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

They are stupid AF. 

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.

It's all about AI...i don't think any human being can be so inconsistent and stupid on curation...

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.

Any AI with massive bugs will do a better job than the monkeys they've hired as of late

Quote from: Visualab on November 22, 2019, 15:48

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..

I uploaded files buyers specifically requested with elements they�ve already approved and they rejected them for not having reference images. I really don�t 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 hadn�t been requested.

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.

Quote from: Medstockphotos on November 23, 2019, 13:18

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.   

Quote from: marthamarks on November 23, 2019, 18:34

Quote from: Medstockphotos on November 23, 2019, 13:18

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.

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.

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.

...
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

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?

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 23, 2019, 03:10

Quote from: Visualab on November 22, 2019, 15:48

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.

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

They are stupid AF.

Can you upload the MR that was "invalid" so we can see?

Quote from: Harlem on December 06, 2019, 11:04

Quote from: helloitsme on November 22, 2019, 09:28

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

They are stupid AF.

Can you upload the MR that was "invalid" so we can see?

A model release is confidential and it would break all kinds of data protection rules to post someone's personal details here.

Anyone who can edit a photo can redact the privacy parts!  Just like "my photo was rejected for focus and it's tack sharp" once we see them, sometimes the OP didn't look at 100% or if it was lighting or artifacts, missed the actual problem.

Without looking at a release, minus personal information, no one here can be psychic and guess why it was rejected. Remember, when someone finally discovered that full names, no initials were making releases invalid? Or not matching dates, maybe a missing date. There are all kinds of reasons (Not that I think they need to have all that nit picking detail for everything) that can cause a release to be invalid.

They aren't refusing their own release, they are refusing what's on that release. Lets be clear on that?

Oh it's the weekend, hold onto my ass. I uploaded 21 new at Noon Friday, one was rejected for no reference image, it's not anything that needs a reference image. Illustrative Editorial. Now nothing reviewed overnight, and for 24 hours. I may be wrong or being superstitious, but weekend reviews are worse than weekday reviews. Speed and reviewer understanding. What makes me think the US team is offline from about Friday Noon until Monday Noon?



Yeah my own imaginary conspiracy that's been around for years, but I never wanted to admit that.

The problem is its quite possibly the private parts of the release that are the source of the problem.....

That too, in which case, we'd never know. But starting at the beginning, we can't know anything if we can't see the release? There are far too many basic issues that could cause the rejection.

It's not extra work for me. I like to see each file one by one and keep them in order.

Plus I don't use PC or Mac.