In my experience Alamy standards have dropped as I get stuff through that I wouldn't in the past.  I can't say I've noticed AS have raised standards...it may seem that way as everywhere else has dropped them!

All the agencies probably have a rating system on a per image basis. Higher rated images show up first in searches. The lowest rated images never show up unless the client search produces 0 results. The standards are just hidden from contributors in the form of better search algorithms.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 02, 2019, 15:56

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 02, 2019, 03:28

The majority of agencies get a tiny fraction of shutterstocks submissions. Shutterstock actively encourge submissions from everywhere. I am simply claiming that it is not economical to properly inspect possibly 2 million images weekly.  Each rejected image costs shutterstock money. Shutterstock are also spending money on an outsourced customer support service because of the number of naive customers with basic questions. I don't think the inspection process at any agency can currently be held up as any "examplar" of maintaining good content. They all face the same issue to a greater or lesser extent.

Alamy's system of sampling based on the track record of the contributor is probably the most sensible and this kind of statistical sampling is widely used in industry....

True they get more, and probably more trash. You need to tell them  that the test made some difference on the quality uploaded. Don't forget they also dropped their standards, so getting ten that passed became less relevant after that point. And I'd agree that their lack of monitoring theft for re-uploading, and lack of rational rejections of similar or sets of inch by inch, is a waste of resources.

Alamy has said, the reviewers are in a light controlled room, which if that hasn't changed, means they are on site not offshore click hires. Alamy has said that they can tell from looking at a page of thumbnails, if there are glaring errors. While not perfect, yes you are correct, they may spot check full size and glance at the upload, but not every one is individually checked at 100%.

Remember when IS and SS were possibly the two most critical sites for reviews? Alamy has maintained their standards, AS has raised theirs.

If there is anything allowing more Crapstock to appear on SS, it's the standards and the lack of trained reviewers who have some sense and discretion instead of "I'm just following orders". True the volume is higher, which I'd agree contributes to the sometimes idiotic rejections.

But I'm sticking with my opinion that the test doesn't change anything in a significant way, that would change the problems we are having sometimes with flawed reviews. The SS standards are so low that someone with a P&S on Auto could get 10 passing photos.

In my experience Alamy standards have dropped as I get stuff through that I wouldn't in the past.  I can't say I've noticed AS have raised standards...it may seem that way as everywhere else has dropped them! It still comes back to agencies want to minimise the cost of inspection...there are two ways of doing that..reduce the garbage coming in or reduce the time spent inspecting. They seem to prefer the latter. The other aspect of Alamy is one fails all fail....that would help too.

AS has raised standards compared to Fotolia, for content, quality and rejecting similars. Not that they changed since or after they fully took over. So roughly since 2016 when they raised the standards, not recently.

Not sure about Alamy as my interest comes and goes. I don't push the limits for rejections, just because of what you wrote. Back when... I uploaded a single image, when I had doubts, because I didn't want to waste the time uploading and having a whole batch rejected. I'd agree that Alamy has encouraged stronger self review with the one fail all fail policy and maybe kept some people away.

Alamy still rejects for unsuitable camera.

What Alamy did change that I appreciate is that stupid size requirement from years ago. I mean we were rats on the wheel, making perfectly fine images into Alamy size, up-scaling, so they could meet the requirements. Another one of those, what took them so long to figure that out?

IS and SS have positively dropped standards. Images that I wouldn't even try to upload, I've found in the "hold not uploaded" folder Now and then I see one that I'll drop on SS or IS. Same for when I saved rejected images. I see one, and think, that might be good. Sure enough, they pass now.

As I understand it once you are in Istock you only get rejections for legal/copyright reasons. I don't know if they still do the test. Though it was only three images it was super tough the slightest imperfection and you were toast. I  used to be extremely careful with Alamy and I avoided anything borderline. From probably about a couple of years back I started pushing the boundary and don't recall having a batch rejected.

In fairness some "lowering" of standards was probably appropriate as customers mostly do not require that standard. Actually on news sites like the BBC badly exposed slanted images seem to be seen as advantageous. If you are well known enough poor quality magically turns into artistic effect ;-).

One of the magazines I used to work for, had some of the worst, out of focus, fuzzy, or soft, poorly exposed images. What do you know, the person who wrote the reports used his own images and ignored mine and others.

I'll make an IS test if I get "inspired" and find the reject bin from years ago. I can test that theory, but I don't doubt you at all. I wanted to round up my portfolio there just for the even number.

It would be interessting to know how much reviewers are paid. If they touch flat rate for each image they can be tempted to rejecte simply because it is much faster than  review at 100% all details.
So maybe not so idiots, simply unprofessional and greedy like other SS staff...

Its not usually the individuals who may be scratching a living that are idiots its usually the design of the system by clever people who are not quite as clever as they think they are. Its hard to be "professional" if you are paid by volume rather than quality.

Quote from: rene on Yesterday at 05:07

It would be interessting to know how much reviewers are paid. If they touch flat rate for each image they can be tempted to rejecte simply because it is much faster than  review at 100% all details.
So maybe not so idiots, simply unprofessional and greedy like other SS staff...

Its not usually the individuals who may be scratching a living that are idiots its usually the design of the system by clever people who are not quite as clever as they think they are. Its hard to be "professional" if you are paid by volume rather than quality.

Yes to both and all of that. Old days reviewers were paid by images reviewed, but like everything else, times have changed. If SS pays 5 cents a review, that could explain some of the speed reviewing with flawed results. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some of our reviews are done by some outsourced agency that controls and trains people to be reviewers.

In a number of ways, that reduces costs for SS by, for example, paying Ganesh Technology in India to do reviews on a contract basis. No legal wrangling with the IRS, on if the person is a contractor or employee, tax people like to get picky. The IRS and the states want more money. So SS pays a contractor who gets all the complications and headaches. 100% conjecture.

No I'm not saying this is better for us, just tossing out another scenario.