pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots  (Read 13762 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: October 19, 2019, 15:18 »
+4
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.


« Reply #51 on: October 19, 2019, 16:01 »
+4
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.

OM

« Reply #52 on: October 20, 2019, 19:30 »
+2
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

« Reply #53 on: October 20, 2019, 21:24 »
+2
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 dont give up.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #54 on: October 21, 2019, 09:20 »
+4
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.

« Reply #55 on: October 21, 2019, 10:13 »
+1
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.

« Reply #56 on: October 21, 2019, 11:50 »
0
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.

« Reply #57 on: October 22, 2019, 07:13 »
0
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 ;-).

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #58 on: October 22, 2019, 13:15 »
0
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.

« Reply #59 on: November 06, 2019, 08:35 »
+2
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.



« Reply #60 on: November 06, 2019, 13:38 »
+2
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

« Reply #61 on: November 06, 2019, 15:30 »
+2
Same problem here. No rejections before this (5% ), now rejections about 30-40 %.


« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2019, 02:28 »
0
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.

« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2019, 03:38 »
+1
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.


 

« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2019, 03:44 »
+3
Yes, they are.

« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2019, 03:57 »
+2
This artificial intelligence or whatever has to learn a lot..

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2019, 04:30 »
+1
I have something like a 75% success rate on 2nd re-submissions without any changes whatsoever.


« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2019, 05:15 »
0
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  ???

« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2019, 05:42 »
+2
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..

« Reply #69 on: November 07, 2019, 05:59 »
0
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. 

« Reply #70 on: November 07, 2019, 06:17 »
+1
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.


« Reply #71 on: November 07, 2019, 06:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #72 on: November 07, 2019, 06:33 »
0
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"

« Reply #73 on: November 07, 2019, 11:37 »
0
Do you resubmit the similar content rejections?

Successful?

« Reply #74 on: November 07, 2019, 13:05 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
10042 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
957 Replies
123112 Views
Last post November 04, 2015, 14:39
by cascoly
22 Replies
4986 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
33848 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
4 Replies
828 Views
Last post November 17, 2019, 16:53
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results