Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 245702 times)

miketravels · « **Reply #100 on:** May 27, 2014, 12:40 »

Quote from: Ron on May 27, 2014, 12:14

Ever since I avoided weekend reviews my approvals seem to be ok.

It could be that the weekend reviewers are more thorough and picky about little things whilst weekday staff are rushing through the images. I had some very valid rejections on the weekend as I had some dust spots which id missed and other rejections I agree with.

Saying that, often that's not the case and I don't agree with the rejection.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Goofy · « **Reply #101 on:** May 27, 2014, 12:45 »

It's hit or miss even on weekends. This month my acceptance was around 75% thus low for me- I am usually around 86% acceptance rate. The standards or what they are seeking probably driving the rejections.

Sunnygirl · « **Reply #102 on:** May 27, 2014, 20:05 »

The stories like these make me appreciate my istock exclusivity a bit more. I meticulously edit the files that I send, so I'd be really pissed to have them all rejected for a weird or extremely stupid reason like sunset/sunrise wb, noise or selective focus / shallow dof, after hours spent in the lightroom and photoshop. Total crap.

Especially today since most of the images bought are in medium and large formats and none of the "imperfections" can be spotted or seen. It's just nonsense.

Goofy · « **Reply #103 on:** May 27, 2014, 21:32 »

One thing I've noticed on my rejections- when I bring up the file in Camera Raw (version 8.4) on the upper right is the histogram the left and right markers better be in black indicating that there isn't any extreme conditions. I bet they the launch some program (maybe even Camera Raw) and if the markers are not right it is automatically rejected for lighting...

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #104 on:** May 27, 2014, 23:34 »

Quote from: maboleth on May 27, 2014, 20:05

The stories like these make me appreciate my istock exclusivity a bit more.

The only problem, IMO, is that iStock is taking it to the other extreme....allowing just about everything in, stuff that shouldn't be allowed, and thus degrading the entire collection in the process.

stealthmode · « **Reply #105 on:** May 28, 2014, 01:59 »

Quote from: mlwinphoto on May 27, 2014, 23:34

Quote from: maboleth on May 27, 2014, 20:05
The stories like these make me appreciate my istock exclusivity a bit more.

The only problem, IMO, is that iStock is taking it to the other extreme....allowing just about everything in, stuff that shouldn't be allowed, and thus degrading the entire collection in the process.

Don't worry, it will happen at Shutterstock as well sooner or later.

And their entire collection is already degraded by random 100% acceptance or 100% rejection anyway.

I read somewhere that their reviewers are being paid very little. As a result, the review quality is very very low.

One day Shutterstock will realize that it's pointless to pay even just 1 cent per image if the results are totally random. So they'll have to decide to either employ capable reviewers and pay them properly or just instruct them to accept everything, except for a quick legal issues check. My guess is that they'll choose the cheaper way.

KerinF · « **Reply #106 on:** May 28, 2014, 02:19 »

Curious, if anyone knows, are whole batches reviewed by the one person or are the images just spread far and wide and then consolidated again afterwards to give the final feedback on the whole batch? Just wonder if reviewers are paid per image, then that may be an incentive to take shortcuts and just bulk code some batches? There does seem to be a remarkable similarity in the reason selected, even when the images are diverse (from completely different shoots and conditions)

stealthmode · « **Reply #107 on:** May 28, 2014, 02:26 »

Quote from: KerinF on May 28, 2014, 02:19

Curious, if anyone knows, are whole batches reviewed by the one person or are the images just spread far and wide and then consolidated again afterwards to give the final feedback on the whole batch? Just wonder if reviewers are paid per image, then that may be an incentive to take shortcuts and just bulk code some batches? There does seem to be a remarkable similarity in the reason selected, even when the images are diverse (from completely different shoots and conditions)

Not that I know directly... but statistical observations all point to this: whole batch - and all queued batches as well, even if uploaded at different times - reviewed by just one person. Quick bulk rejection choosing a random reason is exactly the problem.

Rinderart · « **Reply #108 on:** May 28, 2014, 08:55 »

The rejections are worse than anything I've seen in nearly 10 Years. Totally shocking.

Goofy · « **Reply #109 on:** May 28, 2014, 09:07 »

I got stoned last night - only one pic passed out of the entire batch! I will stop uploading for a while until this madness stops!

stealthmode · « **Reply #110 on:** May 28, 2014, 09:16 »

Quote from: Goofy on May 28, 2014, 09:07

I got stoned last night - only one pic passed out of the entire batch! I will stop uploading for a while until this madness stops!

I've got a theory for this: rejecting whole batches is getting suspicious; all but one is safer for lazy reviewers.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #111 on:** May 28, 2014, 09:25 »

It is what the government would call "DOUBLE DIPPING"!

This way the reviewer can get paid twice for what should have been only once!

stealthmode · « **Reply #112 on:** May 28, 2014, 09:48 »

The most worrying fact is that everybody seems to be concerned about these crazy rejections EXCEPT Shutterstock.

There's a very long thread on their forum too, and they are completely ignoring it.

This is very unprofessional.

Maybe it's time to start to boycott Shutterstock as well - why should they have a free pass?

1. No more uploads until they'll take note;

2. About the "double dipping" thing, the shareholders may be interested to hear from us;

3. Uploading more pictures to other sites: rebalancing the marketplace is good for us.

Asthebelltolls · « **Reply #113 on:** May 28, 2014, 10:30 »

I'm going to take the high road on this issue even though, like so many others, the vast majority of my submissions have been rejected for many months now.

I wonder if SS is looking at the BIG picture and seeing a troublesome trend taking shape that if not already hurting us all, will chip away more and more down the road.

I'm referring to the "freebies". Images that are offered by other agencies and on-line sites like free images dot com and freeimages dot co. The free pile is growing and while most of those images maybe average snapshots, SS may be recognizing that they have to do everything they can to distinguish their stock from the snapshot pile or loose market share.

If that's the case, it's a bold move. Like so many of you, I've done everything I can to improve my technical skills. Tripod. Using the 10x extender to check focus etc. And yet the vast majority are still rejected - yet doing well with other agencies.

Goofy · « **Reply #114 on:** May 28, 2014, 10:34 »

"Maybe it's time to start to boycott Shutterstock as well - why should they have a free pass?"

Good luck with that! Let's see they are at least 40% to 50% of my total monthly income. I assume similar to a lot of other folks on this site. If I boycott them I am as will boycott the entire industry thus sell my camera and work for walmart...

stealthmode · « **Reply #115 on:** May 28, 2014, 10:44 »

Quote from: Asthebelltolls on May 28, 2014, 10:30

I'm going to take the high road on this issue even though, like so many others, the vast majority of my submissions have been rejected for many months now.

I wonder if SS is looking at the BIG picture and seeing a troublesome trend taking shape that if not already hurting us all, will chip away more and more down the road.

I'm referring to the "freebies". Images that are offered by other agencies and on-line sites like free images dot com and freeimages dot co. The free pile is growing and while most of those images maybe average snapshots, SS may be recognizing that they have to do everything they can to distinguish their stock from the snapshot pile or loose market share.

If that's the case, it's a bold move. Like so many of you, I've done everything I can to improve my technical skills. Tripod. Using the 10x extender to check focus etc. And yet the vast majority are still rejected - yet doing well with other agencies.

Agree, except I can't see how random rejections are the proper way to distinguish their stock.
The only site that went down this road (random rejections to try to give the impression they are better) is Crestock. We all can see the results.

ethan · « **Reply #116 on:** May 28, 2014, 11:11 »

Quote from: stealthmode on May 28, 2014, 09:48

The most worrying fact is that everybody seems to be concerned about these crazy rejections EXCEPT Shutterstock.

There's a very long thread on their forum too, and they are completely ignoring it.

This is very unprofessional.

Maybe it's time to start to boycott Shutterstock as well - why should they have a free pass?

1. No more uploads until they'll take note;

2. About the "double dipping" thing, the shareholders may be interested to hear from us;

3. Uploading more pictures to other sites: rebalancing the marketplace is good for us.

Re: Comments in bold:

Admins hardly ever post comments on their own forum pages in response to concerns voiced there. That is altogether not an unusual occurrence. And yes, it is unprofessional.

SS 'voice boxes' will willingly come here and post messages which never seems to make sense as a lot of SS contributors don't come here so never get answers to their concerns. That is even more unprofessional.

I completely stopped uploading three weeks ago to SS. That's the first time in four years of me constantly uploading during that time. They're not getting any of my new stuff. Not now or in the foreseeable future. I know of a few others that have also stopped uploading any new material to SS too as a result of their draconian stance of image acceptance.

I genuinely am now believing the 'good times' are over at SS and it is purely about EPS as far as SS is concerned.

Whatever is happening today has nothing whatsoever to do with 'contributor success' it's just about making the next quarter's earnings for their stock holders.

EDIT: I am also now shooting all my 'really good new stuff 'purely for RM site acceptance (and not OFFSET btw)

shutterdrop · « **Reply #117 on:** May 28, 2014, 11:52 »

They don't like snapshots from snap-shooters.

Ron · « **Reply #118 on:** May 28, 2014, 12:13 »

Quote from: shutterdrop on May 28, 2014, 11:52

They don't like snapshots from snap-shooters.

I beg to differ, my portfolio: 'is a great study in mediocrity with very few exceptional images' and 'average tourist snapshots' so they do accept snapshots. They just need to be technically in order.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #119 on:** May 28, 2014, 12:37 »

"245,969 new stock images added this week"

It looks like they do accept some;-)

gnirtS · « **Reply #120 on:** May 28, 2014, 16:48 »

Quote

Reviewers are hired without seeing the equipment they will use to review images. They all work out of their homes and the sites have no way of knowing if they use color management, keep their eye glass prescriptions up to date, have adequate functioning equipment etc.

This i feel is a big issue. A large number of exposure/WB rejections when on examination on several calibrated systems shows nothing wrong does hint to me that the reviewer in question does not have a properly calibrated and profiled display. Especially the batches all rejected for that.

Some of the time im convinced its someone sitting in a darkened room with a laptop on full brightness randomly clicking through images.

SS needs to have a policy of reviewing the reviewers,

Sunnygirl · « **Reply #121 on:** May 28, 2014, 17:32 »

Quote from: mlwinphoto on May 27, 2014, 23:34

Quote from: maboleth on May 27, 2014, 20:05
The stories like these make me appreciate my istock exclusivity a bit more.

The only problem, IMO, is that iStock is taking it to the other extreme....allowing just about everything in, stuff that shouldn't be allowed, and thus degrading the entire collection in the process.

While I agree with that, I look at it differently. It gives me freedom to edit freely and upload without thinking if my work will go down the drain during inspection. Of course, my post-process regime is very strict, rigorous, paying very special attention to detail and texture. My goal is to satisfy the buyer of that image, offering the quality for both the image and the post-processing. But I always played with selective focusing and many of my S+ images have shallow dof and sell really well. I guess they wouldn't even pass the inspection process at SS.

I remember long ago, it was 2006/7. I was at the beginning, my skills were basic and I was using much much inferior equipment. But istock's inspectors were way more forgiving, offering details and clues with rejections. The SS was more strict, stubborn and even restricted my access for several months because of the too many "mistakes". One of the reasons that I went exclusive at istock at that time was of my disagreement with Shutterstock's inspection policy and their best match that favoured new images with high level of sink rate.

Nikovsk · « **Reply #122 on:** May 29, 2014, 02:03 »

I'm getting a constant 90% rejection. Weekdays and weekends, big and small batches.

What . is wrong with them?

Will stop uploading there for a while, even Fotolia selects pictures more reasonably.

Phadrea · « **Reply #123 on:** May 29, 2014, 02:57 »

Pretty normal for me. Just the odd batch now and again that mostly gets binned. Last batch all but one got accepted.

takestock · « **Reply #124 on:** May 29, 2014, 03:35 »

It's getting serious now. Nothing seems to get by those reviewers.
Had more rejected this week.
A lot of people saying what's the point and I don't blame them.

If SS are reading these forums they should realise that their reputation is at stake.
Rejections like these are unacceptable and are insulting to the artists who submit.
It's not good at all!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 245702 times)

miketravels

Goofy

Sunnygirl

Goofy

mlwinphoto

stealthmode

KerinF

stealthmode

Rinderart

Goofy

stealthmode

ruxpriencdiam

stealthmode

Asthebelltolls

Goofy

stealthmode

ethan

shutterdrop

Ron

Elenathewise

gnirtS

Sunnygirl

Nikovsk

Phadrea

takestock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors