Quote from: JPSDK on June 23, 2014, 10:29

....
Rejections are all about supply and demand, and you folks might be going out of demand, as we all are.

if that's the case they should say so rather than invent bogus 'ighting problems' or 'composition' rejects  or asking for a model release when there are no people in t he picture

Looks to me like they are still accepting a fair number of snaps. Take a look at a few ports from some of the LCV images here. Their new images are similar and they seem to have no problem getting them thru.

http://tinyurl.com/omjzzhs

Yep, just got a whole batch rejected. Gutted. Some images of the same shoot  (one accepted some time ago) were rejected on the basis of copyright. Contradiction again !

Yep, just got a whole batch rejected. Gutted. Some images of the same shoot  (one accepted some time ago) were rejected on the basis of copyright. Contradiction again !

Yeah, I've had various opinions on copyright before as well.  Generally the stricter reviewer is correct though. 
There could have been a logo visible in one shot and not the other.  Or, with something like a John Deere tractor - which is generally refused because the green color is trademarked - not all reviewers catch it.  There gets to be a lot of products and locations that have copyright issues and its probably a challenge to keep track of them all.

A lot of very Old Images there, Of course thats what is selling. Maybe they want us whiners as jens said...To just go away. They may get there wish sooner than later and lots more will follow unless they start talking and actually saying something. Remember what the recession taught us, Your never to big to fail.

Sort by new http://tinyurl.com/omjzzhs

I normally don't think too much about rejected images, but I had 6 that were simply stunning.
I really wanted to get them through, so I resubmit them in two small batches.

Batch of 2: 1 approved
Batch of 4: 0 approved

Needless to say, rejection reasons were completely opposite.

First time they were rejected for lighting, composition and noise.
Now they were rejected only for focus. I didn't change a thing - exact same pictures.

So that's it, I'm tired of making a fool out of myself.
I'll shift my uploading priority to IS, they already sell more anyway.

I normally don't think too much about rejected images, but I had 6 that were simply stunning.
I really wanted to get them through, so I resubmit them in two small batches.

Batch of 2: 1 approved
Batch of 4: 0 approved

Needless to say, rejection reasons were completely opposite.

First time they were rejected for lighting, composition and noise.
Now they were rejected only for focus. I didn't change a thing - exact same pictures.

So that's it, I'm tired of making a fool out of myself.
I'll shift my uploading priority to IS, they already sell more anyway.

Yep.

I think things are getting better-  so far this month 168 submitted images with 150 being accepted thus almost 90%. 

With the ~24hr reviewing ive had quite a lot of batches lately and my reviews at least have been fair for quite a while now.  The stuff still isn't selling obviously but its getting accepted.

Good thing there is Istock to save the day.

Honestly, this isn't a good thing.
Daily, I see files getting into iStock which would be substandard in a primary school photography project. (Quite apart from disgraceful keywording.)
In the old days, iStock had standards which were at least as high as SS's, and it was a far better collection as a result. I learned some things I had no idea about before (e.g. colour fringing, colour aberration) and it was all to the good.
Nowadays, they take just about anything (I had a rejection for a 'too simple' illustration, which was a classic symbol exactly 'as is', but I'm not bitter  ) - but then they hide new files in the Best Match.
Are you actually getting a lot of sales on iStock or just sub sales in the PP?

ShadySue, I get only subs of course but SS is the same (98% of sales). I think it's better to take everything and let sales decide which files are good then to reject stunning pictures just because of possible camera limitations. I think how the picture actually looks like is way more important than purely technical aspects. SS has plenty of pictures lacking aesthetics but just because they have technical quality doesn't mean they are good.

Quote from: Ron on May 18, 2014, 01:16

Yes, I have also explained how they use technology. I have no idea where that quote is, its somewhere on a forum. I think even Scott came in here and explained it.

They open the image automatically for the reviewer at 100% on the screen. To speed things up. The reviewer still makes the decision. How do you explain inconsistency on the same image, if it was 100% automated? Technology is not ambiguous.

Probably the system proposes to the inspector some  possible "verdicts" and the inspector, hurry to reach his quota of reviewed images for the day, to then go to smoke and drink beers with his unemployed friends, pushes hastily one of buttons correspondent to the various rejection reasons offered by the system�


(Or do they just use blind people as inspectors??)

Well any evidence found yet? I have not followed the case yet so bit lack the information.. Can you share some more details?

I dont worry about rejections