MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: stockman11 on October 14, 2019, 09:57

Title: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: stockman11 on October 14, 2019, 09:57
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.

They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.

I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.

I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Clair Voyant on October 14, 2019, 10:21
Idiots might be a bit harsh. But there certainly is something gone wrong over there. I/we have simply stopped uploading there as so much gets rejected lately in stills/video/illustration with ridiculous reasons. I can accept rejections if they are valid. Last few months SS has gone insane with the rejections, to the point it's simply not worth my/our time to upload.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: jonbull on October 14, 2019, 10:22
since the similar policies i have probably 0,5% rejected for being similar..maybe you should review better your content.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: jonbull on October 14, 2019, 10:23
in the last month 750 uploaded near 735 accepted, and i shoot also food in series and some are similar but still different in terms of composition and usability....so maybe it's not the reviewer...the problem is they simply don't sell nothing zero...zero enhanced video..nothing...the more you upload the less earn...while for example adobe i sssellin g great and the new editorial policy make me sell much more..only now three images from dubai for 4,44 dollar each, while in ss 99 % ar subs...i wait impatiently the next quarter of ss to understand what's happening with them..i suspect is not my portfolio...i have literally thousand good images fo christmas..nothing sells, only the same old stuff...with relevant they killed all new files in practice.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Visualab on October 14, 2019, 10:35
hi have the same issue...a lot of no sense rejection lately...until they came up with the policy i had only few rejection in 8 years....i suspect they are using AI tecnology to review content...
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: stockman11 on October 14, 2019, 10:48
since the similar policies i have probably 0,5% rejected for being similar..maybe you should review better your content.
Then I guess maybe other agencies who accept and buyers who buy that "similar" content should review their needs better.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: jonbull on October 14, 2019, 10:53
since the similar policies i have probably 0,5% rejected for being similar..maybe you should review better your content.
Then I guess maybe other agencies who accept and buyers who buy that "similar" content should review their needs better.

this has nothing to do with similar content...
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: stockman11 on October 14, 2019, 11:15
since the similar policies i have probably 0,5% rejected for being similar..maybe you should review better your content.
Then I guess maybe other agencies who accept and buyers who buy that "similar" content should review their needs better.

this has nothing to do with similar content...
If all other agencies accept something but SS doesn't, than SS (reviewers) definitely took it too far. "Similar" is a relative term which should be adjusted according to the needs of buyers which SS clearly didn't do. And no, my content isn't even close of being "too similar".
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on October 14, 2019, 11:58
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.

They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.

I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.

I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.

I'll just predict yours will be one of the highest ever + posts of all time?  ;)

While I'm a little less angry, the latest SS review system is the most inconsistent anywhere and one of the most incomprehensible as well.

You have my vote.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on October 14, 2019, 12:57
I wouldn't blame reviewers so much. Its an entirely predictable outcome from opening the floodgates by allowing anyone to be a contributor with only one accepted photo. You could have a monkey press the shutter and do that. I doubt SS invest more than a tiny amount in training and probably give reviewers seconds to review each image. Along with that either by design or lack of control we seem to have some contributors able to contribute anything without inspection. I am amazed that they still remain by far the most succesful agency. Their marketing to buyers must be absolutely world class.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Tk113 on October 14, 2019, 13:33
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.

They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.

I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.

I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.
Some of them don’t know what bokeh is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: mj007 on October 14, 2019, 14:11
Keep in mind what reviews get paid. I am not sure what it is now but a few years back it was 5 cents per image to review or reject. To make  money in an hour at that rate you can't put much judgement into reviewing.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: stockman11 on October 14, 2019, 14:46
Some posts about reviewers don't having time and training do have a point, but 1 second and a common sense is enough to see when images are not even close to being too similar.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: candidcruiser on October 14, 2019, 15:39
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.

They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.

I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.

I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.
I could not agree with you more and you are not the only one feeling this way.   Just today I sent a series of three views of a interesting boating locks.  One closed, one half way and one fully open to show the operation.  One was accepted and the other two rejected for similar content.  Is the reviewer blind and does not read the title.  Others have been rejected for Out of focus (not) and after submitting them elsewhere, they sold instantly.  I don't know what has happened to reviewers at SS but it very annoying since I hardly even had a rejection in the past couple years and now it is common.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Tk113 on October 14, 2019, 15:48
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.

They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.

I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.

I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.
I could not agree with you more and you are not the only one feeling this way.   Just today I sent a series of three views of a interesting boating locks.  One closed, one half way and one fully open to show the operation.  One was accepted and the other two rejected for similar content.  Is the reviewer blind and does not read the title.  Others have been rejected for Out of focus (not) and after submitting them elsewhere, they sold instantly.  I don't know what has happened to reviewers at SS but it very annoying since I hardly even had a rejection in the past couple years and now it is common.
Just had one rejected because Title didn’t match photo. The title “Wooden fishing pier” photo wooden fishing pier. Same photo was excepted by 4 other agencies. Something fishy going on at SS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: candidcruiser on October 14, 2019, 15:55
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.

They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.

I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.

I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.
I could not agree with you more and you are not the only one feeling this way.   Just today I sent a series of three views of a interesting boating locks.  One closed, one half way and one fully open to show the operation.  One was accepted and the other two rejected for similar content.  Is the reviewer blind and does not read the title.  Others have been rejected for Out of focus (not) and after submitting them elsewhere, they sold instantly.  I don't know what has happened to reviewers at SS but it very annoying since I hardly even had a rejection in the past couple years and now it is common.
Just had one rejected because Title didn’t match photo. The title “Wooden fishing pier” photo wooden fishing pier. Same photo was excepted by 4 other agencies. Something fishy going on at SS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just had to add this one more example.  I sent a close up of a turret from a British castle, nothing identifiable, could belong to any castle and rejected for No Property Release.  Seriously, for a corner of roof?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Tk113 on October 14, 2019, 15:56
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.

They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.

I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.

I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.
I could not agree with you more and you are not the only one feeling this way.   Just today I sent a series of three views of a interesting boating locks.  One closed, one half way and one fully open to show the operation.  One was accepted and the other two rejected for similar content.  Is the reviewer blind and does not read the title.  Others have been rejected for Out of focus (not) and after submitting them elsewhere, they sold instantly.  I don't know what has happened to reviewers at SS but it very annoying since I hardly even had a rejection in the past couple years and now it is common.
Just had one rejected because Title didn’t match photo. The title “Wooden fishing pier” photo wooden fishing pier. Same photo was excepted by 4 other agencies. Something fishy going on at SS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just had to add this one more example.  I sent a close up of a turret from a British castle, nothing identifiable, could belong to any castle and rejected for No Property Release.  Seriously, for a corner of roof?
Could be something you wrote in the description


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on October 14, 2019, 18:07
or 'similars' for 2 images, one horizontal, other vertical, and zoom different

particularly annoying is rejection of 2 images as 'similar' w/o approving either one!
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: lostintimeline on October 14, 2019, 18:21
you can shout, get ungry, upset, cursing all you want but in the end of the day there is nothing you can do about it.just submit new content and dont let it bother you.if they accept it FINE if not THEIR LOSS their site their rules.at site.
My only guess is that  these people who review the photos they  are lookin at the photos theme.
some bored reviewer hating his life and job and wanna shoot himshelf for scrolling thousant of  images and his head starts to go loco and says
nope
nope
nope
nope
ye em nope
nope
or some reviewer with no experience in photography
Nope
nope
nope
ye emm NOPE
nope
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooope

or some 18 reviewer who likes trolling
nOPE
NOPE
NOPE
ye NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE
nope
no
NO WAY HOSE
 ;D
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on October 14, 2019, 18:38
or 'similars' for 2 images, one horizontal, other vertical, and zoom different

particularly annoying is rejection of 2 images as 'similar' w/o approving either one!

There you are, some paid offshore review who's just way to full of rejection power and following the rules without thinking. Rejected both, there's perfect for rejection happy reviewers, I bet he's proud of his work.  :(

Keep in mind what reviews get paid. I am not sure what it is now but a few years back it was 5 cents per image to review or reject. To make  money in an hour at that rate you can't put much judgement into reviewing.

We'll never know, but I'm willing to wager that they aren't getting 5˘ an image now. Just like people in lesser economies, who can live off microstock, there are probably reviewers who can work for really low pay, contracted, who are happy to make what they do, as they can survive on that.

Example, 50% of the people in Indonesia earn $10,000 a year or less. 25% under $5,000 USD a year. Cost of living is very different. But someone who works hard at Microstock and many agencies, can make $12,000 a year or $1,000 a month.

Paying some hypothetical reviewer $12,000 a year, no benefits, would be much less expensive for the company than paying someone Minimum wage or a minimal living wage in New York. Thus my suspicion and guess that most of the reviewers now are offshore, getting paid a salary and have a minimum quota of reviews per week. I've seen the job application, it says, must work weekends.

Some people care about weekends, personally I've never had them off and even now I work more on weekends than weekdays. I'll work when someone pays me the most.  ;D
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: georgep7 on October 15, 2019, 02:14
Idiocity is not ...transferable! :P
Reviewers are doing what they are payed and ordered to do.
Perhaps some of them are kind more or alot aggressive but again.
They follow orders and move within boundaries of company's policy.
Just an opinion. Maybe wrong :)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Cider Apple on October 15, 2019, 03:32
I've been getting stupid rejections too. A clip for Brexit and the other for Bremain. Both rejected for similar. they couldn't be polar opposites. Madness.
When I asked why? the support guy said just upload again and leave a re-submitted note. You cant leave a note though just the tick box of re-submitted (so you cant explain why they are so different).
To rub salt in the wound more is the fact you have to re-upload the clips as they can't go back to the reject bin and just take them from there. When you're talking 4K clips over 2GB in size each it's just a waste of time and resources.
So annoying.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: qunamax on October 15, 2019, 07:20
I assumed they have a software that does the reviews and maybe a handful of reviewers that get get images sent by software when it runs into some kind of problem it can't solve.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: martinrichard on October 15, 2019, 09:21
Idiocity is not ...transferable! :P
Reviewers are doing what they are payed and ordered to do.
Perhaps some of them are kind more or alot aggressive but again.
They follow orders and move within boundaries of company's policy.
Just an opinion. Maybe wrong :)

I agree with George_
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on October 15, 2019, 19:07
….
When I asked why? the support guy said just upload again and leave a re-submitted note. You cant leave a note though just the tick box of re-submitted (so you cant explain why they are so different).
….

yep, had one today of an old tilted barn on a hillside -- the desc said leaning, and there's a fence & tree that are vertical, but rejection for composition (which usually means horizon is off)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: vectorsforall on October 16, 2019, 02:57
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.

They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.

I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.

I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.

1000% agree! I get rejected stuff for stupid 'similar content'. These fools are losing money, I have best selling vector christmas backgrounds which I upload in various format (square, 4/3, wide, portrait etc...) and they reject it. They used to accept it before with no problem. Well fxxx them they will sell on AS and elsewhere.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Chichikov on October 16, 2019, 04:04
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.

They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.

I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.

I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.

Today the only choice is AI or NI*
Welcome in the 21th century!!

*Natural Idiots
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: samards on October 16, 2019, 06:31
I got rejected for "File transfer error", and repeatedly so. Finally I got 3 images somehow transferred ok, after one(!) minute all 3 rejected for Focus issues... And a few days before the similar images accepted, no any focus problem whatsoever. 

So something really bad is happening there...
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Noedelhap on October 16, 2019, 06:53
Not only have they gone overboard with their similars policy (if I upload just 3 variations on an image, each with a different symbol, two of them get rejected even though the concept is clearly different), they have also killed vector uploading with their insane 4 MP minimum for vectors. And for what? They're vectors! Since we can no longer upload accompanying JPEGs (which I used for keywords and description) the upload process has become a chore again.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: martinrichard on October 16, 2019, 08:45
1000% agree! I get rejected stuff for stupid 'similar content'. These fools are losing money, I have best selling vector christmas backgrounds which I upload in various format (square, 4/3, wide, portrait etc...) and they reject it. They used to accept it before with no problem. Well fxxx them they will sell on AS and elsewhere.
[/quote]

I agree that the similar policy is not giving  the customers that can't create vectors on their own or don't have time to create them options.

The policy is a shutterstock policy and you can't  blame the reviewers for following policies.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: martinrichard on October 16, 2019, 08:52
Not only have they gone overboard with their similars policy (if I upload just 3 variations on an image, each with a different symbol, two of them get rejected even though the concept is clearly different), they have also killed vector uploading with their insane 4 MP minimum for vectors. And for what? They're vectors! Since we can no longer upload accompanying JPEGs (which I used for keywords and description) the upload process has become a chore again.

You can embed the keywords and descriptions in Illustrator files and eps10 and files using exiftools
https://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Noedelhap on October 16, 2019, 09:57
Not only have they gone overboard with their similars policy (if I upload just 3 variations on an image, each with a different symbol, two of them get rejected even though the concept is clearly different), they have also killed vector uploading with their insane 4 MP minimum for vectors. And for what? They're vectors! Since we can no longer upload accompanying JPEGs (which I used for keywords and description) the upload process has become a chore again.

You can embed the keywords and descriptions in Illustrator files and eps10 and files using exiftools
https://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/


I know, but the point is, I don't want to adjust and complicate my workflow just for them. So I've stopped uploading vectors for the time being.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: martinrichard on October 16, 2019, 10:08


I know, but the point is, I don't want to adjust and complicate my workflow just for them. So I've stopped uploading vectors for the time being.

I get it. I hate changing my workflow too. (it seems like it's almost daily) Can I offer you a quote from Darwin?

"It is not the most intellectual or the strongest of species that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able to adapt to and adjust best to the changing environment in which it finds itself." Charles Darwin
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on October 16, 2019, 10:11
….
When I asked why? the support guy said just upload again and leave a re-submitted note. You cant leave a note though just the tick box of re-submitted (so you cant explain why they are so different).
….

yep, had one today of an old tilted barn on a hillside -- the desc said leaning, and there's a fence & tree that are vertical, but rejection for composition (which usually means horizon is off)

What next, crooked tree rejected for not being straight?  ;D

I never click the previously submitted box. Why should I? And yes, I have rejections that after looking, they are right, but others, I don't think so. I review, wait, maybe edit... upload again, they pass. Waste of time, but if I get a download, I feel better.

Just uploaded a wide, I mean like 8 images wide stitched and I liked the center image of the series. Just waiting to see if that triggers a rejection. Editorial which I'll say, in the past, has been a little less NI!

If people here have mentioned that SS is losing sales, you might also get the impression, that they just don't care if my images are there or not. Heck they add over a million new images a week, what's 100,000 stupid rejections going to hurt?

As far as workflow, that's why I stopped uploading to IS.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: frankix on October 16, 2019, 13:07
Reviewers though have special talents. I got some rejections "polaroids are not acceptable". Very interesting indeed... My computer doesn't have a place where i can put those files "in" to upload - and I don't own this kind of camera..
Happy uploading!
//Frank Bach
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Noedelhap on October 16, 2019, 14:23


I know, but the point is, I don't want to adjust and complicate my workflow just for them. So I've stopped uploading vectors for the time being.

I get it. I hate changing my workflow too. (it seems like it's almost daily) Can I offer you a quote from Darwin?

"It is not the most intellectual or the strongest of species that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able to adapt to and adjust best to the changing environment in which it finds itself." Charles Darwin

Darwin was right about that, but spending my precious time creating new stuff that OTHER agencies will accept instead of wasting it on Shutterstock is a form of survival too ;)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: martinrichard on October 16, 2019, 14:59


I know, but the point is, I don't want to adjust and complicate my workflow just for them. So I've stopped uploading vectors for the time being.

I get it. I hate changing my workflow too. (it seems like it's almost daily) Can I offer you a quote from Darwin?

"It is not the most intellectual or the strongest of species that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able to adapt to and adjust best to the changing environment in which it finds itself." Charles Darwin

Darwin was right about that, but spending my precious time creating new stuff that OTHER agencies will accept instead of wasting it on Shutterstock is a form of survival too ;)

So true. I think it applies to shutterstock as a company too. Lots of stock agencies have come and gone :D
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Brightontl on October 17, 2019, 04:30
hi have the same issue...a lot of no sense rejection lately...until they came up with the policy i had only few rejection in 8 years....i suspect they are using AI tecnology to review content...
They are probably using Artificial Idiocy technology
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: BalkanskiMacak on October 17, 2019, 07:37
After having got some rejections such as a bird mistaken for sensor dust, or a lack of sharpness on the corners of a wide angle shot of a landscape, I agree with all above, the reviewers are back to 2017!

Regarding the similars, I made a few tests: I submitted a landscape picture similar to one that got accepted one week earlier. The file is however different, there are probably a few mm of focal lens of difference between the two, and a different post-processing: it got accepted. I submitted another landscape picture, the exact same file that I had submitted a year ago, but this time with a much heavier and different post processing, it got rejected. The AI detection is therefore the most probable reason.

To counter the stupid rejections, in the end, I am trying to submit a first time the files as I am submitting them to other agencies. If some are getting rejected, I am then trying to process them a bit more to reduce the noise, while applying an old trick: reducing the dimensions. Usually, after the second or the third review, the remaining rejected files are mainly only the ones that show real issues.

When I was a beginner in microstock, one of the rules was not to fight a rejection. With the unqualified reviewers in SS, I think we need now to discard this rules...
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: wds on October 17, 2019, 08:02
I suspect the quality of the reviews reflects what reviewers are being payed for their efforts.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: suz7 on October 17, 2019, 08:46
OMG, just had videos rejected - they were supposedly too similar. Has to be AI doing the reviews. I submitted 4 videos with the same background. But with completely different things - one had a plate and knife and fork, another a big recycling sign, and another two with different leaves (colours, size, position). The first one got accepted and the others rejected for being too similar.
I have been submitting anything that is vaguely similar in different batches but I thought this would be sufficiently different. (It happened before with something that was obviously different). Adobe and pond5 have no problems and I submit similar stuff in the same batch and they ever get rejected.

Human eyes wouldn't have said these were similar. Maybe it's the first frame that is reviewed by AI? As this would be identical.

Do u just resubmit?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: suz7 on October 17, 2019, 10:07
I got another animation rejected for
Interlacing: Clip exhibits noticeable interlacing issues.

I have no idea what this is an how it applies to animated videos done in after effects.

Would anyone be able to explain to me what this is, so I can avoid this in future? I've looked online and there isn't much in regards to animation.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: martinrichard on October 17, 2019, 10:12
I got another animation rejected for
Interlacing: Clip exhibits noticeable interlacing issues.

I have no idea what this is an how it applies to animated videos done in after effects.

Would anyone be able to explain to me what this is, so I can avoid this in future? I've looked online and there isn't much in regards to animation.
Can you include a frame at 100% so we can see?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on October 17, 2019, 10:43
After having got some rejections such as a bird mistaken for sensor dust, or a lack of sharpness on the corners of a wide angle shot of a landscape, I agree with all above, the reviewers are back to 2017!

Regarding the similars, I made a few tests: I submitted a landscape picture similar to one that got accepted one week earlier. The file is however different, there are probably a few mm of focal lens of difference between the two, and a different post-processing: it got accepted. I submitted another landscape picture, the exact same file that I had submitted a year ago, but this time with a much heavier and different post processing, it got rejected. The AI detection is therefore the most probable reason.

To counter the stupid rejections, in the end, I am trying to submit a first time the files as I am submitting them to other agencies. If some are getting rejected, I am then trying to process them a bit more to reduce the noise, while applying an old trick: reducing the dimensions. Usually, after the second or the third review, the remaining rejected files are mainly only the ones that show real issues.

When I was a beginner in microstock, one of the rules was not to fight a rejection. With the unqualified reviewers in SS, I think we need now to discard this rules...

Have had birds rejected other places as well. This one is not limited to SS. Alamy for one, sees birds in a scenic view, as dust.  ::)

Wow interesting about the similar find, this could actually be good news. Not for people who like to revisit and reprocess images and upload versions, but for finding thieves? Imagine that, if they are looking for similars. Of course if it only searches ours against ours, that's terrible.

AI probably helps the humans find flaws, similar images, lighting problems, but humans still make the final decision. If someone lazy (or stupid...) is working to make the most of their time or quota, they aren't going to care about wasting our time with a frivolous rejection or wrong analysis from the AI help. Whatever the reviewers were, they aren't anymore. And as far as consistency which was already going downhill, this is hitting the wall at the bottom. Terrible!

I know some very smart and good creative people who did series and groups, and I'll bet they are going to get rejections, which are unfair, for similar, when it's of course somewhat similar, lighting colors and composition, but useful, honest variations.

Personally I don't see toning, coloring, filters or just reprocessing as a new image. I can see both sides though, as agencies say, a buyer can alter the image on their own, we don't need duplicates with minor color variations.

But don't they also say, images that are ready to use by a buyer, because they might now be able to edit or might not know how to do that?

Two contradicting bits of advise. (https://i.postimg.cc/gkcKQhtK/scratch.gif)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Hildegarde on October 18, 2019, 13:37
It's not just similiars.  I submitted several landscapes and all were rejected for being out of focus.  They are not out of focus.  The images are sharp enough 1:1 that one can tell the plant species is this not that from the tiny leaves (tiny even at 1:1 but in focus).  All these images were accepted at other agencies-- many which tend to be MUCH stricter about focus.  Maybe the very front tiny section foreground is not as pristine focus as the actual subject.  Between lens used and aperature used, and focused on subject not elsewhere, even a computer should get it.  Or if it was done by computer, there is a glitch.

Frustrating but in the end it is their loss and gain for other agencies.

Sudden change-- typically 99-100% of my work accepted for some time at SS and elsewhere.  Then BAM, SS rejects all for out of focus (when not).
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: YadaYadaYada on October 18, 2019, 15:17
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 just discovered that? What a genius. 7 years and you just saw the problem.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Tk113 on October 18, 2019, 16:03
It's not just similiars.  I submitted several landscapes and all were rejected for being out of focus.  They are not out of focus.  The images are sharp enough 1:1 that one can tell the plant species is this not that from the tiny leaves (tiny even at 1:1 but in focus).  All these images were accepted at other agencies-- many which tend to be MUCH stricter about focus.  Maybe the very front tiny section foreground is not as pristine focus as the actual subject.  Between lens used and aperature used, and focused on subject not elsewhere, even a computer should get it.  Or if it was done by computer, there is a glitch.

Frustrating but in the end it is their loss and gain for other agencies.

Sudden change-- typically 99-100% of my work accepted for some time at SS and elsewhere.  Then BAM, SS rejects all for out of focus (when not).

Same here, tack sharp and no noise, image excepted at 4 other sites. Re-upload to SS several days later W/O any changes, gets excepted. SS has a bad reviewer or maybe disgruntled employee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: vectorsforall on October 19, 2019, 04:18
For example I got videos rejected for 'similar content' which are accepted at Videohive! : when you know how it's hard to get your stuff approved by there... >:(
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: William Perry on October 19, 2019, 13:52
I am seeing same thing and also am seeing revenue go down on Shutterstock.  When sites put in place a new tough reviewing policy, less approvals and their revenue goes down.

Look at Canstock, which is the worst reviewing policy in the industry.  Want a property release for the White House.  My revenue has dropped like a rock, but so has their total revenue.  Rumor is that they might go out of business soon.

So we will see.  The microstock reviewing policy is the weakest link in their business model.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on October 19, 2019, 15:18
I am seeing same thing and also am seeing revenue go down on Shutterstock.  When sites put in place a new tough reviewing policy, less approvals and their revenue goes down.

Look at Canstock, which is the worst reviewing policy in the industry.  Want a property release for the White House.  My revenue has dropped like a rock, but so has their total revenue.  Rumor is that they might go out of business soon.

So we will see.  The microstock reviewing policy is the weakest link in their business model.
Theres nothing wrong with the policies its their ability to implement it thats the problem. I think most of us would welcome a more demanding inspection regime if it was implemented consistently.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: William Perry on October 19, 2019, 16:01
They are never implemented consistently and every site has its own rules.  What is difficult is when they raise the standards with no reason.  Example picture of Bougainvillea.  Prior photos of bougainvilleas accepted with no problem. flower rejected because wrong title.  Reviewer sees foreign word and rejects.  Finally able to get it approved by specifically stating the scientific name is.

Recent rejection of Apotheosis in US Capitol as non licensable content.  Painting done in 1800s in a public building and is clearly in the public domain.

Many other sites have already accepted the photos but SS has decided to arbitrarily reject it.

All signs that SS has decided to reject more photos and that is not a good sign.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: OM on October 20, 2019, 19:30
Glad I stopped uploading to SS 6 months ago...have peace of mind now and no hassle every month for sales that used to be worthwhile but that are now just pocket/wine money! Hic  ;D
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: William Perry on October 20, 2019, 21:24
Yes but I keep uploading because I make $200 to $250 a month there.  Yes it has gone down.  Last year was 250 to 300 a month.

Now 200 to 300 a month so don’t give up.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on October 21, 2019, 09:20
Theres nothing wrong with the policies its their ability to implement it thats the problem. I think most of us would welcome a more demanding inspection regime if it was implemented consistently.

I hate to mention the old days, but IS and SS had the strictest reviews for quality, and even if reviews took longer, they were much more consistent. Alamy and AS are still holding up the standards for submissions. Inconsistent reviews are terribly frustrating, not that I'm personally having any problems, but here we are, and I'm hoping for a change.

The real idiots aren't the reviewers who are "only following orders"  ::) the problem is the people who dictated the new standards and issued the directives.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on October 21, 2019, 10:13
Theres nothing wrong with the policies its their ability to implement it thats the problem. I think most of us would welcome a more demanding inspection regime if it was implemented consistently.

I hate to mention the old days, but IS and SS had the strictest reviews for quality, and even if reviews took longer, they were much more consistent. Alamy and AS are still holding up the standards for submissions. Inconsistent reviews are terribly frustrating, not that I'm personally having any problems, but here we are, and I'm hoping for a change.

The real idiots aren't the reviewers who are "only following orders"  ::) the problem is the people who dictated the new standards and issued the directives.
Indeed though I have found Alamy have dropped their standards now...I put stuff through that I wouldn't of in the past. I think the problem lies in the link between those who set that standard and those wh implement it. Its rather like announcing a crack down on crime while at the same time reducing police numbers...a practice not unfamilar. If you have a policy you need to have a plan and resources to implement it. Im guessing all shutterstock did was issue reviewers with an email with no back up of training or supervision.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Hoodie Ninja on October 21, 2019, 11:50
I had a "similar" rejection this past week as well.  I uploaded two images of a pig.  One was looking straight at the camera, the other was looking off camera.  They rejected one.  I tried uploading the rejected photo in my next batch and it was rejected again for being similar.  So, I shrugged and moved on.  But it IS annoying when you know that your images aren't "too similar" and they reject them.  But my sales continue to climb there, so I keep submitting.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on October 22, 2019, 07:13
I just had a small batch reviewed and the inspection seemed fair. One rejection for focus on a marginal image I put through as I liked the subject and thought I might get away with it and other for similar which I was not surprised about so not all doom nd gloom ;-).
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on October 22, 2019, 13:15
I just had a small batch reviewed and the inspection seemed fair. One rejection for focus on a marginal image I put through as I liked the subject and thought I might get away with it and other for similar which I was not surprised about so not all doom nd gloom ;-).

I was actually surprised that a batch of 27 was 100% accepted. Well one exception where I forgot to click the Editorial box. I don't get many rejections for focus except when I try to send "hills in the rain and mist".  ;)
 
Plop and Shoot: that was my mission this morning. Microwaved breakfast, took two shots, uploaded one, I was eating and keywording before it cooled enough to start feeding my face. Hot cheese stays hot a good while. If it's rejected, well... I had breakfast anyway, and wasted a tiny bit of electricity on the lights and camera.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 06, 2019, 08:35
I think it's a program, I'm pretty sure now.

An egyptian obelisk rejected because I have not translated the hieroglyphs on the title.

A bell tower of an European Cathedral rejected because of trademark violation in title and keywords.

A 13th century architect still generating royalties.


Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Whiskybottle on November 06, 2019, 13:38
I've been getting almost 100% rejections in the last few weeks, prior to this almost 100% acceptance.

Current problem "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."

So the binomial (Latin) names (for animals/plants) created by Carl Linnaeus 250 years ago which are universal and transend all languages are no longer good enough for SS (even with English names as well)

Scottish hills can't have Scottish names!!!

When I tried to complain I was palmed off with another contributor, who was getting the same problem with Welsh place names.

I wonder if some of these even reach a human viewer and are rejected by a computer spell checker!

I won't be wasting my time on this until the dust settles, other agencies are accepting and selling
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 06, 2019, 15:30
Same problem here. No rejections before this (5% ), now rejections about 30-40 %.

Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: georgep7 on November 07, 2019, 02:28
Following this thread out or curiocity, i cannot tell if it is just an AI or a combination of AI and curators scrolling down the results as galleries and comfirming rejections.

But it seems there is a pattern? SS and perhaps customers want it simple and generic. Bell, tower, ancient Egypt sculpture etc. E.g. I was busting my head and google to include exact descriptions of mantodea, mantis religiosa, when people will search for praying mantis. Similar perhaps SS directs content to be generic with titles usable in many similar search results?

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 07, 2019, 03:38
Following this thread out or curiocity, i cannot tell if it is just an AI or a combination of AI and curators scrolling down the results as galleries and comfirming rejections.

But it seems there is a pattern? SS and perhaps customers want it simple and generic. Bell, tower, ancient Egypt sculpture etc. E.g. I was busting my head and google to include exact descriptions of mantodea, mantis religiosa, when people will search for praying mantis. Similar perhaps SS directs content to be generic with titles usable in many similar search results?

Just a thought.

I think you're right and they are using the same program in BS. My pictures use to have elements as handrails or people focus not in the center of the picture. These are rejected now at the first time.

My kw use to be complex as yours too with architectural syles f.i. but I'm not sure about that.

As a non native Englsh speaker I use to search for synonymous too but... maybe the good option is house,church,cathedral,old and finish.


 
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: rene on November 07, 2019, 03:44
Yes, they are.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Stockmaan on November 07, 2019, 03:57
This artificial intelligence or whatever has to learn a lot..
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Brasilnut on November 07, 2019, 04:30
I have something like a 75% success rate on 2nd re-submissions without any changes whatsoever.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: olafvik on November 07, 2019, 05:15
I have something like a 75% success rate on 2nd re-submissions without any changes whatsoever.

That was what I did. A couple of days ago I got 100% rejected for noise (first time since 4 years ago), I checked them 100% and there was no noise, so I sent them again and got 100% accepted  ???
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Artist on November 07, 2019, 05:42
They are playing with AI in their system. I submitted the rejected content again and it was again rejected.. I submitted again and now accepted... strange..
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trek on November 07, 2019, 05:59
I think it's a program, I'm pretty sure now.

An egyptian obelisk rejected because I have not translated the hieroglyphs on the title.

A bell tower of an European Cathedral rejected because of trademark violation in title and keywords.

A 13th century architect still generating royalties.

I had a night cityscape rejected because a tiny little street sign that said "Yosemite Ave" was "untranslated foreign text".  AI - machine rejections are a lame waste of time. 
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 07, 2019, 06:17
I think it's a program, I'm pretty sure now.

An egyptian obelisk rejected because I have not translated the hieroglyphs on the title.

A bell tower of an European Cathedral rejected because of trademark violation in title and keywords.

A 13th century architect still generating royalties.

I had a night cityscape rejected because a tiny little street sign that said "Yosemite Ave" was "untranslated foreign text".  AI - machine rejections are a lame waste of time.

The funniest thing is that I have found the ancient egyptian translation for my obelisk.

So It's in the title now.

Bizarre.

Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on November 07, 2019, 06:32
They are playing with AI in their system. I submitted the rejected content again and it was again rejected.. I submitted again and now accepted... strange..
Thats because its most likely humans that are inspecting.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on November 07, 2019, 06:33
I have something like a 75% success rate on 2nd re-submissions without any changes whatsoever.
I get similar around 80% but some images I choose not to resubmit or do some "tweaking"
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 07, 2019, 11:37
Do you resubmit the similar content rejections?

Successful?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on November 07, 2019, 13:05
Do you resubmit the similar content rejections?

Successful?
You may have misunderstood I meant a similar number of rejections accepted 2nd. I don't normally resubmit similars as I don't really do many. But I might try a few as I got some on a recent upload.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 07, 2019, 13:20
The question was not just for you. Sorry  :P With my English sometimes it's hard to understand me.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on November 07, 2019, 14:42
The question was not just for you. Sorry  :P With my English sometimes it's hard to understand me.
No problem I saw that my reply might be confusing so happy to clarify.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: William Perry 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Hundstage14 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 (https://www.shutterstock.com/de/search/similar/1390701887)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: William Perry on November 08, 2019, 18:48
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

Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Snow on November 09, 2019, 04:30
...
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Stockmaan 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on November 09, 2019, 11:47
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.

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

 ;D 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?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on November 09, 2019, 14:11
new bogus reject today -- "Incorrect Illustration Designation"  on 5 images  when I never submit illustrations
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Video-StockOrg on November 10, 2019, 13:35
just another day at SS...

(https://video-stock.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/r3tarded-shutterstock-reviewers.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on November 10, 2019, 21:29
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

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 ???  :o
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: charged on November 10, 2019, 23:44
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 (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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: William Perry 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Graiki 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on November 11, 2019, 08:33
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?  :o 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?

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

Can you explain why a . is forbidden?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on November 11, 2019, 11:39
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 ű 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.


Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on November 11, 2019, 15:01
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)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 11, 2019, 15:32
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on November 11, 2019, 16:50

...
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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 11, 2019, 16:54

...
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

That makes sense. Maybe one reviewer got the first 2 in my series and a different reviewer got the other 9.

I'm curious as to what might be going on behind the scenes right now. Will they back Reviewer #1 or Reviewer #2?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: William Perry on November 11, 2019, 17:24
I uploaded several times and because of the title issue rejected several times.

Then appealed and got the answer “Juanita” in Juanita Bay Park in Kirkland Washington was the reason.

So will try again and see what happens.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: georgep7 on November 12, 2019, 02:45
Quote

The part about my patience and cooperation being highly appreciated sounded promising

...like you can do anything else than waiting...

...highly appreciated.... duh!....

:P

Best wishes that the issue will be resolved soon in your profit :)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on November 12, 2019, 09:30
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

Sounds logical, we do know that Editorial is reviewed by a different track than Commercial. FIFO by license type and content type, like video, illustration or photo.


I'm curious as to what might be going on behind the scenes right now. Will they back Reviewer #1 or Reviewer #2?

More likely that they will do nothing, they don't back reviewers and you'll probably get an answer like, we have looked into this, please re-submit. AKA lip service.

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)

Same for me, close. I had a rejection for title error (actually Description, but I'm ready to stop beating that point, until it comes around again?)  ;) And I corrected it, uploaded, image accepted. Then when I was looking closer, I found the error, which I had not corrected. The word Background twice in the description.

I think without a doubt we've all confirmed that it's all about the reviewer and their understand of the rules, not the actual rules. Also in can be their understanding of words or English and how carefully they review.

I'd still contend that sometimes, when one of us gets a mixed review, for very similar wording or identical, one reviewer may have erred in accepting, while the other noticed the improper content or words and correctly rejected the upload. No one complains when we get something that's improper accepted?  ::)

The rules and the changes are such a mess, I think some reviewers just don't know all the nuances. We can expect that with humans, some are better and smarter and some are having a more difficult time remembering everything. And some are "mailing it in" for the money.

I wouldn't want their job.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 12, 2019, 10:19
My request for clarification from Shutterstock yesterday morning still has produced nothing but the following (probably worthless) back and forth with the "Contributor Care Team."

Here's the latest:

******* FROM ME:
Thank you for your reply yesterday morning. I was hoping to hear back from you by this morning. Maybe later today?
 
Last evening, I did a bit of research into my Shutterstock portfolio.
 
Over the last 3 years alone, Shutterstock has accepted my landscape stills and/or videos of the following (clearly identified) public lands, **all of them without property releases.**
 
FEDERAL
Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge (NV) NOTE: In the last few days, 3 stills were accepted (1555068938, 1555068932, 1555068929). 1 4K video was rejected solely for lack of a property release (1040658215) before it was accepted (as 1040693750).

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NV)
Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NV)
Gold Butte National Monument (NV)
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (CO)
Rocky Mountain National Park (CO)
Browns Canyon National Wildlife Refuge (CO)
Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge (CO)
Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge (CO)
Colorado National Monument (CO)
Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge (OK)
Vernal National Wildlife Refuge (UT)
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (UT)
Organ Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument (NM)
Carson National Forest (NM)
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge (NM)
Pecos National Historical Park (NM)
Rio Grande del Norte National Monument (NM)
Painted Desert National Monument (AZ)
Saguaro National Park (AZ)
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (AZ)
Wupati National Monument (AZ)
Sunset Crater National Monument (AZ)
Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, Coronado National Forest (AZ)
Chiricahua Mts. / Coronado National Forest (AZ)
Haleakala National Park (HI)
Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (WI)
Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge (IN)
 
STATE
Beaver Dam State Park (NV) NOTE: In the last few days, Shutterstock accepted 10 stills & 2 4K videos and rejected 9 4K videos solely for lack of property releases.

Echo Canyon State Park (NV)
Valley of Fire State Park (NV)
Spring Mountain Ranch State Park (NV)
Cathedral Gorge State Park (NV)
Kershaw-Ryan State Park (NV)
Antelope Island State Park (UT)
Moraine Hills State Park (IL)
Chain O’ Lakes State Park (IL)
Dead Horse Ranch State Park (AZ)
Homolovi State Park (AZ)
Kerrville-Schreiner State Park (TX)
Guadalupe River State Park (TX)
Los Maples State Natural Area (TX)
Enchanted Rock State Natural Area (TX)
City of Rocks State Park (NM)
Oliver Lee Memorial State Park (NM)
Coller State Wildlife Area (CO)
Great Plains State Park (OK)
 
COUNTY OR TRIBAL
Tucson Mountain Park (AZ)
Goose Island County Park (WI)
Several Lake County Forest Preserves (IL)
Monument Valley Tribal Park (Navajo Reservation, AZ)
Little Painted Desert (Hopi Reservation, AZ)
 
I can’t understand how all these thousands of images and videos were acceptable before but would not be acceptable now. Still hoping for clarity on this matter.
 
My process of uploading and submitting recent images and videos from a recent trip is on hold until I understand if it’s worth the bother.
 
Thank you.
 
Martha Marks
Contributor since 2009

******* FROM A DIFFERENT "TEAM MEMBER":

Thank you for your response. The issue related to the rejection of your images has already been forwarded to our dedicated team by our previous agent. Once there is an update, we will inform you with the resolution. 

******* FROM ME AGAIN:

Perhaps you can share my reply this morning with your dedicated team since that long list of previously accepted stills and videos from public lands does seem highly relevant to the question at hand.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on November 12, 2019, 14:58
I'm not sure I would be drawing attention to those images as you might find them deleted. In the UK the National Trust for example became much most active in enforcing their "rights" and as a result many of us have had related images removed. The rules on what is admissable seem to get stricter all the time.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 12, 2019, 15:20
I'm not sure I would be drawing attention to those images as you might find them deleted. In the UK the National Trust for example became much most active in enforcing their "rights" and as a result many of us have had related images removed. The rules on what is admissable seem to get stricter all the time.

Yeah, I did think of that. However, I don't believe most public lands in the US are off limits to the kind of photography I do. For a major film shoot with trucks filled with crew, actors, and equipment, of course, they would require permits. But for an old lady stealthily shooting birds, critters, and landscapes near her car on the main road, it seems draconian.

If this backfires, however, I'll just happily "retire" from active duty at SS, which is far from my main source of income.

Funny thing… if I didn't identify the locations by name, nobody at SS would ever know. Maybe from now on I'll write descriptions like: "Beautiful red rocks at unknown location in the American Southwest" or "Herd of Bighorn Sheep alongside a large petroglyph rock in No Man's Land, USA."

Wonder what the reaction to that would be? LOL
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on November 12, 2019, 15:47
In the UK theres a surprising number of restrictions - National Trust as I said, Royal Parks and much of London is privately owned such as Canary Wharf. I was very dissapointed when they started rejecting National Trust properties. I believe some people have had ones taken on National Parks removed which are not actually private property but areas with strict planning controls!
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 12, 2019, 17:38
In the UK theres a surprising number of restrictions - National Trust as I said, Royal Parks and much of London is privately owned such as Canary Wharf. I was very dissapointed when they started rejecting National Trust properties. I believe some people have had ones taken on National Parks removed which are not actually private property but areas with strict planning controls!

We have so much public land, and so many different legal entities in control of them, that I suspect it's different here from the UK.

FWIW… today AS accepted all 9 of the Beaver Dam State Park videos that SS rejected. I'm happy about that, and even tho SS has yet to provide a final decision, I have a feeling they will ultimately accept them too. They're nice 4k clips the likes of which I didn't find in the SS collection before submitting mine.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on November 13, 2019, 09:07
In the UK theres a surprising number of restrictions - National Trust as I said, Royal Parks and much of London is privately owned such as Canary Wharf. I was very dissapointed when they started rejecting National Trust properties. I believe some people have had ones taken on National Parks removed which are not actually private property but areas with strict planning controls!

We have so much public land, and so many different legal entities in control of them, that I suspect it's different here from the UK.

FWIW… today AS accepted all 9 of the Beaver Dam State Park videos that SS rejected. I'm happy about that, and even tho SS has yet to provide a final decision, I have a feeling they will ultimately accept them too. They're nice 4k clips the likes of which I didn't find in the SS collection before submitting mine.

NT and Heritage and the rest are grabbing for money, and that's why they are claiming rights. That started with no video allowed and moved to no photos for commercial purposes. You can take them, you can't market them. Oh unless you are standing off the property. The way I understand it, many of the sites and agencies that preserve in the UK are NOT government funded.

Martha is correct. US public lands are public, owned my the taxpayers (and everyone else I suppose). The restrictions are for commercial productions, film, marketing, advertising. Mostly the permission has to do with paying for a permit. That also includes, no interfering with other visitors.

If you want to shoot your wedding, reunion, whatever, you need a permit. If you want to use lights, multiple tripods, crew, dollies, tracks... you get the idea, you need a permit.

Taking photos in the National Parks and Historic Sites that are Government owned, unless the individual site has specific regulations, are perfectly legal.

This is a really good review:

https://www.backpacker.com/skills/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-national-park-photography-rules (https://www.backpacker.com/skills/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-national-park-photography-rules)

The problem is individual interpretation, but the bottom line is, personal use is fine, commercial needs a permit. But at the end it also says this, and I'll add the emphasis, from an attorney:

Maybe you get lucky and end up getting a photo printed in BACKPACKER. Do you need a permit then? Dickinson says no. “Generally, a photo that runs in Backpacker would not have required a permit to shoot unless it involved a model, set, or prop,” she says. The same applies to someone who makes their own greeting cards with photos from public lands or other similar hobbies. “The permit requirement for still photography is based on the activity that is taking place on federal lands, as opposed to what is going to be done with the photo once it is complete.”

Last of all, any photo agency can make their own rules, ShutterStock has done that and changed them over time. If SS decides they used to accept National Park photos, and in 2019 decided, they don't, that's the way the rules roll. Fortunately, except for cases where the site or subject claims copyright or some other infringement, Disney for example, SS will not remove older accepted photos and video. They will only reject new submissions.

I hope that adds something, and the source is an attorney not someone on a forum who thinks they have the answer. The real answer is "it depends", but the final answer is, we are legally allowed to use our photos for stock subjects.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 13, 2019, 12:04
Thank you, Uncle Pete. You've reaffirmed my understanding of US public-land policies.

BTW, this morning Adobe Stock accepted a couple dozen more new 4Ks of Nevada's state and federal lands that I haven't yet submitted to Shutterstock, because I'm still waiting, two days later, for SS's reply to my previous complaint.

Meanwhile, AS will get to review lots more nice 4Ks from Nevada and Arizona. :)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: jonbull on November 13, 2019, 13:08
i uploaded a series about sex an sexualize society, with still life of sex toys also, and they rejectd for Objectionable Content ....while the database has more than 15000 images with sex toys, why they rejected it? are they near trumpism catholic bigotism? feel more and more ashamed to work in such environment and companies,......realy i hope soon they all failed so some new subject will arise to clean the stock industry.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: jonbull on November 13, 2019, 13:09
i uploaded a series about sex an sexualize society, with still life of sex toys also, and they rejectd for Objectionable Content ....while the database has more than 15000 images with sex toys, why they rejected it? are they near trumpism catholic bigotism? feel more and more ashamed to work in such environment and companies,......realy i hope soon they all failed so some new subject will arise to clean the stock industry.
[/quote

correction...they blocked anal plug but let in other anal toys...i thought it was the anal part the problem but actually not.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 13, 2019, 14:22
It's a nightmare SS now.

Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Whiskybottle on November 13, 2019, 16:52
I'm not sure I would be drawing attention to those images as you might find them deleted. In the UK the National Trust for example became much most active in enforcing their "rights" and as a result many of us have had related images removed. The rules on what is admissable seem to get stricter all the time.

Well National Trust shot them selves in the foot with me a long time ago. I still take photos on 'their natural properties' (coastline for example) but I don't pay their membership or use their car parks which I would otherwise have done. Even had their reps try to tell me they're not anti-photographers any more... too late, your loss.

Back to SS. Resubmitted a batch of rejections, got about 60-70% through. They were being accepted/rejected real time as I submitted, no way did they get into someones work queue. Automated process like spell checker of description (latin plant names, Scottish hill names etc), similar content on one image, similar to what? too quick to check back content, keyword or colour matching?

Note English spelling of Colour  ;D
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 13, 2019, 17:18
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on November 13, 2019, 18:15
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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: pancaketom on November 13, 2019, 18:43
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 13, 2019, 18:58

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

I have to believe reviewers are real people, at least those working on videos.

Otherwise, why would they accept a whole batch of stills and 1 video of a specific named place without property releases and reject the rest of the videos of the identical named place for that precise reason?

Only humans are consistently inconsistent. Computers generally are not.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 14, 2019, 02:05
I talk about pictures.

I have no doubt for the last rejection. The program said "non licensable content" on both sites for a batch of 25. It was a just problematic word, because I have pictures from the same place uploaded and sold a month ago.

So, I removed the word and tried just one picture again on both sites.

The picture is rejected now for out of focus on both sites, nothing about "non licensable content".

It's very easy to realize that It's a program.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 14, 2019, 02:08
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.

Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on November 14, 2019, 02:56
I talk about pictures.

I have no doubt for the last rejection. The program said "non licensable content" on both sites for a batch of 25. It was a just problematic word, because I have pictures from the same place uploaded and sold a month ago.

So, I removed the word and tried just one picture again on both sites.

The picture is rejected now for out of focus on both sites, nothing about "non licensable content".

It's very easy to realize that It's a program.
I don't see any evidence one way or the other. Shutterstock have always rejected only on the first reason they spot since I can remember. Similarly on every site there have been complaints about inconsistent reviews since the start.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on November 14, 2019, 02:58
I'm not sure I would be drawing attention to those images as you might find them deleted. In the UK the National Trust for example became much most active in enforcing their "rights" and as a result many of us have had related images removed. The rules on what is admissable seem to get stricter all the time.

Well National Trust shot them selves in the foot with me a long time ago. I still take photos on 'their natural properties' (coastline for example) but I don't pay their membership or use their car parks which I would otherwise have done. Even had their reps try to tell me they're not anti-photographers any more... too late, your loss.

Back to SS. Resubmitted a batch of rejections, got about 60-70% through. They were being accepted/rejected real time as I submitted, no way did they get into someones work queue. Automated process like spell checker of description (latin plant names, Scottish hill names etc), similar content on one image, similar to what? too quick to check back content, keyword or colour matching?

Note English spelling of Colour  ;D
Even pictures of sites such as "Old Harry" rocks get rejected sometimes....when taken from a boat!
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Visualab on November 14, 2019, 04:18
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...
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 14, 2019, 05:17
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...


FUNNY!!! What perfect timing that you wrote that just now because…

I just now got the following email from SS:


************
We'd love to hear your opinion!

Hello,
 
We'd love to hear about your recent Contributor Care experience with us. Take this quick survey and tell us your thoughts. Your feedback will help us provide the best possible service to all our customers.

How knowledgeable did you find the representative that you worked with?
Extremely Knowledgeable
Very Knowledgeable
Somewhat Knowledgeable
Not Very Knowledgeable
Not At All Knowledgeable

Thank you,
Shutterstock

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

Of course, I have not yet had any resolution to my issue. It must be one heckuva tough problem for them to address.

I just forwarded the questionnaire on to the 2 "contributor care" representatives who have responded to me this week, with this note:

************
Hello, Abhay and Divya,

After four days of waiting, I have had no response from the “dedicated team” at Shutterstock.

But still, I just received the following email questionnaire from Shutterstock.

How do you suggest I reply to it??

Martha

************
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: georgep7 on November 14, 2019, 06:21
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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 14, 2019, 09:23
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: obj owl on November 14, 2019, 12:51
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on November 14, 2019, 13:20
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.  :)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on November 14, 2019, 13:58
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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: obj owl on November 14, 2019, 14:06
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 14, 2019, 15:02
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on November 14, 2019, 19:21
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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 16, 2019, 08:08
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...
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on November 16, 2019, 10:10
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?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on November 16, 2019, 15:05
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: txking on November 18, 2019, 14:24
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

Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Whiskybottle on November 18, 2019, 18:30
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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: lostintimeline on November 18, 2019, 19:11
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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: OM on November 19, 2019, 06:17
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. 
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 19, 2019, 08:32
Instant Review Era.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 19, 2019, 09:04
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Asthebelltolls on November 19, 2019, 11:33

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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: jonbull on November 19, 2019, 11:55
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 19, 2019, 12:17

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!
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: jonbull on November 19, 2019, 12:34
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on November 22, 2019, 20:33
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!)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: marthamarks on November 22, 2019, 21:22
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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on November 23, 2019, 13:05
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!
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: wordplanet on November 23, 2019, 20:56
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.

 

Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Hoodie Ninja on November 25, 2019, 17:57
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.

The inconsistency would be laughable, if it wasn't our livelihood on the line.

I recently had some images rejected by SS.  One image was rejected for focus (even though the focus was spot on) and noise/artifacts/film grain (even though there was none and it was at 100 ISO in daylight.  Adobe, however, accepted the images and that photo just sold.  So, I felt a bit vindicated myself. :)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Graiki on November 25, 2019, 18:41
Amazing how the reviewers or artificial intelligence went crazy.
Very boring all this.
I edited 7 videos and uploaded, were denied for various reasons. I sent again because Pond5 and Adobe had accepted. They were not accepted again.
I got the impression that the reviewers were crazy.
What did I do?
I sent it one by one.
Of the 7 videos, 5 of them were accepted after submitting by 3rd.
I believe sending in Batch is worse than one on one.
I ridicule it, but in my case it worked.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: ouatedeP on November 26, 2019, 04:13
In the UK theres a surprising number of restrictions - National Trust as I said, Royal Parks and much of London is privately owned such as Canary Wharf. I was very dissapointed when they started rejecting National Trust properties. I believe some people have had ones taken on National Parks removed which are not actually private property but areas with strict planning controls!


not only NT properties.  I've had image of the Giant's Causeway rejected, even though the rocks themselves are not property, just the entry booth and museum. 

but no way to make them understand at this point
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: ouatedeP on November 26, 2019, 04:21
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

support staff is just ridiculous.  I had them tell me my editorial was rejected for Non-Lic because "it was not newsworthy enough".  when i pointed out that that's actually not what SS-editorial is about as per guidelines, they came back that the action described was not obvious "Buying a transit ticket" with actual image being someone receiving a ticket the image.... 
add fact this is not what "Non-Lic" means, is still don't know why the image gets rejected  (i have decided to assume it's the americans blocking it because their was a kinder egg visible....)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Hoodie Ninja on November 26, 2019, 12:22
Amazing how the reviewers or artificial intelligence went crazy.
Very boring all this.
I edited 7 videos and uploaded, were denied for various reasons. I sent again because Pond5 and Adobe had accepted. They were not accepted again.
I got the impression that the reviewers were crazy.
What did I do?
I sent it one by one.
Of the 7 videos, 5 of them were accepted after submitting by 3rd.
I believe sending in Batch is worse than one on one.
I ridicule it, but in my case it worked.

I had a batch of 6 images that had gotten rejected due to noise and focus.  All images were in focus, but a couple did have a small amount of noise.  After reading your post, I decided to submit them one at a time.  All but one was accepted.  :)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Graiki on November 26, 2019, 19:29
Amazing how the reviewers or artificial intelligence went crazy.
Very boring all this.
I edited 7 videos and uploaded, were denied for various reasons. I sent again because Pond5 and Adobe had accepted. They were not accepted again.
I got the impression that the reviewers were crazy.
What did I do?
I sent it one by one.
Of the 7 videos, 5 of them were accepted after submitting by 3rd.
I believe sending in Batch is worse than one on one.
I ridicule it, but in my case it worked.

I had a batch of 6 images that had gotten rejected due to noise and focus.  All images were in focus, but a couple did have a small amount of noise.  After reading your post, I decided to submit them one at a time.  All but one was accepted.  :)

Yeah.
Something very crazy is happening over there.
Now I'm in this madness.
I edit everything, keywords, titles and saved.
And I send it one by one.
My God, what a job that works.
Good luck to everyone.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Hoodie Ninja on November 26, 2019, 19:59
Amazing how the reviewers or artificial intelligence went crazy.
Very boring all this.
I edited 7 videos and uploaded, were denied for various reasons. I sent again because Pond5 and Adobe had accepted. They were not accepted again.
I got the impression that the reviewers were crazy.
What did I do?
I sent it one by one.
Of the 7 videos, 5 of them were accepted after submitting by 3rd.
I believe sending in Batch is worse than one on one.
I ridicule it, but in my case it worked.

I had a batch of 6 images that had gotten rejected due to noise and focus.  All images were in focus, but a couple did have a small amount of noise.  After reading your post, I decided to submit them one at a time.  All but one was accepted.  :)

Yeah.
Something very crazy is happening over there.
Now I'm in this madness.
I edit everything, keywords, titles and saved.
And I send it one by one.
My God, what a job that works.
Good luck to everyone.

I will continue to send as batches unless I keep getting mass unwarranted rejections. 

May the force be with you! lol
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: William Perry on November 27, 2019, 13:47
My images were eventually accepted and a recent upload went much smoother. So maybe they have gotten the message on the title issue.

By the way, I have sold a number of new images.  Get the SS app and as soon as an
Images makes its first sale shows up on the app.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Clair Voyant on November 27, 2019, 17:28
the rejections lately are so random and ridiculous it makes me wonder if it is even worth my time to submit anymore. there is literally no rhyme or reason to the rejections. it makes me wonder if the powers that be over at SS are even aware of how ridiculous this is.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: LifeofRileyDesign on November 27, 2019, 20:00
I think SS is starting to fall down in a big way. The new way to upload vectors is just ridiculous! The new 'you beaut' generator screws up intricate patterns, and the powers that be that designed this system obviously have no idea whatsoever about vector images - they don't have MP!!!

Also, having a 1m x 1m vector image on sale IMO really drags down the quality of my portfolio, and now there are various images I can not create that will conform to both size and MB without really scaling back on the quality and doing a crappy job (vector glitter is no longer an option, neither are intricate nets or blends. When I found myself contemplating compromising on quality of my work to fit in with these rules, that's when I decided that SS has to take a back seat, and I will spend the majority of time submitting to other agencies. The amount of time and frustration of preparing my files in this way just for SS is just too much.

Now, onto the reviewers - Are they AI? Lab mice? Humans who's first language is not English? Are they people they have just randomly plucked off the streets? I say this as the rejections i'm getting are just plain stupid! I did a foreign language map, submitted it and it got knocked back for no translation in the title. Ok, how would you expect me to translate about 200 words in a title that has 200 characters available?!? I gave it another go translating 2 of the words, and guess what - on sale. Are we now not worried about what the other 198 words say??

I believe the rot set in when they changed the process to become a contributor - with one image approved you are good to go. Things just went down hill from there. They are becoming a total joke.

Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: OM on November 27, 2019, 20:40
I relised a few years ago that resubmits to SS are pretty pointless. Many years ago I did re-submit some images that I was convinced were OK and they became best-sellers but now it just seems there's no point. Everything new gets buried under a pile of ..... and has no chance to be seen anyway. Just IMO.....saves getting peeved and annoyed. If they reject it, they don't deserve it..move on.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: OM on November 27, 2019, 20:47
the rejections lately are so random and ridiculous it makes me wonder if it is even worth my time to submit anymore. there is literally no rhyme or reason to the rejections. it makes me wonder if the powers that be over at SS are even aware of how ridiculous this is.

The only thing the SS PTB worry about is their stock price which I suspect is intricately linked to the growth of the archive...show growth and Wall Street luvs ya. BS baffles brains..never mind the quality feel the width.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on November 28, 2019, 06:48
"I believe the rot set in when they changed the process to become a contributor - with one image approved you are good to go. Things just went down hill from there. "  Exactly they now have a huge burden on inspection and customer support for people who barely know how to hold a camera.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: trabuco on November 28, 2019, 06:51
Greed.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Snow on November 28, 2019, 07:27
the rejections lately are so random and ridiculous it makes me wonder if it is even worth my time to submit anymore. there is literally no rhyme or reason to the rejections. it makes me wonder if the powers that be over at SS are even aware of how ridiculous this is.

I don't think those higher up are aware or even care.






Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: William Perry on November 28, 2019, 20:01
Have been selling a number of photos that have been recently uploaded so my experience is different.   But. I am a travel photographer so by definition my
Images are different.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on November 30, 2019, 21:02
"I believe the rot set in when they changed the process to become a contributor - with one image approved you are good to go. Things just went down hill from there. "  Exactly they now have a huge burden on inspection and customer support for people who barely know how to hold a camera.

What's the difference if someone needs 7 images to get in or one? (or none) If the reviews were done right, the Crapstock wouldn't get approved. IS requires 3, DT requires none, I don't recall if Adobe has any requirements, Alamy used to inspect 10, I think they dropped that down as well.

But of those above, the review standards have changed, AS is tougher than FT, Alamy might have lightened up a bit, but not accepting slop. SS, IS, DT I can't really say, because things are so inconsistent. I know that images that were refused years ago, fly through now with those three.

My point is, the reviews are what needs to keep out the junk, not some silly test. What happens after the test, if there is one? I think that's the way SS sees it, reviewers are the gate keepers. They need to be reliable and not just pay for click reviews, based on speed.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on December 01, 2019, 09:46
"I believe the rot set in when they changed the process to become a contributor - with one image approved you are good to go. Things just went down hill from there. "  Exactly they now have a huge burden on inspection and customer support for people who barely know how to hold a camera.

What's the difference if someone needs 7 images to get in or one? (or none) If the reviews were done right, the Crapstock wouldn't get approved. IS requires 3, DT requires none, I don't recall if Adobe has any requirements, Alamy used to inspect 10, I think they dropped that down as well.

But of those above, the review standards have changed, AS is tougher than FT, Alamy might have lightened up a bit, but not accepting slop. SS, IS, DT I can't really say, because things are so inconsistent. I know that images that were refused years ago, fly through now with those three.

My point is, the reviews are what needs to keep out the junk, not some silly test. What happens after the test, if there is one? I think that's the way SS sees it, reviewers are the gate keepers. They need to be reliable and not just pay for click reviews, based on speed.
The problem is with no "real" test then contributors with little or no knowledge of photography and issues like meta data are able to submit thousands of images which if they were inspected propeperly would cost the agency a huge amount. Money spent on rejecting images is wasted money. It would simply be uneconomic to properly inspect images at the kind of volumes Shutterstock have encouraged.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: georgep7 on December 01, 2019, 15:46
Reading thread from curiosity, noticed that comments are three types
rejections are alot + lot on newcoming mediocre content + old stuff sells.

So perhaps they focus promoting what sells, keeping out everything new without actual separation of good or bad? After all they have all the data to know what sells and what not and what categfories are overpopulated by media?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: komikmiha on December 01, 2019, 17:49
Shutterstock reviewers really are idiots. They reject a form release on one clip but they accept the same release on similar clip. Reason: Invalid Model Release. Bunch of morons if you ask me.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 01, 2019, 18:22
"I believe the rot set in when they changed the process to become a contributor - with one image approved you are good to go. Things just went down hill from there. "  Exactly they now have a huge burden on inspection and customer support for people who barely know how to hold a camera.

What's the difference if someone needs 7 images to get in or one? (or none) If the reviews were done right, the Crapstock wouldn't get approved. IS requires 3, DT requires none, I don't recall if Adobe has any requirements, Alamy used to inspect 10, I think they dropped that down as well.

But of those above, the review standards have changed, AS is tougher than FT, Alamy might have lightened up a bit, but not accepting slop. SS, IS, DT I can't really say, because things are so inconsistent. I know that images that were refused years ago, fly through now with those three.

My point is, the reviews are what needs to keep out the junk, not some silly test. What happens after the test, if there is one? I think that's the way SS sees it, reviewers are the gate keepers. They need to be reliable and not just pay for click reviews, based on speed.
The problem is with no "real" test then contributors with little or no knowledge of photography and issues like meta data are able to submit thousands of images which if they were inspected propeperly would cost the agency a huge amount. Money spent on rejecting images is wasted money. It would simply be uneconomic to properly inspect images at the kind of volumes Shutterstock have encouraged.

You haven't addressed my point at all. Any agency, the reviews determine what's accepted. If done properly, it doesn't matter is they have a test or not. But you keep harping on the test as the problem? Then you say they can't inspect properly or that would cost them too much.

Most agencies... anyone can create a free account. After that they can start uploading images, once accepted, they will be available for sale. Exceptions that I can recall, SS one image, IS three images, Alamy ten images. On the other side, what's the test at DT, DP, AS, 123RF, Pond5, 500PX, Bigstock, and on down the list?

You are claiming that any agency with no test, can't be economical, and SS is failing because they changed from ten to one. But what then about the agencies, which are the majority of all agencies, require no test and never have? Seems to be a logical contradiction.

On a side note: I don't think the people who can't make a good image or can't fill in data are competition. They are just filler and numbers and most never make payout and most don't get any downloads, after which they leave.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on December 02, 2019, 03:28
"I believe the rot set in when they changed the process to become a contributor - with one image approved you are good to go. Things just went down hill from there. "  Exactly they now have a huge burden on inspection and customer support for people who barely know how to hold a camera.

What's the difference if someone needs 7 images to get in or one? (or none) If the reviews were done right, the Crapstock wouldn't get approved. IS requires 3, DT requires none, I don't recall if Adobe has any requirements, Alamy used to inspect 10, I think they dropped that down as well.

But of those above, the review standards have changed, AS is tougher than FT, Alamy might have lightened up a bit, but not accepting slop. SS, IS, DT I can't really say, because things are so inconsistent. I know that images that were refused years ago, fly through now with those three.

My point is, the reviews are what needs to keep out the junk, not some silly test. What happens after the test, if there is one? I think that's the way SS sees it, reviewers are the gate keepers. They need to be reliable and not just pay for click reviews, based on speed.
The problem is with no "real" test then contributors with little or no knowledge of photography and issues like meta data are able to submit thousands of images which if they were inspected propeperly would cost the agency a huge amount. Money spent on rejecting images is wasted money. It would simply be uneconomic to properly inspect images at the kind of volumes Shutterstock have encouraged.

You haven't addressed my point at all. Any agency, the reviews determine what's accepted. If done properly, it doesn't matter is they have a test or not. But you keep harping on the test as the problem? Then you say they can't inspect properly or that would cost them too much.

Most agencies... anyone can create a free account. After that they can start uploading images, once accepted, they will be available for sale. Exceptions that I can recall, SS one image, IS three images, Alamy ten images. On the other side, what's the test at DT, DP, AS, 123RF, Pond5, 500PX, Bigstock, and on down the list?

You are claiming that any agency with no test, can't be economical, and SS is failing because they changed from ten to one. But what then about the agencies, which are the majority of all agencies, require no test and never have? Seems to be a logical contradiction.

On a side note: I don't think the people who can't make a good image or can't fill in data are competition. They are just filler and numbers and most never make payout and most don't get any downloads, after which they leave.
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....
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 02, 2019, 15:56
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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....!!!!!
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on December 03, 2019, 03:11
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: martinrichard on December 03, 2019, 10:51
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on December 03, 2019, 10:55
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?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 03, 2019, 13:04
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.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Qxd3VjcW/2cents.gif)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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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 ;-).
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 03, 2019, 14:03
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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...
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on December 05, 2019, 08:22
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Medstockphotos on December 05, 2019, 15:58
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....
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 05, 2019, 16:02
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Artist 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Artist on December 09, 2019, 07:41
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 10, 2019, 11:20
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on December 10, 2019, 21:45
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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: YadaYadaYada on December 11, 2019, 07:27
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
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: jonbull on December 11, 2019, 08:41
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?
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Uncle Pete on December 11, 2019, 10:55
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.  :)
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Stock4Me on December 12, 2019, 07:05
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: BalkanskiMacak on December 12, 2019, 10:22
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...
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on December 12, 2019, 11:39
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Josephine 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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: wordplanet on December 12, 2019, 18:49
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) 
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: wordplanet on December 12, 2019, 18:52
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.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: wordplanet 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.

Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: cascoly on December 13, 2019, 09:16
....

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.

yet another random guess with nothing to back it up....  just as likely they read unicorn droppings to decide
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: pixel86 on December 13, 2019, 10:01
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.


I checked into this 7 or 8 years ago. At that time they paid $.05 per image reviewed. I think you are right on...they mass reject/accept to make more money. That’s why there’s so much crap on the sites now.

Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: georgep7 on December 13, 2019, 10:22
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.


I checked into this 7 or 8 years ago. At that time they paid $.05 per image reviewed. I think you are right on...they mass reject/accept to make more money. That’s why there’s so much crap on the sites now.

Assuming I have a $0,00000005 return for all content uploaded, I must consider becoming a reviewer instead of a contributor any more! :P
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: jonbull on December 13, 2019, 10:50
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.

maybe or maybe people wit h minimal knowledge of stuff and minimal earning should begin stopping doing the expert...not your case...wee maybe your case too.
Title: Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
Post by: Pauws99 on December 13, 2019, 12:46
Yes lets just have self proclaimed "expert" views only.