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.

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!

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.

Quote from: Hoodie Ninja on November 26, 2019, 12:22

Quote from: 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.

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.

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 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.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 30, 2019, 21:02

Quote from: 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.

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.

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....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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