Author Topic: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots (Read 38319 times)

m · « **Reply #175 on:** December 03, 2019, 10:51 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 03, 2019, 03:11

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.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #176 on:** December 03, 2019, 10:55 »

Quote from: martinrichard on December 03, 2019, 10:51

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 03, 2019, 03:11
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.

I very much doubt that...have you done any searches?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #177 on:** December 03, 2019, 13:04 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 03, 2019, 03:11

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.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #178 on:** December 03, 2019, 13:55 »

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 ;-).

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #179 on:** December 03, 2019, 14:03 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 03, 2019, 13:55

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.

rene · « **Reply #180 on:** December 05, 2019, 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...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #181 on:** December 05, 2019, 08:22 »

Quote from: rene on December 05, 2019, 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.

Medstockphotos · « **Reply #182 on:** December 05, 2019, 15:58 »

Quote from: rene on December 05, 2019, 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...

I think that's why we get so many rejections for minute deficiencies in model/property releases. Much easier to find some small erroneous detail in a paper release than scrutinize a photo. "T" not crossed? "I" not dotted? 5 seconds to push the "reject' button, collect a nickel, and on to the next....

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #183 on:** December 05, 2019, 16:02 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 05, 2019, 08:22

Quote from: rene on December 05, 2019, 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.

Artist · « **Reply #184 on:** December 09, 2019, 07:13 »

Still they are rejecting almost 80% of my content saying similar.. I wish to cry.
Cry, not bcoz of my rejection, but with question on how can such a good company do not wish to listen to contributors and update their system.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #185 on:** December 09, 2019, 07:20 »

Reviewers are most likely paid per image, so they make twice as much money by mass rejecting everything and then mass accepting when you resubmit.

Artist · « **Reply #186 on:** December 09, 2019, 07:41 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 09, 2019, 07:20

Reviewers are most likely paid per image, so they make twice as much money by mass rejecting everything and then mass accepting when you resubmit.

That is a valid point if reviewers are real. I sometimes feel they are bots.
Either way, if they continue this way, things will go against them.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #187 on:** December 10, 2019, 11:20 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 09, 2019, 07:20

Reviewers are most likely paid per image, so they make twice as much money by mass rejecting everything and then mass accepting when you resubmit.

Yup, major flaw in the pay per click reviews system. That and the similar rejections that are an over reaction to a terribly flawed past policy, or not upholding the past guidelines. Now we get stuffed for anything close. More like stupid systematic problems, than blaming the individual reviewers who are "just following orders".

I just had three images get removed because they were accepted in error. Makes my want to shout. I had to delete 20 more waiting for review that would also fall into that same rejection reason. OK, I moved on, uploaded the same to Alamy and Adobe, they are accepted, making sales, no big deal.

cascoly · « **Reply #188 on:** December 10, 2019, 21:45 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 09, 2019, 07:20

Reviewers are most likely paid per image, so they make twice as much money by mass rejecting everything and then mass accepting when you resubmit.

but it would be a different reviewer

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #189 on:** December 11, 2019, 07:27 »

Quote from: jonbull on October 15, 2019, 08:25

rejections are not a problems..the problems is the collapsing of sale over 38 cent...rpd is collapsing...i don't care if they reject something....all in all most new content don'tsell at all because nobody is so idiot to search for new files...make any search first with new then with relevant...who in the world would mess looking for a usable file using the new tabs?...the problem is 99 % of sale are sub. and not only here in general...i'm up 35 % sale in all agency down 200 % in terms of dollar so far...i need 10 times more images sold than last year to match the dollar. time to ficus n rm for agency like westend and offset...microstock is collapsing.

You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas. Shirley Chisholm

jonbull · « **Reply #190 on:** December 11, 2019, 08:41 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 11, 2019, 07:27

Quote from: jonbull on October 15, 2019, 08:25
rejections are not a problems..the problems is the collapsing of sale over 38 cent...rpd is collapsing...i don't care if they reject something....all in all most new content don'tsell at all because nobody is so idiot to search for new files...make any search first with new then with relevant...who in the world would mess looking for a usable file using the new tabs?...the problem is 99 % of sale are sub. and not only here in general...i'm up 35 % sale in all agency down 200 % in terms of dollar so far...i need 10 times more images sold than last year to match the dollar. time to ficus n rm for agency like westend and offset...microstock is collapsing.

You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas. Shirley Chisholm

you not even earned one tenth of what i earned...so why talking? i complain not cause i not earn 300 dollar months like you ,you understand? i'm taking of earning 50 60K, not 3 4....you understand?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #191 on:** December 11, 2019, 10:55 »

Quote from: cascoly on December 10, 2019, 21:45

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 09, 2019, 07:20
Reviewers are most likely paid per image, so they make twice as much money by mass rejecting everything and then mass accepting when you resubmit.

but it would be a different reviewer

Or rejects on a weekend, which are acceptable on Tuesdays. Just promoting my conspiracy theory.

offisapup · « **Reply #192 on:** December 11, 2019, 11:22 »

In my experience, SS standards are the lowest among all the major MS sites I submit to. Anything and everything gets through as long as it's somewhat free of noise and artifacts.

I post 1 percent of my work on Unsplash and Pexels (just for kicks) and I can tell you that they have a higher standard than SS. So I would never complain about SS being too strict about their reviews. In fact, they need to tighten up the screws for the sake of the MS markets.

Stock4Me · « **Reply #193 on:** December 12, 2019, 07:05 »

Quote from: jonbull on December 11, 2019, 08:41

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 11, 2019, 07:27
Quote from: jonbull on October 15, 2019, 08:25
rejections are not a problems..the problems is the collapsing of sale over 38 cent...rpd is collapsing...i don't care if they reject something....all in all most new content don'tsell at all because nobody is so idiot to search for new files...make any search first with new then with relevant...who in the world would mess looking for a usable file using the new tabs?...the problem is 99 % of sale are sub. and not only here in general...i'm up 35 % sale in all agency down 200 % in terms of dollar so far...i need 10 times more images sold than last year to match the dollar. time to ficus n rm for agency like westend and offset...microstock is collapsing.

You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas. Shirley Chisholm

you not even earned one tenth of what i earned...so why talking? i complain not cause i not earn 300 dollar months like you ,you understand? i'm taking of earning 50 60K, not 3 4....you understand?

Who are you can I see your photos link please. I want to see what earns 50K in Micro.

BalkanskiMacak · « **Reply #194 on:** December 12, 2019, 10:22 »

Quote from: offisapup on December 11, 2019, 11:22

In my experience, SS standards are the lowest among all the major MS sites I submit to. Anything and everything gets through as long as it's somewhat free of noise and artifacts.

I post 1 percent of my work on Unsplash and Pexels (just for kicks) and I can tell you that they have a higher standard than SS. So I would never complain about SS being too strict about their reviews. In fact, they need to tighten up the screws for the sake of the MS markets.

Well, the job they do in terms of quality is not strict at all, it's just implementing absurd standards.

Having competent reviewers would be ideal, but they obviously don't want to invest the money in it. In the end, I'd rather have very liberal review policies than this absurdity, that is not even rational in terms of business, as the garbage content gets flushed really fast...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #195 on:** December 12, 2019, 11:39 »

Quote from: jonbull on December 11, 2019, 08:41

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 11, 2019, 07:27
Quote from: jonbull on October 15, 2019, 08:25
rejections are not a problems..the problems is the collapsing of sale over 38 cent...rpd is collapsing...i don't care if they reject something....all in all most new content don'tsell at all because nobody is so idiot to search for new files...make any search first with new then with relevant...who in the world would mess looking for a usable file using the new tabs?...the problem is 99 % of sale are sub. and not only here in general...i'm up 35 % sale in all agency down 200 % in terms of dollar so far...i need 10 times more images sold than last year to match the dollar. time to ficus n rm for agency like westend and offset...microstock is collapsing.

You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas. Shirley Chisholm

you not even earned one tenth of what i earned...so why talking? i complain not cause i not earn 300 dollar months like you ,you understand? i'm taking of earning 50 60K, not 3 4....you understand?

Perhaps you could invest some of your earnings in an anger management course.

Josephine · « **Reply #196 on:** December 12, 2019, 11:46 »

Everybody has the freedom to quit Microstocks.

And are there any idiots among the contributors as well? Theoretically there are, simple statistics.

wordplanet · « **Reply #197 on:** December 12, 2019, 18:49 »

Quote from: PZF on December 03, 2019, 02:23

Noticed that a New Year 2014 image, featuring that date, had sold a couple of times so updated it to 2019.
Rejected for being similar!
Laugh or cry....!!!!!
[/ quote]

You are not alone!

(see below it uploaded twice)

wordplanet · « **Reply #198 on:** December 12, 2019, 18:52 »

Quote from: PZF on December 03, 2019, 02:23

Noticed that a New Year 2014 image, featuring that date, had sold a couple of times so updated it to 2019.
Rejected for being similar!
Laugh or cry....!!!!!

You are not alone!

I have had that same issue with many New Years Eve files - and not just on SS - crazy when I have done elaborate typography that you really can't update without the layered Photoshop files. Though I guess some people manage since I have seen older year files sell on occasion but it's rare. Not knowing they'd be seen as similar, I had made a bunch of yearly files back in 2013 and kept the layered Photoshop files with updates ready for the upcoming years - then found that I usually couldn't get the new ones accepted - though sometimes they squeaked through.

I have one from 2015, however, that has been selling regularly, because it is easily updated. After I couldn't get an updated version online, I started updating the headline to include the latest year and to note what font to use to update it. But my best yearly ones are one-shot only after I work hard on the typography. I still enjoy playing around with it, so I just need to be more creative each year.

wordplanet · « **Reply #199 on:** December 12, 2019, 19:10 »

Looking at my last twenty downloads this month, they are all my same old reliable top sellers, mostly travel, a couple of concept, except one new image, licensed yesterday, is of flowers, uploaded a couple weeks ago. Yep, flowers! To someone in Bottrup, Germany.

I think it is a small miracle that someone found it amongst the sea of millions and millions of images.

My new files are doing okay there. e.g uploaded 13 travel images from a small US southern city and 7 of them have been licensed at least once - some more often. Others new images sellers include more flowers, illustrations, backgrounds and travel. Pretty random.

But for every new image they license it looks like they probably license 19 old reliables. I'd say 1/20 new to old ratio is probably about accurate, maybe even fewer new ones... I'll have to use that last 20 sold metric and see over time. it's one change that I like on the contributor landing page - also like the fact that you can see a year's stats, though I agree with a comment elsewhere that I miss the old 2 years of stats from way back when.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots (Read 38319 times)

m

Pauws99

Uncle Pete

Pauws99

Uncle Pete

rene

Pauws99

Medstockphotos

Uncle Pete

Artist

Shelma1

Artist

Uncle Pete

cascoly

YadaYadaYada

jonbull

Uncle Pete

offisapup

Stock4Me

BalkanskiMacak

Pauws99

Josephine

wordplanet

wordplanet

wordplanet

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors