Author Topic: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why? (Read 79254 times)

Slovenian · « **Reply #100 on:** August 10, 2011, 18:02 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on August 10, 2011, 17:54

I've noticed that a lot of my images that fail to get on the big sites, get sales on smaller sites, which goes to show that it's not that the buyers don't want them, they just can't get past the reviewers on the big sites.

I don't fail at any of the big sites besides SS. That's what bothers me the most. I get a rejection here and there at IS, but usually it gets accepted if I make some minor adjustments. Or if I think there's nothing wrong with it I submit it again and it usually gets accepted. But SS is on a whole new level lately

.

What I agree on, is that it's a lottery

sharpshot · « **Reply #101 on:** August 11, 2011, 01:40 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on August 10, 2011, 17:54

...And I really can't differentiate between the ones that get online and the ones that are rejected. I mean what's the difference, why do some get through and others don't. It's just luck of the draw...

Quite often ones that I think are least likely to make money are accepted and those that I think will definitely sell are rejected.

It feels worse with SS than it does with DT because I usually make over 4x the earnings with them. They might not want to give their subs buyers more choice but what about the PPD buyers? I now make more with PPD buyers with SS than I do with DT but they need to look at other sites to see most of my new images. It takes away my incentive to keep producing new images. I'm finding it really hard to stay interested in microstock if it's just going to end up a stagnant pool of old images.

Carl · « **Reply #102 on:** August 11, 2011, 06:11 »

Based on my experience, I've come to the conclusion that the following criteria are used by the inspectors in determining whether or not to approve an image:

+ Weather
+ Outdoor temperature
+ Indoor temperature
+ The phase of the moon
+ The health of the inspector's pet
+ Whether or not the inspector's sciatica is acting up
+ Whether or not the inspector "got any" the night before

There may be other criteria that I haven't discovered yet, but these allow us to plan our work in ways that increase our chances for acceptance.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #103 on:** August 11, 2011, 08:48 »

Quote from: csproductions on August 11, 2011, 06:11

Based on my experience, I've come to the conclusion that the following criteria are used by the inspectors in determining whether or not to approve an image:

+ Weather
+ Outdoor temperature
+ Indoor temperature
+ The phase of the moon
+ The health of the inspector's pet
+ Whether or not the inspector's sciatica is acting up
+ Whether or not the inspector "got any" the night before

There may be other criteria that I haven't discovered yet, but these allow us to plan our work in ways that increase our chances for acceptance.

Lol! The weather one is definitely an influence. It sucks to be indoors when the sun is shining. I'll do some research on the phase of the moon. "Whether or not the inspector "got any" the night before" Lets just hope they start going at it like rabbits.

michaeldb · « **Reply #104 on:** August 11, 2011, 16:03 »

Quote from: sharpshot on August 11, 2011, 01:40

Quite often ones that I think are least likely to make money are accepted and those that I think will definitely sell are rejected.
... I'm finding it really hard to stay interested in microstock if it's just going to end up a stagnant pool of old images.

I have been reading Sharpshot's posts on this subject, and I hope SS has been too, because I agree with everythng he has said. My experience and thoughts with the new rejections at SS are the same, and I do vectors. I have cut my submissions there down by over 75% and I feel gloomy when I even think about submitting to SS.
The only bright spots I see are:
1. Since SS is rejecting so many good new images, I think it hits us oldtimers less hard, since buyers have to buy old images when the supply of good new ones is reduced.
2. Whatever SS's true reasons for the rejections are (cut reviewing costs or whatever), the policy may have been implemented intentionally at the slow time of year, and maybe will end by Labor day, when micrsotock sales will increase across all the sites (except maybe IS

)

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #105 on:** August 11, 2011, 16:40 »

I'm starting to see a difference (knocking on wood). New images are not selling but a few are getting accepted.

And, it is so rewarding (in a revenge sort of way) when I get an EL at SS on an image recently rejected by DT.

Mantis · « **Reply #106 on:** August 11, 2011, 21:06 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 11, 2011, 14:24

Quote from: Mantis on June 10, 2011, 20:40
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.

I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.

Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?

Get over it. I never mentioned anyone's name. Just because you think you know who he/she is doesn't mean my comment was finger pointing. And this thread is about SS rejections and it is an appropriate observation relevant to this conversation.

gbalex · « **Reply #107 on:** August 11, 2011, 22:33 »

Quote from: Mantis on August 11, 2011, 21:06

Quote from: heywoody on June 11, 2011, 14:24
Quote from: Mantis on June 10, 2011, 20:40
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.

I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.

Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?

Get over it. I never mentioned anyone's name. Just because you think you know who he/she is doesn't mean my comment was finger pointing. And this thread is about SS rejections and it is an appropriate observation relevant to this conversation.

If we rise above personalities and listen to your message, it is hard to ignore the facts. The review process at SS has serious issues; as you mentioned it has been clear for years that SS accepts virtually anything from some submitters while others are subjected to very stiff review standards. Whether those who have been given a pass have different reviewers or go through no review at all has been a topic of speculation for years.

SS obviously does not care that a good many of us have lost respect for the company as a consequence and I doubt we will see them addressing the issue any time soon!

Carl · « **Reply #108 on:** August 12, 2011, 04:46 »

Although the inspection process could use some adjustments, IMHO, I get more action in a day on the images that get approved than I get on other sites in a month. The flip side of that coin is that with 33 cents per download (as a general rule), I need a lot more activity to translate that activity into decent $$. For instance, I've got 34 downloads so far this month, and only $17. That's just wrong! But that's just the reality, so hi ho, hi ho, it's off to shoot I go...

heywoody · « **Reply #109 on:** August 12, 2011, 18:17 »

Quote from: Mantis on August 11, 2011, 21:06

Quote from: heywoody on June 11, 2011, 14:24
Quote from: Mantis on June 10, 2011, 20:40
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.

I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.

Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?

Get over it. I never mentioned anyone's name. Just because you think you know who he/she is doesn't mean my comment was finger pointing. And this thread is about SS rejections and it is an appropriate observation relevant to this conversation.

I know EXACTLY who you were talking about and, if I do, ANYONE with an account at SS will too. How is this NOT finger pointing? I simply happen to think that criticising an identifiable individual in a public forum, who is not a participant and whose work in not particularly relevant to the conversation, is unacceptable. To do so from within a cloak of anonymity is just plain cowardly.
Similarly, your opinions about your “excellent images” vs someone else’s “crap” and a sub sale at SS will earn me $0.25.
The idea that acceptance / rejection depends on who you are rather than what you submit is just silly. More likely you are either submitting technically good stuff but not what they feel they need at the moment (IS is a good home for these) or the images are just not as excellent as you think they are. In any case, I’m not the one who needs to “get over it”.

Mantis · « **Reply #110 on:** August 15, 2011, 16:28 »

Quote from: heywoody on August 12, 2011, 18:17

Quote from: Mantis on August 11, 2011, 21:06
Quote from: heywoody on June 11, 2011, 14:24
Quote from: Mantis on June 10, 2011, 20:40
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.

I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.

Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?

Get over it. I never mentioned anyone's name. Just because you think you know who he/she is doesn't mean my comment was finger pointing. And this thread is about SS rejections and it is an appropriate observation relevant to this conversation.
I know EXACTLY who you were talking about and, if I do, ANYONE with an account at SS will too. How is this NOT finger pointing? I simply happen to think that criticising an identifiable individual in a public forum, who is not a participant and whose work in not particularly relevant to the conversation, is unacceptable. To do so from within a cloak of anonymity is just plain cowardly.
Similarly, your opinions about your “excellent images” vs someone else’s “crap” and a sub sale at SS will earn me $0.25.
The idea that acceptance / rejection depends on who you are rather than what you submit is just silly. More likely you are either submitting technically good stuff but not what they feel they need at the moment (IS is a good home for these) or the images are just not as excellent as you think they are. In any case, I’m not the one who needs to “get over it”.

Sorry, Woody, I disagree with you flat out. But that's fine. This is why forums like this add value...varying opinions. But the truth seems to hurt. There is a clear double standard at SS and I brought up an example. Because you think that example finger points means in your eyes I am wrong for bringing it up because I choose to be anonymous here. That doesn't mean I don't make valid posts on MSG. I merely pointed out a clear example of why some contributors get frustrated submitting to SS and you spun it into being a personal poke at an individual. So, as I said, we simply disagree. By the way, I had three people PM me asking who I was talking about. So your argument is without merit. I am also close to MANY high end contributors who are refraining from uploading because of the mess they've created. My post was based on my personal and anecdotal experience with other submitters.

heywoody · « **Reply #111 on:** August 15, 2011, 18:39 »

To put the thing in some sort of context, I will argue for the sake of the argument. Having said that, and, even though I don't actually know very much compared to most of you guys about producing stock imagery or about the industry, I do believe I understand the acceptance policies of the big 4 supported by my own experience and the evidence of comments in the various fora (already outlined and won't bore you again). The argument that certain folks are favoured is not supported by any evidence:

a. We don't know if the person concerned is also getting a lot of rejections on current submissions or whether much of the existing port would pass if submitted now
b. I have virtually no rejections on SS - I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm producing anything special so there must be tens of thousands of bit players in the same position, none of whom are significant enough to warrent any special favour.

Mantis · « **Reply #112 on:** August 15, 2011, 18:42 »

Quote from: heywoody on August 15, 2011, 18:39

To put the thing in some sort of context, I will argue for the sake of the argument. Having said that, and, even though I don't actually know very much compared to most of you guys about producing stock imagery or about the industry, I do believe I understand the acceptance policies of the big 4 supported by my own experience and the evidence of comments in the various fora (already outlined and won't bore you again). The argument that certain folks are favoured is not supported by any evidence:

a. We don't know if the person concerned is also getting a lot of rejections on current submissions or whether much of the existing port would pass if submitted now
b. I have virtually no rejections on SS - I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm producing anything special so there must be tens of thousands of bit players in the same position, none of whom are significant enough to warrent any special favour.

Fair enough.

Slovenian · « **Reply #113 on:** August 16, 2011, 01:33 »

I still can't get the greater part of my last series online at SS

(while it's been excepted everywhere else, 21/21 everywhere, just IS rejected one). I think they'll drive a few ppl into IS exclusivity (since IS still is the 2nd best earner for most, way ahead of the rest and earnings of those who get most good content rejected at SS will sooner or later dry up). A lot more ppl will just stop uploading there. I'll give them another shot with a new series I hope to shoot soon (actually I hope to shoot at least 4 by the end of August) and if they'll just reject the whole series, I'll take a break over there. And than see what happens in the next month or 2. I'll sure carefully read these threads.

heywoody · « **Reply #114 on:** August 16, 2011, 08:32 »

Quote from: Slovenian on August 16, 2011, 01:33

I still can't get the greater part of my last series online at SS (while it's been excepted everywhere else, 21/21 everywhere, just IS rejected one). I think they'll drive a few ppl into IS exclusivity (since IS still is the 2nd best earner for most, way ahead of the rest and earnings of those who get most good content rejected at SS will sooner or later dry up). A lot more ppl will just stop uploading there. I'll give them another shot with a new series I hope to shoot soon (actually I hope to shoot at least 4 by the end of August) and if they'll just reject the whole series, I'll take a break over there. And than see what happens in the next month or 2. I'll sure carefully read these threads.

This is the risk they run. I don't know if folks with good earning ports on SS will give it all up and go exclusive on IS BUT there is a high chance that some better contributors will stop uploading. Obviously they won't care that they won't be offered stuff they don't want but they may care about not being offered stuff they do want

Slovenian · « **Reply #115 on:** August 17, 2011, 05:43 »

Any news guys, are you gettin' sheat through? My new work is like a river that can't get through the dam

.

Xalanx · « **Reply #116 on:** August 17, 2011, 06:03 »

100% approval. Studio work, lately.

rubyroo · « **Reply #117 on:** August 17, 2011, 07:18 »

No problems with acceptances here.

Slovenian · « **Reply #118 on:** August 17, 2011, 07:20 »

Quote from: Xalanx on August 17, 2011, 06:03

100% approval. Studio work, lately.

Yes that apparently still goes through without a problem. It looks like they mostly want brightly, evenly lit boring studio shots (not saying yours are, of course), preferably isolated one white. Why do they want to return to 2005. This really is passe, nobody's buying it anymore

Daevid · « **Reply #119 on:** August 17, 2011, 07:36 »

My vectors are now suffering from 100% rejection. Up until recently, I'd say I had about 0% rejection. Oh well, at least their standards have gone up if they are finally rejecting my crap

Xalanx · « **Reply #120 on:** August 17, 2011, 07:37 »

Quote from: Slovenian on August 17, 2011, 07:20

Quote from: Xalanx on August 17, 2011, 06:03
100% approval. Studio work, lately.

Yes that apparently still goes through without a problem. It looks like they mostly want brightly, evenly lit boring studio shots (not saying yours are, of course), preferably isolated one white. Why do they want to return to 2005. This really is passe, nobody's buying it anymore

whether to make it on white or not is entirely your choice. This is from my latest batch:

And stuff on white sells too, if you do it alright.

Slovenian · « **Reply #121 on:** August 17, 2011, 07:45 »

Quote from: Xalanx on August 17, 2011, 07:37

Quote from: Slovenian on August 17, 2011, 07:20
Quote from: Xalanx on August 17, 2011, 06:03
100% approval. Studio work, lately.

Yes that apparently still goes through without a problem. It looks like they mostly want brightly, evenly lit boring studio shots (not saying yours are, of course), preferably isolated one white. Why do they want to return to 2005. This really is passe, nobody's buying it anymore

whether to make it on white or not is entirely your choice. This is from my latest batch:

And stuff on white sells too, if you do it alright.

Nicely lit. You're lucky it wasn't rejected for uneven lighting (by their poor reviewers standards of course), I got the last batch rejected for it a few times.

I wouldn't really know about white isolations, I just know mine sell way worse than on location shots or at least a studio shot with a non white bg. And looking at what sells in the last few years you don't see a lot of isolated shots among the top sellers.

Slovenian · « **Reply #122 on:** August 18, 2011, 14:57 »

I got this email today:

You have been consistently resubmitting rejected images. This behavior violates Shutterstock guidelines and is not permitted.

Continuing this action will risk account suspension. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Regards,

Shutterstock Content Operations

If you have any questions, please contact support at [email protected]

Thank You.

--ShutterStock Support

Just to let you know don't resubmit them more than once, since you might get your port deleted. It's just so frustrating seeing perfectly good images rejected and loosing tens, hundreds or for some even thousands of dollars. I really hope sales at other sites pick up and make up the loss I'm already having at SS

tab62 · « **Reply #123 on:** August 18, 2011, 15:06 »

Which gym does she belong to? I might have to cancel my Balley's membership LOL!

Slovenian · « **Reply #124 on:** August 18, 2011, 15:49 »

And got 1/5 from the series I shot yesterday accepted. Now I'm making headway, lol!

I think I'm off from uploading until I see some signs (in one of these threads) of improving or better yet, things getting back to the way they were. It'll be good for my sanity

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why? (Read 79254 times)

Slovenian

sharpshot

Carl

Microstock Posts

michaeldb

WarrenPrice

Mantis

gbalex

Carl

heywoody

Mantis

heywoody

Mantis

Slovenian

heywoody

Slovenian

Xalanx

rubyroo

Slovenian

Daevid

Xalanx

Slovenian

Slovenian

tab62

Slovenian

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors