »
+3
Just be glad these reviewers chose a different career path than the medical one.  I just had them tell me that a Pneumococcal vaccine vial I uploaded yesterday is exactly the same photo as a Haemophilus B vaccine vial I uploaded 3 years ago. Different label, different keywords, different title, different smaller vial, isolated on white. This was supposedly an actual human "professional" curator who backed up the AI decision too.
So apparently out of the HUNDREDS of medications and vaccines that come in a vial I am supposed to pick ONE and only ONE to isolate on white with a syringe!
It is getting beyond stupid at SS.  I personally hope that Adobe takes their #1 spot and soon. They haven't rejected one of my medical photos for any reason in over 3 years. 
Rant over.  Thanks for reading.

« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2019, 18:34 »
0

It is getting beyond stupid at SS.  I personally hope that Adobe takes their #1 spot and soon.

I would be happy to see that too.

aly

« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2019, 19:59 »
+1
Have you ever tried submitting a few at a time to have some rejected for out of focus, wrong keywording description, same content , etc? The  resubmit minutes after and they get accepted? Is that A1 or a different reviewer? Frustrating to say the least.

« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2019, 20:12 »
+2

It is getting beyond stupid at SS.  I personally hope that Adobe takes their #1 spot and soon.

I would be happy to see that too.

Martha, I seem to recall a similar situation just few years ago when a previously #1 stock agency started treating the galley slaves like they were disposable minor annoyances at best. I pulled my port and I believe that the #3 position is still too good for them.   ;)


« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2019, 21:12 »
0
I had some weird rejections for intellectual property too - not at SS but elsewhere - I remember when I used to upload to iStock, I think "Newport" was an instant rejection so all my images from Newport, Rhode Island were a no-go - their loss as those files have earned me thousands - and now of course some are on Getty from 500px - just crazy!

And Getty of course used AI to re-keyword, so I don't expect sales. The worst is a photo of a church on Cape Cod with pumpkins for sale filling the front lawn. It is keyworded with "church, Christianity, religion..." and words of that nature ... but forget "Halloween, fall, autumn, Cape Cod" - the words a buyer would use - Alamy has licensed this image a few times for me  - but Getty certainly won't. I'd rather get $$-$$$ then a few cents, anyway.


« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2019, 23:08 »
+1

It is getting beyond stupid at SS.  I personally hope that Adobe takes their #1 spot and soon.

I would be happy to see that too.

Martha, I seem to recall a similar situation just few years ago when a previously #1 stock agency started treating the galley slaves like they were disposable minor annoyances at best. I pulled my port and I believe that the #3 position is still too good for them.   ;)

Yes, I remember that too, and I'm still happy that I had the good sense to withdraw completely from IS at that point (2011, I believe).

I like contributing to both SS and AS, but on the whole AS seems a much friendlier place. I expect to continue uploading my best stills and videos to both, but if I had to choose one over the other for the long haul, I would cast my photographic fate with AS.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2019, 23:20 by marthamarks »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2019, 13:53 »
+6
The more I submit to Shutterstock, the more I start to hate them. I created two versions of an animation, one with a distinct (and relevant) background and one on a black background (to give buyers the option to add another background in), and they rejected the first version. Any way to capitalize on my hard work is being undone by naive reviewers.

In the meantime they did accept thousands of ridiculous similars that make no sense at all. They've lost their marbles, in so many ways. First the insane vector requirements (which has shown they have incompetent people running that place) and now this all over the place similars policy.

Okay, I'm done ranting.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2019, 14:01 »
+4
Maybe the program filters are oriented in some way and a human clicks the program suggestion.


That's the best answer, and with reading and news and history, they have proprietary software to assist the reviewers.

First the system checks for size, file type, colorspace, some obvious things. That's before anyone sees them.

Then the software opens the file and shows the reviewer some measurements and analysis. Maybe triggers for words not in the SS English dictionary. Could trigger duplicate alert, and who knows what else.

Then the reviewer looks at the description to see if it's proper for the subject,  license type is correct (Editorial or commercial) a  quick visual inspection and clicks accept or rejection reason.

But in the end, a human reviews every image that passes the basic standards for input.

« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2019, 15:17 »
0
Maybe the program filters are oriented in some way and a human clicks the program suggestion.


That's the best answer, and with reading and news and history, they have proprietary software to assist the reviewers.

First the system checks for size, file type, colorspace, some obvious things. That's before anyone sees them.

Then the software opens the file and shows the reviewer some measurements and analysis. Maybe triggers for words not in the SS English dictionary. Could trigger duplicate alert, and who knows what else.

Then the reviewer looks at the description to see if it's proper for the subject,  license type is correct (Editorial or commercial) a  quick visual inspection and clicks accept or rejection reason.

But in the end, a human reviews every image that passes the basic standards for input.

That makes sense to me, too, Pete.

« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2019, 17:14 »
+1
The point is that the suggestions are wrong. Don't know if they are based on metadata, shape, kw, titles or what...

You can skip that suggestions sometimes resubmitting but not in the similar content f.i.

Anyway It's stupid sending and sending every picture... meanwhile all of them are accepted in the rest of agencies.

It's hurting my workflow because I use to submit several pictures together when I can use the same keywords (f.i. several views of a building in a small series, and then I finish with that building). But know, this system use to take the worst one and reject the best. A lot of work to lose best seller pictures.

This is the most stupid business ever.


« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2019, 17:56 »
0

This is the most stupid business ever.

No argument there. Clearly, it is the most stupid business ever!

« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2019, 21:01 »
0
...
It's hurting my workflow because I use to submit several pictures together when I can use the same keywords (f.i. several views of a building in a small series, and then I finish with that building). ...

aren't you using metadata? then it wouldnt matter whether you submit one at a time or all in a batch

« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2019, 02:56 »
+1
...
It's hurting my workflow because I use to submit several pictures together when I can use the same keywords (f.i. several views of a building in a small series, and then I finish with that building). ...

aren't you using metadata? then it wouldnt matter whether you submit one at a time or all in a batch

I mean that I use to select files by groups. Now I'm always thinking in the SS problem when I revise my pictures to collect my batches.

I use text files and copy-paste.

« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2019, 09:03 »
+1
congrats Shutterstock, it's nice to finally be able to realize something after so long time. but... what about duplicated pictures were accepted for 15 years?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 09:09 by madman »


« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2019, 09:30 »
0
It's all about AI...i don't think any human being can be so inconsistent and stupid on curation...
I don't believe AI can be inconsistent. It is not one reviewer. Seems to me the quality control on reviewers is broken. If reviewers receive next to no training or supervision and are required to review at a ridiculous pace I wouldn't be surprised if some go bat dropping crazy.

Because you do not know how AI works. AI should be consistent in a real world but especially when it is still learning, it is not. If you have trained it on million images, it is still posiible that even one additional image incorporated to the learning can break what was already working (change the decision for images which have been on the borderline and they do not even have to have anything in common with the new one because of all the dependencies - one changed weight in the system will influence other...).

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2019, 16:05 »
0
It's all about AI...i don't think any human being can be so inconsistent and stupid on curation...
I don't believe AI can be inconsistent. It is not one reviewer. Seems to me the quality control on reviewers is broken. If reviewers receive next to no training or supervision and are required to review at a ridiculous pace I wouldn't be surprised if some go bat dropping crazy.

Because you do not know how AI works. AI should be consistent in a real world but especially when it is still learning, it is not. If you have trained it on million images, it is still posiible that even one additional image incorporated to the learning can break what was already working (change the decision for images which have been on the borderline and they do not even have to have anything in common with the new one because of all the dependencies - one changed weight in the system will influence other...).

Quite the opposite, AI relies on many results and the weight of those, plus the training, to make a decision, not one wrong results that changes the whole system. If one wrong entry changed everything, that would be a terribly flawed system.

In simpler terms, a machine learns by looking for patterns among massive data loads, and when it sees one, it adjusts the program to reflect the truth of what it found. The more data you expose the machine to, the smarter it gets. And when it sees enough patterns, it begins to make predictions.

The key is more data, not individual data.

I know how much everyone likes blaming AI or computers or some conspiracy, something outside of, as simple as, the reviewers make mistakes, or possibly the reviewers are doing what they are told to do. Yes, there's additional software to assist and analyze, but that's not AI. I know how many people say, "I'm right, the reviewer is an idiot" and get defensive. Of course, that stupid AI can't see how perfect our images.  :)

And before someone says they have had SS rejected images, accepted at XYZ, I've had Alamy rejected and Adobe rejected images, accepted at SS. Even stranger was one rejected at Adobe that is my best selling on DT (which is hardly saying much), but still, even between different agencies we get different reviews.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 16:10 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2019, 11:12 »
0
It's all about AI...i don't think any human being can be so inconsistent and stupid on curation...
I don't believe AI can be inconsistent. It is not one reviewer. Seems to me the quality control on reviewers is broken. If reviewers receive next to no training or supervision and are required to review at a ridiculous pace I wouldn't be surprised if some go bat dropping crazy.

Because you do not know how AI works. AI should be consistent in a real world but especially when it is still learning, it is not. If you have trained it on million images, it is still posiible that even one additional image incorporated to the learning can break what was already working (change the decision for images which have been on the borderline and they do not even have to have anything in common with the new one because of all the dependencies - one changed weight in the system will influence other...).
Possible yes likely not so much and it should be getting better on average not worse. The simpler explanation remains human failings.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
7354 Views
Last post April 06, 2009, 06:03
by Magnum
199 Replies
58972 Views
Last post October 28, 2011, 19:15
by Mantis
27 Replies
5993 Views
Last post July 31, 2013, 16:42
by Jo Ann Snover
11 Replies
4694 Views
Last post September 27, 2016, 03:27
by skysense
13 Replies
2206 Views
Last post January 28, 2019, 17:09
by Microstockphoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results