pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots  (Read 13286 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: November 25, 2019, 17:57 »
+5
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. :)


« Reply #151 on: November 25, 2019, 18:41 »
+2
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.

« Reply #152 on: November 26, 2019, 04:13 »
0
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

« Reply #153 on: November 26, 2019, 04:21 »
0
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....)

« Reply #154 on: November 26, 2019, 12:22 »
+1
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.  :)

« Reply #155 on: November 26, 2019, 19:29 »
0
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.

« Reply #156 on: November 26, 2019, 19:59 »
0
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

« Reply #157 on: November 27, 2019, 13:47 »
0
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.

« Reply #158 on: November 27, 2019, 17:28 »
+5
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.

« Reply #159 on: November 27, 2019, 20:00 »
+2
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.


OM

« Reply #160 on: November 27, 2019, 20:40 »
0
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.

OM

« Reply #161 on: November 27, 2019, 20:47 »
0
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.

« Reply #162 on: November 28, 2019, 06:48 »
+5
"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.

« Reply #163 on: November 28, 2019, 06:51 »
0
Greed.

« Reply #164 on: November 28, 2019, 07:27 »
+2
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.






« Last Edit: November 28, 2019, 08:29 by Snow »

« Reply #165 on: November 28, 2019, 20:01 »
+1
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.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #166 on: November 30, 2019, 21:02 »
+1
"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.


« Reply #167 on: December 01, 2019, 09:46 »
0
"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.

« Reply #168 on: December 01, 2019, 15:46 »
0
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?

« Reply #169 on: December 01, 2019, 17:49 »
0
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.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #170 on: December 01, 2019, 18:22 »
+3
"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.

« Reply #171 on: December 02, 2019, 03:28 »
+1
"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....

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #172 on: December 02, 2019, 15:56 »
+2
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.

PZF

« Reply #173 on: December 03, 2019, 02:23 »
+4
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....!!!!!

« Reply #174 on: December 03, 2019, 03:11 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
10013 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
957 Replies
122969 Views
Last post November 04, 2015, 14:39
by cascoly
22 Replies
4966 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
33781 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
4 Replies
807 Views
Last post November 17, 2019, 16:53
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results