Author Topic: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots (Read 20391 times)

trabuco · « **Reply #75 on:** November 07, 2019, 13:20 »

The question was not just for you. Sorry

With my English sometimes it's hard to understand me.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #76 on:** November 07, 2019, 14:42 »

Quote from: trabuco on November 07, 2019, 13:20

The question was not just for you. Sorry With my English sometimes it's hard to understand me.

No problem I saw that my reply might be confusing so happy to clarify.

William Perry · « **Reply #77 on:** November 07, 2019, 16:06 »

Seems like SS is on a Titles crusade.
Funny because SS does not have titles only descriptions.

Trying to figure out what to do when submitted a photo of Alamo and accepted then to get around the title problem submitted a set of previously rejected
Alamo pictures with same accepted title.
And all are rejected again.

Driving me crazy because SS standards are
so unclear.

Only solace is that it seems others are having the same problem.

By the photos in question have all been accepted by numerous other sites.

Hundstage14 · « **Reply #78 on:** November 07, 2019, 16:51 »

Unfortunately,
dear friends,

I, too, became a victim of unjustified refusals.

"similar content" was the reason.
If, at all, then only in the broadest sense!

Whether the "reviewer" are idiots or just AIs I don't give a crap.

The fact that the spam factories still continue to produce is annoying, and that is supposed to have been decisive for the change of behaviour.

And this unequal treatment leads to a distortion of competition.
Calculus or inability?

Oh, before I get angry any more, a little monotony to calm things down:
https://www.shutterstock.com/de/search/similar/1390701887

cascoly · « **Reply #79 on:** November 08, 2019, 18:45 »

got hit w the 'title' bug -- a dozen images in a row (all different), rejected for bad title! seems like reviewer was just too lazy to vary their random rejects (all titles were correct, but they did use words of 2 or more syllables)

resub & all approved

William Perry · « **Reply #80 on:** November 08, 2019, 18:48 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 08, 2019, 18:45

got hit w the 'title' bug -- a dozen images in a row (all different), rejected for bad title! seems like reviewer was just too lazy to vary their random rejects (all titles were correct, but they did use words of 2 or more syllables)

resub & all approved

obj owl · « **Reply #81 on:** November 08, 2019, 21:08 »

I think we have been given the job of training the AI and have not got the hang of it yet.

Snow · « **Reply #82 on:** November 09, 2019, 04:30 »

Stockmaan · « **Reply #83 on:** November 09, 2019, 07:05 »

I upload a batch of 30 videos. Less than in one minute my batch was reviewed... I get rejection of similar for 40% of my uploaded content. Who reviewed my videos in less than one minute?? Big joke here. My shortest video in batch was about 15 sek. All others about 30 sek.. Weird.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #84 on:** November 09, 2019, 11:47 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 08, 2019, 18:45

got hit w the 'title' bug -- a dozen images in a row (all different), rejected for bad title! seems like reviewer was just too lazy to vary their random rejects (all titles were correct, but they did use words of 2 or more syllables)

resub & all approved

Some reviewers expect an English sentence, not just words strung together. (as SS has clearly stated in the guidelines) I suspect some reviews don't know much about an English sentence composition, so they pass more. So we're back to luck of the draw whether we get a worthless waste of time rejection or easy pass.

Quote from: obj owl on November 08, 2019, 21:08

I think we have been given the job of training the AI and have not got the hang of it yet.

That's why my last Editorial batch took five days? The AI was on lunch break or a week of vacation?

Back to the same as many have pointed out, AI would be more consistent, and humans aren't. Case closed.

But I know that won't stop people from claiming they know it must be AI it's so obvious, and so many people can see it, and believe it's AI. Kinda like Santa Claus?

cascoly · « **Reply #85 on:** November 09, 2019, 14:11 »

new bogus reject today -- "Incorrect Illustration Designation" on 5 images when I never submit illustrations

William Perry · « **Reply #86 on:** November 10, 2019, 12:41 »

Problem with sentences, isn’t the period . a grammatical symbol and thus forbidden by SS title criteria

Video-StockOrg · « **Reply #87 on:** November 10, 2019, 13:35 »

just another day at SS...

this was uploaded the fourth time, it complies to their rules... but I guess not even trolling the reviewer with the statement in description didn't work. Retards.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #88 on:** November 10, 2019, 21:29 »

Quote from: William Perry on November 10, 2019, 12:41

Problem with sentences, isn’t the period . a grammatical symbol and thus forbidden by SS title criteria

Can you re-phrase that so that it makes sense? Or so I can understand what you are trying to write? Periods are forbidden?

I think you said, we can't use a period in a description? There is no title on SS? 200 character limit, this one of mine is 199 and not perfect grammar, I left out the word "are" after many. Accepted.

Grafton, Wisconsin USA - March 28, 2019: Shopko stores closing all locations in an attempt to re-organize. Many shutting down ahead of scheduled dates, others held open longer. Illustrative Editorial

Quote from: cascoly on November 09, 2019, 14:11

new bogus reject today -- "Incorrect Illustration Designation" on 5 images when I never submit illustrations

Crazy. I'll guess they are heavily edited photos or what was it? Wrong button or

marthamarks · « **Reply #89 on:** November 10, 2019, 22:30 »

I'm late coming to this thread but am here now because I'm suddenly hitting the inconsistent, goofy-reviewer problem on SS.

After 2 delightful weeks of shooting stills and 4K videos in Nevada, I've finally got them all processed and ready to upload. AS and P5 have taken everything I've submitted to them from that trip, but suddenly SS has gone off the rails.

A couple of days ago, SS accepted two 4K videos made at a specific state park in Nevada. Neither of them had a property release, because I have never had to provide that for publicly owned land (which I photograph a lot).

This morning I woke up to find the other *nine* 4K videos from that same specific state park in Nevada rejected for lack of a property release.

I promptly contacted contributor support, provided the numbers of the two accepted clips and the nine rejected clips, and asked for an explanation. Haven't heard back, of course, because it's Sunday, and since tomorrow is a federal holiday probably won't hear back then either. But I'm very curious to see how they respond later this week.

This really matters to me because I visited a dozen state and federal parks, conservation areas, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, etc. Made hundreds of quality stills and videos. Got no property releases for any of them. It never mattered before. I will be royally p*ssed if SS starts balking on that at this point.

charged · « **Reply #90 on:** November 10, 2019, 23:44 »

Quote from: marthamarks on November 10, 2019, 22:30

This really matters to me because I visited a dozen state and federal parks, conservation areas, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, etc. Made hundreds of quality stills and videos. Got no property releases for any of them. It never mattered before. I will be royally p*ssed if SS starts balking on that at this point.

Some places do require permit. For example the US National Park Service.
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/commercial-film-and-photo-permits.htm

Having said that, I've uploaded hundreds of photos from US National Parks to iStock without an issue and without a permit. I realize you were talking about Shutterstock.

William Perry · « **Reply #91 on:** November 11, 2019, 00:54 »

There is a 200 letter limit, but this is the new SS Title criteria, which is resulting in rejections. I took pictures of ducks and birds in Juanita Bay Park in Kirkland Washington. When asked what the problem is with the title, I was told that Juanita is a
Foreign word.

So are pictures rejected from Rome, Paris and Berlin because they are foreign words. How about Los Angeles and San Francisco. These are foreign words too.

Simply ridiculous.

William Perry · « **Reply #92 on:** November 11, 2019, 00:57 »

With regard to property release, upload as editorial. The real problem comes when SS won’t accept the photo as editorial.

Graiki · « **Reply #93 on:** November 11, 2019, 06:58 »

They are totally strangers.
I started in 2015 to upload to SS.
Since then 4 or 5 years have changed the pattern several times.
It was super hard before.
Then they were accepting repeated, unqualified images.
Now this
Patience and rework.
Good luck.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #94 on:** November 11, 2019, 08:33 »

Quote from: William Perry on November 11, 2019, 00:54

There is a 200 letter limit, but this is the new SS Title criteria, which is resulting in rejections. I took pictures of ducks and birds in Juanita Bay Park in Kirkland Washington. When asked what the problem is with the title, I was told that Juanita is a
Foreign word.

So are pictures rejected from Rome, Paris and Berlin because they are foreign words. How about Los Angeles and San Francisco. These are foreign words too.

Simply ridiculous.

Believe me, you have my sympathy, I'm not going to defend inconsistent reviews or Martha's kinder version of idiots or stupid, GRP = "Goofy Reviewer Problem.

First off William, it's DESCRIPTION not title. Title on SS is the name/title we give an image when uploading the image?

Yes, the foreign word thing is GRP. So are bulk rejections for the same reason, when the issue is often only one of the images. So if the new similar policy that so strict that two images of the same subject, from different angles, might get a rejection. The list is longer.

I got this one for yesterday's upload. "Title: Title must be descriptive of the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess." and why does SS call it title?

Anyone tell me why the rejection says Title?

Had it been the actual title: Autumn cornfield background from above, which SS doesn't use or read, that wouldn't be any of the above that I can see? And if it's the Description, which is part of the upload: Field of corn from a high angle, above, overhead, wide, background pattern, Autumn panorama background no one I suppose it could have been rejected for grammar, because that isn't a proper sentence?

No problem, uploaded last night, woke up and it's accepted.

You must not have seen my question? What do you mean by this?

Quote from: William Perry on November 10, 2019, 12:41

Problem with sentences, isn’t the period . a grammatical symbol and thus forbidden by SS title criteria

Can you explain why a . is forbidden?

William Perry · « **Reply #95 on:** November 11, 2019, 11:16 »

On title and description made the same
Point earlier in the thread. But even though SS has only descriptions when they reject SS says “title“ problem.

On . this is my question, but the new title criteria mentions special characters.

If others have been able to upload with .s, will do the same.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #96 on:** November 11, 2019, 11:39 »

Quote from: William Perry on November 11, 2019, 11:16

On title and description made the same
Point earlier in the thread. But even though SS has only descriptions when they reject SS says “title“ problem.

On . this is my question, but the new title criteria mentions special characters.

If others have been able to upload with .s, will do the same.

I think I understand now. Yes punctuation is not special characters. . , : ; - / ? should all be fine. (and probably some others)

The problem is things like a tilde, or ü é û which can be coded into web pages when we cut and paste data. That and when a reviewer doesn't understand that the name of a place, isn't a foreign word to the rest of the world, just to him!

As for why SS calls the Description field the Title, that's a mystery.

One would think by now, someone at HQ would have figured out they are telling about something that doesn't exist.

cascoly · « **Reply #97 on:** November 11, 2019, 15:01 »

Quote from: William Perry on November 11, 2019, 00:54

There is a 200 letter limit, but this is the new SS Title criteria, which is resulting in rejections. I took pictures of ducks and birds in Juanita Bay Park in Kirkland Washington. When asked what the problem is with the title, I was told that Juanita is a
Foreign word.

So are pictures rejected from Rome, Paris and Berlin because they are foreign words. How about Los Angeles and San Francisco. These are foreign words too.

Simply ridiculous.

I had images rejected for the title error - re-submitted, unchanged & all accepted, so it's the reviewers, not the rules (or, some/most reviewers are ignoring the rules)

marthamarks · « **Reply #98 on:** November 11, 2019, 15:32 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 11, 2019, 08:33

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.

cascoly · « **Reply #99 on:** November 11, 2019, 16:50 »

Quote from: marthamarks on November 11, 2019, 15:32

...
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've noticed similar silliness with images rejected fo ''press credentials', 'non-lic', etc while others from same shoot are accepted - my theory is that reviewers don't get the entire batch, so a submission can actually have several reviewers

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots (Read 20391 times)

trabuco

Pauws99

William Perry

Hundstage14

cascoly

William Perry

obj owl

Snow

Stockmaan

Uncle Pete

cascoly

William Perry

Video-StockOrg

Uncle Pete

marthamarks

charged

William Perry

William Perry

Graiki

Uncle Pete

William Perry

Uncle Pete

cascoly

marthamarks

cascoly

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors