pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots  (Read 13753 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: November 14, 2019, 06:21 »
0
You may reply that they have to correct your ticket status and that you are not in a "customer" relation with them.

also...

to add something like...

"your feedback is .....highly appreciated"

:P


« Reply #126 on: November 14, 2019, 09:23 »
+1
So, just now, after sending back their own questionnaire to them overnight, I woke up to the following reply:

***************
Hi Martha,

Thank you for your response. We are waiting for an update from our dedicated team. Once I receive any update on the issue, I will definitely inform you regarding the resolution.
 
Thanks,
Abhay
Shutterstock Contributor Care Team

***************

This must be what it felt like when Alice fell down the rabbit hole.

« Reply #127 on: November 14, 2019, 12:51 »
0
The survey is from the Shutterstock Contributor Care Team, who don't work for Shutterstock.  Once there work is done i.e referred back to Shutterstock (our dedicated team) they send the survey for your say with regards to the bit that they have done for you.  The dedicated team will be the people in charge of the reviewers or those in charge of AI, who one would imagine would work in concert to improve the AI.  If the reviewing department do a good job they would do themselves out of a job, since it's been several years since the introduction of the AI they obviously don't want to do that.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #128 on: November 14, 2019, 13:20 »
+3
Martha's kinder version of idiots or stupid, GRP = "Goofy Reviewer Problem.  :)

I'm happy to add a new acronym, GRP, to the MSG vocabulary! :)

This morning, I got the following response back from the Shutterstock Contributor Care Team:

Hi Martha,

We will reach out to the review manager regarding the content in question and get back to you as soon as possible. Should you need any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Your patience and cooperation would be highly appreciated.


The part about my patience and cooperation being highly appreciated sounded promising, but I'm still waiting for an answer as to why of 2 of 11 videos submitted of the same state park were accepted while 9 were not, when none of them had a property release.

I'll post an update when I have one.

Good luck...
I"ve been waiting months...still not response...

They like her better than the rest of us, she actually gets a stupid canned reply, while we don't even get that.  :)

« Reply #129 on: November 14, 2019, 13:58 »
+1
It's a program. The same one on SS and BS.

Can't find how to skip it, but I'm still learning.

Computers are stupid.

if it were a computer results wouldn't vary - we've shown that's not the case

unless it is doing some sort of machine learning - where it does change over time.

machine learning on ONE BATCH?  impossible

« Reply #130 on: November 14, 2019, 14:06 »
0
It's a program. The same one on SS and BS.

Can't find how to skip it, but I'm still learning.

Computers are stupid.

if it were a computer results wouldn't vary - we've shown that's not the case

unless it is doing some sort of machine learning - where it does change over time.

machine learning on ONE BATCH?  impossible

It's only one batch it it's yours, how about splitting several thousand batches between moderators and AI to find out how to improve things.

« Reply #131 on: November 14, 2019, 15:02 »
+1
Martha's kinder version of idiots or stupid, GRP = "Goofy Reviewer Problem.  :)

I'm happy to add a new acronym, GRP, to the MSG vocabulary! :)

This morning, I got the following response back from the Shutterstock Contributor Care Team:

Hi Martha,

We will reach out to the review manager regarding the content in question and get back to you as soon as possible. Should you need any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Your patience and cooperation would be highly appreciated.


The part about my patience and cooperation being highly appreciated sounded promising, but I'm still waiting for an answer as to why of 2 of 11 videos submitted of the same state park were accepted while 9 were not, when none of them had a property release.

I'll post an update when I have one.

Good luck...
I"ve been waiting months...still not response...

They like her better than the rest of us, she actually gets a stupid canned reply, while we don't even get that.  :)

Yeah, the sweet little old lady with the white hair gets a polite canned response. Everybody else gets the shaft.

Welcome to the 21st Century (nearly the 3rd decade of it). You and I, Pete, are old enough to remember when almost everybody treated almost everybody else better.

« Reply #132 on: November 14, 2019, 19:21 »
0
It's a program. The same one on SS and BS.

Can't find how to skip it, but I'm still learning.

Computers are stupid.

if it were a computer results wouldn't vary - we've shown that's not the case

unless it is doing some sort of machine learning - where it does change over time.

machine learning on ONE BATCH?  impossible

It's only one batch it it's yours, how about splitting several thousand batches between moderators and AI to find out how to improve things.

that's a different topic - the claim was that an AI WAS working individual batches -- yet another claim that can't face the facts

« Reply #133 on: November 16, 2019, 08:08 »
+1
A human can not reject for this reason:

Objectionable Metadata -- Metadata contains potentially objectionable or offensive language.

LOL.

A beach... summer,sand,sea,umbrella,sunbathing,people...

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #134 on: November 16, 2019, 10:10 »
+1
Martha's kinder version of idiots or stupid, GRP = "Goofy Reviewer Problem.  :)

I'm happy to add a new acronym, GRP, to the MSG vocabulary! :)

This morning, I got the following response back from the Shutterstock Contributor Care Team:

Hi Martha,

We will reach out to the review manager regarding the content in question and get back to you as soon as possible. Should you need any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Your patience and cooperation would be highly appreciated.


The part about my patience and cooperation being highly appreciated sounded promising, but I'm still waiting for an answer as to why of 2 of 11 videos submitted of the same state park were accepted while 9 were not, when none of them had a property release.

I'll post an update when I have one.

Good luck...
I"ve been waiting months...still not response...

They like her better than the rest of us, she actually gets a stupid canned reply, while we don't even get that.  :)

Yeah, the sweet little old lady with the white hair gets a polite canned response. Everybody else gets the shaft.

Welcome to the 21st Century (nearly the 3rd decade of it). You and I, Pete, are old enough to remember when almost everybody treated almost everybody else better.

I worked as a company representative for many years. My job was helping customers solve problems, in person, reviewing manufacturing and giving answers. We didn't do that by ignoring them.  ;D

Yup one of those Boomers!  8) I don't know why that's supposed to be offensive, it's the truth and a fact?

« Reply #135 on: November 16, 2019, 15:05 »
+5
A human can not reject for this reason:

Objectionable Metadata -- Metadata contains potentially objectionable or offensive language.

LOL.

A beach... summer,sand,sea,umbrella,sunbathing,people...
A human can quite easily tick the wrong check box especially when they are required to inspect god knows how many images a minute. Both machines and humans are capabable of doing incredibly stupid things.

« Reply #136 on: November 18, 2019, 14:24 »
+3
Dont think it's just the reviewers who might be idiots, but the support staff as well.

Just got a rejection for an invalid model release. When I asked why support their reply was my model release doesnt meet for their format requirements and therefore is not acceptable. I need to use a different release from their accepted list of companies they accept releases from.


I used the shutterstock release form....

Lol now what

« Last Edit: November 18, 2019, 14:28 by txking »

« Reply #137 on: November 18, 2019, 18:30 »
+1
I'm sure that SS, BS and AS are using programs to review the pictures. Maybe humans too, maybe a mixed system.

No doubt about it.

Yes I think they are using both. in the last few weeks I've had batches rejected as I submit for invalid reasons (too quick to reach a human queue), and I've had batches take a couple of days to process (human queue) with sensible results.

Quess they're just getting too many pics to proberly check and just throwing the excess (majority) to a machine.

Quess everyone has had this email!

"Hey contributors! Great things are happening. We have some exciting updates coming up for our Shutterstock contributors. "

Maybe they're gonna switch that machine off ;D

« Reply #138 on: November 18, 2019, 19:11 »
0
i wanna barge in at the ss offices  and destroy that machine into tiny pieces go and reject me if you can  :D :D :D

OM

« Reply #139 on: November 19, 2019, 06:17 »
+1
The speed with which I just had 5 pics reviewed tells me that mammalian reviewers do not enter into it. I sent the files off from one laptop and when I went to look at my contributor page (within 2 minutes), I had nothing pending and all 5 had already been reviewed reviewed with one rejection for over/underlit. I never resubmit rejections to SS so I'll see what Adobe does with the same 5.

Anyone who has ever gone to the buyer page of SS, entered something into search, chosen an image and then scrolled down to see what SS AI suggests as 'similars' will know that AI at SS only goes on visual patterns and does not take any keywords into account because often the 'similars' are nonsense and bear absolutely no relation to the keyword used to search. 

« Reply #140 on: November 19, 2019, 08:32 »
0
Instant Review Era.

« Reply #141 on: November 19, 2019, 09:04 »
+1
Here's a final report on my most recent Adventures in Submitting to Shutterstock:

I never got a response from the self-described "Dedicated Team" that supposedly was considering my appeal. Dead silence.

Maybe they are bots too? Or so overworked by contributor complaints that they can't be bothered to reply? Or that team doesn't exist and their non-existence is just a way for Anyta or Divya or whoever picks up the original complaint to deflect.

Anyway this past weekend, after getting a couple dozen other public lands videos from my Nevada trip accepted without property releases, I re-uploaded and resubmitted all of the previously rejected Beaver Dam State Park videos. As of this morning, they are all accepted.

So all's well that ends well. I guess.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2019, 09:17 by marthamarks »


« Reply #142 on: November 19, 2019, 11:33 »
+2

Anyway this past weekend, after getting a couple dozen other public lands videos from my Nevada trip accepted without property releases, I re-uploaded and resubmitted all of the previously rejected Beaver Dam State Park videos. As of this morning, they are all accepted.

So all's well that ends well. I guess.

IMO it'll only "end well" if you enjoy some sales. Far too much incompetence to have to contend with. Good luck with the submissions.

« Reply #143 on: November 19, 2019, 11:55 »
0
i9nstant review means in practice , upload what you want we accept it and after 20 condo the image is going to be thrown in the garbage.....thst' a statement of what i always say...in ss everything is already decided,,,you have lot of popular images thanks for them to being approved 3 4 5 years ago, you can earn, if not your earning will be the same, new content cannot impact at all.

is not a case that in adobe and getty i sold practically 75% of image uploaded in the last year, while in ss is ik 5% new images every month and 9%% old images, older than 2018, mostly from 2016 the last year they checked files, then opened the gates....the only thing that can change this for me is a big huge lost in the next financial quarter, maybe this bell will make them understand that customer don't want browse through millions of garbage images. look the doom and gloom thread in ss...browse some portfolio of those who on't sell anything....how in the earth ss accepted those files? i'm really ashamed to upload to ss.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2019, 11:58 by jonbull »

« Reply #144 on: November 19, 2019, 12:17 »
0

Anyway this past weekend, after getting a couple dozen other public lands videos from my Nevada trip accepted without property releases, I re-uploaded and resubmitted all of the previously rejected Beaver Dam State Park videos. As of this morning, they are all accepted.

So all's well that ends well. I guess.

IMO it'll only "end well" if you enjoy some sales. Far too much incompetence to have to contend with. Good luck with the submissions.

Thank you!

« Reply #145 on: November 19, 2019, 12:34 »
0
The speed with which I just had 5 pics reviewed tells me that mammalian reviewers do not enter into it. I sent the files off from one laptop and when I went to look at my contributor page (within 2 minutes), I had nothing pending and all 5 had already been reviewed reviewed with one rejection for over/underlit. I never resubmit rejections to SS so I'll see what Adobe does with the same 5.

Anyone who has ever gone to the buyer page of SS, entered something into search, chosen an image and then scrolled down to see what SS AI suggests as 'similars' will know that AI at SS only goes on visual patterns and does not take any keywords into account because often the 'similars' are nonsense and bear absolutely no relation to the keyword used to search.

it's impossible to earn like this...buyer will never look at new images...they go to relevant and buy always the same stuff..that's why those ho sold in the past are still selling a lot even uploading few images per year...that's a shame. compared to other agency...even getty with their 15& royalty lok a paradise in the last months for selling new images.i repeat we must cross fingers that they began heavily losing customer and money, contributors are not considered but this who own stocks yes, and if stocks being plummeting they should realize the mess they are doing to this company.

« Reply #146 on: November 22, 2019, 20:33 »
+1
just another piece of anecdotia:

I was uploading 200 images earlier this week, and started submitting while still uploading on a slow wifi. by the time I had finished submitting, most had already been accepted, and the rest were processed within the hour. 4 sold overnight, and several more the next day.  what?!  (note added - the previous word was actually the following 3 letters: w-t-f  but Mrs Grundy decided to edit me!)
« Last Edit: November 22, 2019, 20:55 by cascoly »

« Reply #147 on: November 22, 2019, 21:22 »
0
just another piece of anecdotia:

I was uploading 200 images earlier this week, and started submitting while still uploading on a slow wifi. by the time I had finished submitting, most had already been accepted, and the rest were processed within the hour. 4 sold overnight, and several more the next day.  what?!  (note added - the previous word was actually the following 3 letters: w-t-f  but Mrs Grundy decided to edit me!)

Rejoice and be glad! :D

« Reply #148 on: November 23, 2019, 13:05 »
+1
just another piece of anecdotia:

I was uploading 200 images earlier this week, and started submitting while still uploading on a slow wifi. by the time I had finished submitting, most had already been accepted, and the rest were processed within the hour. 4 sold overnight, and several more the next day.  what?!  (note added - the previous word was actually the following 3 letters: w-t-f  but Mrs Grundy decided to edit me!)

Rejoice and be glad! :D

yep - i'm sure it will be back to  'normal' shortly!

« Reply #149 on: November 23, 2019, 20:56 »
+1
I think that using non-professional reviewers means you are always going to see inconsistent decisions.

I remember last year uploading a bunch of very different illustrations based on a single photograph. They were very varied. Shutterstock took about 2/3rds of them. Adobe took 4 - the original image made into an illustration and 3 different color variations of that original image, which were similar to each other. But then they rejected all of the other very different illustrations when the only thing they had in common was that I had used the same image as a starting point.  If I hadn't uploaded that original image as a "property release," I think they would have accepted most, if not all, of the others

Even more inconsistent was their decision to accept all 32 illustrations of another subject I uploaded at the same Those 32 backgrounds all used the same basic elements (hand drawn, so no "property release"). After uploading, I thought I'd probably gone a bit overboard, and I figured most of them would get rejected. But SS, DT and Adobe took all 32. Go figure.

Of course, the stuff Adobe rejected is selling on SS and DT (or was until this month - I think this is my worst November since I started back in 2008)

I even had one flawless image that Alamy licensed to Travel and Leisure, rejected by one of the micros for "artifacts." Maybe the reviewer had dirt on their screen? It's the exact same file Alamy took with their pixel peeping and has sold there and via my site for $$$. Flawless in print but not good enough for a micro? Seriously, I re-checked the file at 200% on my retina screen and on my iMac. 

I guess you just have to shrug and move on.

The most telling I suppose was some years ago when I made $375 on DT for a single $750 one-year exclusive sale of an image that had already sold many times before there. I guess I should thank the other sites' reviewers because the only reason it was exclusive on DT was because every other site had rejected it as not being commercially viable.

It's very frustrating to get such inconsistent acceptances and rejections. If a file is rejected somewhere, another site would usually take it, and generally I'll feel vindicated that the inspectors were wrong when it sells elsewhere.

 



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
10042 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
957 Replies
123110 Views
Last post November 04, 2015, 14:39
by cascoly
22 Replies
4986 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
33848 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
4 Replies
828 Views
Last post November 17, 2019, 16:53
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results