Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 246639 times)

skyfish · « **Reply #400 on:** March 02, 2015, 04:00 »

Compare to others i think i have not a lot of unreasonable rejections, but i have them. The trend shows that SS does not have wish and possibilities to keep things clean. They devalue the efforts which were done by ss owner and contributors before. Inertion will give some life to continue, but something else comes. SS can miss their train like many other agencies.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #401 on:** March 02, 2015, 07:19 »

After complaining and asking to have "poor rasterization" pointed out to me, once againl my rejections were labeled "mistakes." Then for a week everything was approved. Then right back to "poor rasterization." I try very hard to be Zen about it, but it's really irritating. What a complete waste of time for me and the person who has to re inspect everything. Now I'm keeping track of these "mistakes." We'll see how it nets out by year end.

skyfish · « **Reply #402 on:** March 02, 2015, 07:35 »

Track record will give info about reviewer. Question does SS needs this? Are they capable to clean? For me this reviewer follows his private interest or his real employers interest.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #403 on:** March 03, 2015, 11:50 »

Sunday, editorial 27/30 approved.

Tuesday, editorial 27/30 rejected.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #404 on:** March 03, 2015, 11:59 »

I think someone else started the term, but I'm thinking it covers the situation. "Rogue Reviewers" who seem to be rejection happy and click random reasons to make faster reviews and more money. There must be a turnover and that could mean inexperienced reviewers also.

But that poor rasterization and soft at full size, is more of a full of it rejection. When one image is soft at full size and the next is over sharpened (and I don't sharpen!) then the next is soft, alternating down a line of rejections. I suspect someone is just an unhappy reviewer and making money with as little effort as possible.

SS says they review the reviewers. Yeah, but do the complaints get flagged? Why do we have to waste time writing and waiting for long periods of time, without knowing if anything will ever change. There needs to be more monitoring of the reviewers, and some way that we can easily flag these Rogue Reviews, so they get special attention.

Idea for SS.

Myself I don't get many rejections. (fingers crossed, 242 waiting in line right now)

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 02, 2015, 07:19

After complaining and asking to have "poor rasterization" pointed out to me, once againl my rejections were labeled "mistakes." Then for a week everything was approved. Then right back to "poor rasterization." I try very hard to be Zen about it, but it's really irritating. What a complete waste of time for me and the person who has to re inspect everything. Now I'm keeping track of these "mistakes." We'll see how it nets out by year end.

Ariene · « **Reply #405 on:** March 03, 2015, 12:08 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 03, 2015, 11:59

I think someone else started the term, but I'm thinking it covers the situation. "Rogue Reviewers" who seem to be rejection happy and click random reasons to make faster reviews and more money. There must be a turnover and that could mean inexperienced reviewers also.

But that poor rasterization and soft at full size, is more of a full of it rejection. When one image is soft at full size and the next is over sharpened (and I don't sharpen!) then the next is soft, alternating down a line of rejections. I suspect someone is just an unhappy reviewer and making money with as little effort as possible.

SS says they review the reviewers. Yeah, but do the complaints get flagged? Why do we have to waste time writing and waiting for long periods of time, without knowing if anything will ever change. There needs to be more monitoring of the reviewers, and some way that we can easily flag these Rogue Reviews, so they get special attention.

Amen!! Those "mistakes" are to often and many people admit that. It makes me mad to see 100% batch rejected just to be sent again (after first email contact) to get 100% approved

I just got info from few guys, they were reviewed by "butcher", 100% rejections. All work for nothing. WOT. Maybe next upload will be more lucky.
Uncle Pete, good luck, my files are waiting too. Review will be in a moment.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #406 on:** March 04, 2015, 16:33 »

Paintings in a museum submitted as editorial, rejected because they arent editorial. Submitted as non editorial, rejected because they arent non editorial.

~~Someone is just taking the piss.~~

No Free Lunch · « **Reply #407 on:** March 04, 2015, 16:59 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 03, 2015, 11:50

Sunday, editorial 27/30 approved.

Tuesday, editorial 27/30 rejected.

Parallel Universe

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #408 on:** March 05, 2015, 02:56 »

On the same image

Quote

Similar Submissions--Images within this submission are nearly identical or have already been approved.
Do not included special characters in your title/caption/keywords. Please correct and resubmit.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #409 on:** March 05, 2015, 03:24 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 04, 2015, 16:33

Paintings in a museum submitted as editorial, rejected because they arent editorial. Submitted as non editorial, rejected because they arent non editorial.

~~Someone is just taking the piss.~~

I have to blame myself here. Found this on the SS blog

Quote

Images of museum interiors that contain isolated artwork or artwork that is the main focus of the image are unacceptable for commercial or editorial use.

However the Capitole in toulose is not a museum and has no entrance fee. Photography is allowed as well.

Phadrea · « **Reply #410 on:** March 06, 2015, 05:08 »

Yes, I am the whipping boy at the moment. Every single one of my last batch rejected.

Harder and harder to get accepted images+less and less sales=Depressing.

MxR · « **Reply #411 on:** March 06, 2015, 06:44 »

The problem is that it is easy Shutter that support people isolated, apples studio shots, smling flashed people with forced poses ... and other "news".

If you do something realistic, natural light or not in high key usually have more rejections ... rejection buttons "noise" and "poor lighting" are clubbed like the jostick pad of a videogame.

There are several options that I think wickedly:

- SS is stupid and goes against the trends
- Reviewers do not want competition with your photos
- We are reviewed by the robot Skynet

So I'm not afraid about approved millions of photos per minute, because what most agree is repetitive stocky shots...

dpimborough · « **Reply #412 on:** March 06, 2015, 09:24 »

Well I've given up loading to SS for now.

I'll wait until things calm down there's no point going through the mill for pennies

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #413 on:** March 06, 2015, 15:09 »

100% rejection on 30 editorial images. Every image had 3-4 reasons for rejection. It absolute bullocks. Composition, exposure, WB, noise and focus. Every image. Someone went to town.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #414 on:** March 06, 2015, 16:16 »

rogue reviewer , definitely pete...
i think shelma got it right on the button
semmick, herg, etc...
make a log of all the rejections and once it is substantial enough
everyone flood Support with it.
eventually, the papertrail of the mass rejections will identify the rogue reviewer(s)
and or the one who has conflict of interest as mxr points out , not want good works to
compete against their own.

did no one believe that person many months back who said it was a conspiracy???
most of us say it was all in our head. now we know it is not.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #415 on:** March 06, 2015, 16:25 »

Its not a conspiracy, but I dont get it how all of a sudden 30 images have 3-4 problems each, when the previous 150 were basically accepted.

Quote

Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
White Balance -- The incorrect white balance setting was used.
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.

I dont see it

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #416 on:** March 06, 2015, 16:30 »

john used say...

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright

skyfish · « **Reply #417 on:** March 06, 2015, 17:00 »

I came to Steve (Cascoly) with one idea for which i already did preparation on my side. Waiting from him for a final response. If test works, many photographers will receive additional option.

Rinderart · « **Reply #418 on:** March 06, 2015, 20:21 »

I dont get many rejections over the years and when I do, It was My fault Missing a clone mark or something and it's all good. just had rejections for "Titles Must be in English" I wouldn't know how to write in any other language!! . This is absolutely stupid...Really stupid. I won't re-submit. There not worthy of the Images if they can't even get that right.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #419 on:** March 07, 2015, 06:27 »

I have been one of those lamenting more about inconsistent rejection here.

Now I just take a little more attention about what I submit and how I post process my images (I try to give them what they ask/want… and I also use a better camera and better lenses).

Doing so, from the beginning of the year I have uploaded around 500 images and I have got only 2 rejections. One was because it was a double image, the other has ben approved after some little adjustments.
Maybe I have only been fortunate, I don't know… It could be.
I hope it will continue like that…

Lately, a big change that I have made has been to stop to submit images from Friday morning to Sunday end of the afternoon… It has always been my impression that the week-end's inspectors were not serious at all…

skyfish · « **Reply #420 on:** March 07, 2015, 07:21 »

Or exactly serious for some reasons. I have accepted manif photos, and rejected one, editorial too, because it was square (cropping reason). I checked that subject - tourist taking photo is acceptable as editorial and ss has many with the same gadgets. Mine was different generally, more stocksy style. Suspected reason - this composition which i cought "in nature" is reproduceable by image factories. Supporting this opinion were previous rejections of quality images with other subjects, but reproduceable. Images enough unique were accepted. Day of week - i didn't find the correlation strong enough.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #421 on:** March 07, 2015, 11:15 »

I think something new kicked in, with the filter and preview software. I just got this one today: "Do not included special characters in your title/caption/keywords. Please correct and resubmit."

The other seven from last week, went through just fine. When I looked I saw that I had used a "forbidden" character. In the title it shows as this (on the accepted files) Juan Pablo GarcÃ?Âa and in the keywords, garcÃƒÂ£Ã‚Âa. Those passed, now the review caught it.

So I suspect you just ran into something the same? Look and see?

It was supposed to say - Juan Pablo Garcia without the í character.

Now I have to go do some editing, because I missed it when I was adding the title, description and keywords.

Quote from: Rinderart on March 06, 2015, 20:21

I dont get many rejections over the years and when I do, It was My fault Missing a clone mark or something and it's all good. just had rejections for "Titles Must be in English" I wouldn't know how to write in any other language!! . This is absolutely stupid...Really stupid. I won't re-submit. There not worthy of the Images if they can't even get that right.

Rinderart · « **Reply #422 on:** March 07, 2015, 11:25 »

2 Images. One titled "Beautiful Woman" and "Handsome Italian Man" thats it. Oh well. rejection had "Titles must be in English" nothing else. So...I assume the normal Now is re-submit. thats silly.

caraman · « **Reply #423 on:** March 07, 2015, 13:27 »

They've rejected a couple of my illustrations, stating that they need to see a reference photo for them...Now where would I find a reference photo for something that came out of my imagination? Sounds like they got some new reviewers that don't know what they're doing!

Shelma1 · « **Reply #424 on:** March 07, 2015, 13:35 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 07, 2015, 11:15

I think something new kicked in, with the filter and preview software. I just got this one today: "Do not included special characters in your title/caption/keywords. Please correct and resubmit."

The other seven from last week, went through just fine. When I looked I saw that I had used a "forbidden" character. In the title it shows as this (on the accepted files) Juan Pablo GarcÃ?Âa and in the keywords, garcÃƒÂ£Ã‚Âa. Those passed, now the review caught it.

So I suspect you just ran into something the same? Look and see?

It was supposed to say - Juan Pablo Garcia without the í character.

Now I have to go do some editing, because I missed it when I was adding the title, description and keywords.

Quote from: Rinderart on March 06, 2015, 20:21
I dont get many rejections over the years and when I do, It was My fault Missing a clone mark or something and it's all good. just had rejections for "Titles Must be in English" I wouldn't know how to write in any other language!! . This is absolutely stupid...Really stupid. I won't re-submit. There not worthy of the Images if they can't even get that right.

I think their own system turns normal characters into "special" characters. I've seen similar strings of odd characters replacing an apostrophe in my titles, for example. Then my files are rejected for special characters. I have to force myself to not use apostrophes where they would normally go.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 246639 times)

skyfish

Shelma1

skyfish

Semmick Photo

Uncle Pete

Ariene

Semmick Photo

No Free Lunch

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Phadrea

MxR

dpimborough

Semmick Photo

etudiante_rapide

Semmick Photo

etudiante_rapide

skyfish

Rinderart

Beppe Grillo

skyfish

Uncle Pete

Rinderart

caraman

Shelma1

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors