pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 168004 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: May 29, 2014, 04:02 »
+1
The worst part is that those pictures that do get through are not the best ones.

Some are taken with the same lighting and configurations, 5 seconds later and don't get approved.

Or they approve photos taken with my old camera while my superior new images get rejected.

It's the totally randomness that's really annoying me.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 04:09 by Nikovsk »


mlwinphoto

« Reply #126 on: May 29, 2014, 09:51 »
+1
I just wish they would add another canned rejection reason, something along the lines of 'we already have enough of this type of image in our files, thanks anyway'.  The current rejection reasons of focus, WB, etc. often don't apply to the images of mine they reject and leave me wondering if they're seeing something I'm not.

Ron

« Reply #127 on: May 29, 2014, 13:15 »
0
They had the LCV rejection but did away with that and decided to accept such images as no one can determine the CV of an image.

farbled

« Reply #128 on: May 29, 2014, 14:05 »
0
Taking a break can change things sometimes. I had 100% rejections this week too. All for composition. It happens. Either a new reviewer or someone who really dislikes my photos. Or, perhaps they're right and my comps have drastically changed from my other thousands accepted.

(just keep swimming...) :)

« Reply #129 on: May 29, 2014, 17:56 »
+1
I always find it interesting that the ones initially rejected, if I then re-submit, they tend to be my best sellers.

One image that was rejected twice, is now my second best seller, I may have made the smallest of adjustments after the rejections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #130 on: May 29, 2014, 18:52 »
0
In my brief experience with them, it seems the thing they really don't like is areas of solid black... which is a shame, because backlighting and silhouetting is often a big part of my images. The habit that I'm developing is to send a polite email to [email protected] asking for a second review and also asking them to explain exactly why they rejected the images. So far, they have always got back to me within a couple of days with comments that are positive and saying "it's a little under-exposed", "can you lighten the greys a little?" or something like that, and giving me some text to paste into the "note to reviewer" box when I submit a second time. I wish they'd do that in the initial rejection!

It's a bit annoying because IMO these images work better when the silhouetting is pretty strong, but it seems they want to see at least a little bit of detail in there, so that's what I'm doing. Funny that as others have said, the originals have already been accepted - and sold - with other agencies, but hey ho... if piddling about a little bit is what it takes to get images accepted as SS, I'm happy to do it for the time being. I'm just glad that my stock income only needs to generate a bit of coffee money for me, and isn't my main revenue stream... dealing with reviewers would frustrate the heck out of me otherwise. I guess I'm still just in that early phase of being happy that any of my images are good enough to be accepted, and getting a buzz whenever those $0.25s come rolling in. Those of you who do this for a living have my sympathy... getting images accepted is a bit of a black art and a moving target, no doubt about it.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #131 on: May 30, 2014, 00:15 »
0
Finally, yesterday, I have got one superextracrazy rejection!
A batch of 10 photos, similar subject, same light/wb conditions.
2 accepted, 8 rejected for light/wb.
(All photos accepted on all the other sites, included on Fotolia who generally don't accept flowers)

---
I have just resubmitted, without even put a note because I am tired to repeat myself

ethan

« Reply #132 on: May 30, 2014, 02:33 »
+3
I hope Lauren is cool about me linking his last comment on the SS forum here;

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138823&start=15

Sadly, as is ALWAYS THE CASE, the unprofessional, darn-right lazy admins over at SS still have no comment to make. Not one. Not a single jot.

They must know what's going on but choose to completely ignore the obvious problem they have with their incompetent reviewers.

Lauren, I wanted to post it here because as you know, SS hate it when their insufficiencies get posted 'off-site' for public viewing so they might respond.

But don't hold your breath, this thread essentially discussing the same problem is over 6 pages long and they haven't bothered commenting here.

Like I said a few days ago, I'm now a whole month of no new uploads to SS with 59 new images in that period on the sites of their competitors - and as of this week, selling :)

Finally, why should all the other sites get all the bad press on these forums, yes they do deserve it, but on the other hand SS is no angel in the market either, their total deficiencies on image reviews not to mention their strangle hold and manipulation on photographers earnings contributes an equal amount of dissatisfaction and angst among serious contributors.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2014, 02:49 by ethan »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #133 on: May 30, 2014, 09:38 »
+2
I think we all need to get one big letter together for everyone to use then we all send it to SS and let them know there is something wrong!?

If no one is letting SS know anything is wrong then they will do nothing but if everyone starts sending a letter then they will fix it just like a power outage if 10,000 people loose power and only 50 call about it the power company thinks it is a small problem and nothing much to worry about so they are slow to fix it but if all 10,000 report it then it gets fixed almost right away.

« Reply #134 on: May 30, 2014, 14:53 »
+9
Hi guys,
 
We've been in the process of creating a more detailed FAQ on Review, but to answer the basic question(s) in the meanwhile:
 
We welcome review disputes and feedback when you're unhappy. You guys put a lot of work into image creation and we respect that. Many people on the team are photographers, videographers and illustrators themselves and appreciate the effort that goes into content creation.

There are three basic scenarios that we find when we research review disputes:
 
1. Youre 100% right and there was an error made during the process. Please let us know. Well fix it.
2. The review determination was on the line and could be viewed either way.  A more forgiving second review can result in the images being approved.  This is a long-standing policy. 
3. The original review determination was correct.
 
In terms of communication, we have individuals participating in the various forums.  For example, Vincent administrates the SS forums, Anna participates in the Russian-speaking forums, and Ill often respond to inquiries at MSG. We have over a dozen different communication channels, ranging from the blogs, social media, forums, workshops, contributor meetups, email tickets and more.     
 
We read all of that incoming feedback, but we often dont participate in review threads.  We also ask that support questions only go to our email address.   Why?      
 
With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different.  We also need to see the exact images in question. 
 
The only "official" process at the moment for handling review feedback is to contact Support.  That logs a trackable ticket in our system which we can then assign to our review coordinators; the "Tier 2" leaders who work directly to evaluate, train, and mentor specific reviewers. They also own the maturation of our guidelines and standards. Tickets can be tracked, escalated, closed, and have the full history of the questions and feedback. We can tie the issue or question to a specific group of images and a specific reviewer.
 
We track the number of issues on a daily and weekly basis, as well as many metrics that allow us to analyze the review process. Statistically speaking, we receive very few complaints to Support relative to the many millions of images that we process, but any number of issues greater than zero is too many and we always want to improve.   
 
As always, if you have a specific batch that was an issue, please let us know at
[email protected].  We're happy to help. 

As mentioned, we're also writing up a more extensive FAQ to supplement what's found on the Contributor blog and in educational materials such as our Success guide. We don't want this process to feel mysterious. More to come.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #135 on: May 30, 2014, 15:17 »
0
Hi guys,
 
We've been in the process of creating a more detailed FAQ on Review, but to answer the basic question(s) in the meanwhile:
 
We welcome review disputes and feedback when you're unhappy. You guys put a lot of work into image creation and we respect that. Many people on the team are photographers, videographers and illustrators themselves and appreciate the effort that goes into content creation.

There are three basic scenarios that we find when we research review disputes:
 
1. Youre 100% right and there was an error made during the process. Please let us know. Well fix it.
2. The review determination was on the line and could be viewed either way.  A more forgiving second review can result in the images being approved.  This is a long-standing policy.
3. The original review determination was correct.
 
In terms of communication, we have individuals participating in the various forums.  For example, Vincent administrates the SS forums, Anna participates in the Russian-speaking forums, and Ill often respond to inquiries at MSG. We have over a dozen different communication channels, ranging from the blogs, social media, forums, workshops, contributor meetups, email tickets and more.     
 
We read all of that incoming feedback, but we often dont participate in review threads.  We also ask that support questions only go to our email address.   Why?     
 
With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different.  We also need to see the exact images in question.
 
The only "official" process at the moment for handling review feedback is to contact Support.  That logs a trackable ticket in our system which we can then assign to our review coordinators; the "Tier 2" leaders who work directly to evaluate, train, and mentor specific reviewers. They also own the maturation of our guidelines and standards. Tickets can be tracked, escalated, closed, and have the full history of the questions and feedback. We can tie the issue or question to a specific group of images and a specific reviewer.
 
We track the number of issues on a daily and weekly basis, as well as many metrics that allow us to analyze the review process. Statistically speaking, we receive very few complaints to Support relative to the many millions of images that we process, but any number of issues greater than zero is too many and we always want to improve.   
 
As always, if you have a specific batch that was an issue, please let us know at [email protected].  We're happy to help.

As mentioned, we're also writing up a more extensive FAQ to supplement what's found on the Contributor blog and in educational materials such as our Success guide. We don't want this process to feel mysterious. More to come.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
As I stated this morning highlighted in bold.

I think we all need to get one big letter together for everyone to use then we all send it to SS and let them know there is something wrong!?

If no one is letting SS know anything is wrong then they will do nothing but if everyone starts sending a letter then they will fix it just like a power outage if 10,000 people loose power and only 50 call about it the power company thinks it is a small problem and nothing much to worry about so they are slow to fix it but if all 10,000 report it then it gets fixed almost right away.

« Reply #136 on: May 30, 2014, 15:58 »
0
Why would any agency punish your sales for the images they accepted?

Dreamstime reportedly does just that. And I agree that it's a bizarre approach (especially when they used to hand out rejections for including a model release - for things like partial profiles, body parts - which then count against you)


Bizarre. So they push you back in the search when you rejections are too high? What is the threshold?

Pffff, I just opened my account there, might as well close it again

Actually, it's pretty logical - in theory higher acceptance ratio = higher quality so show the best stuff first - in practice probably not :)
« Last Edit: May 30, 2014, 16:20 by heywoody »

« Reply #137 on: May 30, 2014, 16:01 »
+2
Hi guys,
 
We've been in the process of creating a more detailed FAQ on Review, but to answer the basic question(s) in the meanwhile:
 
We welcome review disputes and feedback when you're unhappy. You guys put a lot of work into image creation and we respect that. Many people on the team are photographers, videographers and illustrators themselves and appreciate the effort that goes into content creation.

There are three basic scenarios that we find when we research review disputes:
 
1. Youre 100% right and there was an error made during the process. Please let us know. Well fix it.
2. The review determination was on the line and could be viewed either way.  A more forgiving second review can result in the images being approved.  This is a long-standing policy.
3. The original review determination was correct.
 
In terms of communication, we have individuals participating in the various forums.  For example, Vincent administrates the SS forums, Anna participates in the Russian-speaking forums, and Ill often respond to inquiries at MSG. We have over a dozen different communication channels, ranging from the blogs, social media, forums, workshops, contributor meetups, email tickets and more.     
 
We read all of that incoming feedback, but we often dont participate in review threads.  We also ask that support questions only go to our email address.   Why?     
 
With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different.  We also need to see the exact images in question.
 
The only "official" process at the moment for handling review feedback is to contact Support.  That logs a trackable ticket in our system which we can then assign to our review coordinators; the "Tier 2" leaders who work directly to evaluate, train, and mentor specific reviewers. They also own the maturation of our guidelines and standards. Tickets can be tracked, escalated, closed, and have the full history of the questions and feedback. We can tie the issue or question to a specific group of images and a specific reviewer.
 
We track the number of issues on a daily and weekly basis, as well as many metrics that allow us to analyze the review process. Statistically speaking, we receive very few complaints to Support relative to the many millions of images that we process, but any number of issues greater than zero is too many and we always want to improve.   
 
As always, if you have a specific batch that was an issue, please let us know at [email protected].  We're happy to help.

As mentioned, we're also writing up a more extensive FAQ to supplement what's found on the Contributor blog and in educational materials such as our Success guide. We don't want this process to feel mysterious. More to come.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content

What I don't get is how I went from getting 90% of my work approved to 100% rejection OVERNIGHT! I am quite sure I don't just all of a sudden suck at what I do. Something changed on SS end of the process and a lot of people are getting screwed by it.

Ron

« Reply #138 on: May 30, 2014, 16:09 »
0
So no machines then eh? I hopes this debunks the myth of automated bot reviews. Or maybe not, and they need feedback to adjust the software ;)

Whuahahahahaaaaaa

« Reply #139 on: May 30, 2014, 16:19 »
-1
So no machines then eh?


Did he actually say that? 

Ron

« Reply #140 on: May 30, 2014, 16:22 »
0
Put the severed quote back into context, with the rest of the comment, and you will see that I meant something completely different than you are implying now. Classic MSG, no room for a cheeky comment.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #141 on: May 30, 2014, 17:06 »
0
What I don't get is how I went from getting 90% of my work approved to 100% rejection OVERNIGHT! I am quite sure I don't just all of a sudden suck at what I do. Something changed on SS end of the process and a lot of people are getting screwed by it.



There are three basic scenarios that we find when we research review disputes:
 
1. Youre 100% right and there was an error made during the process. Please let us know. Well fix it.
2. The review determination was on the line and could be viewed either way.  A more forgiving second review can result in the images being approved.  This is a long-standing policy.
3. The original review determination was correct.
 


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #142 on: May 30, 2014, 17:09 »
+1
The way I see it everyone with a bad review needs to all send SS a letter asking for a second review this way they can see if they have a reviewer problem otherwise this will continue because they wont know anything about it.

And there are quite a few people with 100% rejections that are saying they wont send a letter for a second review so in this case submitters loose and SS wins.

So do something about it people just like you did with DPC, write for a second review so this can get fixed.

farbled

« Reply #143 on: May 30, 2014, 17:17 »
0
Good points, I am guilty of that myself. I'll write in over the weekend.

ethan

« Reply #144 on: May 31, 2014, 03:46 »
+6
Well I suppose we should be at least grateful a response from a SS admin was made.

Albeit, just a collection of words.

462 words to be precise, just words, deflecting completely the concerns of contributors in the current climate of hopelessly wrong reviews and a very strong feeling that something has significantly changed in how our images are reviewed.

462 words that state the complete obvious and restating information what everyone already knew.

There is a plethora of experienced contributors that cannot get a single image approved at the moment and Scott chooses to completely ignore the problem, even more so, fails to even acknowledge that current concern in his response. Amazing.

Yes, we can all write a ticket to support to have our images re-reviewed and yes, we don't mind doing that on the single digit occasions it used to occur when a reviewer made (in our view) a mistake. Occasionally, the reviewer was right and there was something wrong with the file which on closer inspection was corrected. That's fine, that's why there is a review system. It's in everyones ultimate interests that the standard of imagery within the SS library is the best it can be, we all want to attain higher and better standards to ensure customers keep loyal to SS and keep buying quality images. That, in my view, is a given.

But the current status of image reviewing is totally different situation. This is wholesale rejection, in some cases, of entire batches of images from contributors that for years have submitted images to SS and in many cases have the best selling images in the entire collection.

Contributors of such experience do not complain unnecessarily about such matters unless something is seriously wrong, that is also a given.

SS has changed something significantly and for reasons that only they can explain, appear unwilling to divulge to contributors what it is.

Is it the migration of ex- IS contributors into the SS review teams that notoriously 'scupper' other contributors submissions that compete with their own images, or is it a completely new influx of reviewers that are simply incompetent. I don't think so.

I think it might be something quite different.

Conspiracy theorists makes cup of tea and settles down to read on :)

SS need to cut costs to maintain profits, quarter by quarter, year on year. They have stakeholders now, and we all know, shareholders demand more and more, are never satisfied and always love to see cuts. Lower costs mean higher dividends. Yummy.

"With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different"


A large team of individual reviewers - that costs. OK they make only a penny or two per image, but when you calculate the number of images reviewed every week that is a cost that's going to add up PDQ. We know that SS add around 245,000 images a week to their collection. Each of those images have been reviewed and pennies paid out. But you have to consider all the images that were not approved that week which were also paid pennies for.

If 245,000 pass how many do you think fail? 500,000, 750,000? They all have the same associated cost. Ouch.

If you have such an overhead which you're paying for every week (pass or fail) it would make sense for an 'automated system' for reviewing to be considered. Not just to reduce your costs but also to improve efficiency and maintain quality standards.

In fact, I think, an automated system to 'weed out' substandard images in a 'primary review' process is in fact the Holy Grail to a company like SS, indeed any large digital image library. Imagine if you had an automated system that kicks out all the cr*p before it gets to a 'human' reviewer. If the 'failed' numbers are in the region of 500,000 a week imagine the cost savings in having an automatic image filtering system in place. The human reviewers only get to see (and be paid for) images that have passed a preliminary review and your costs for reviews just dropped by 65-80% - depending on the numbers that fails anyway.

Now consider this.

Beta Testing.

I know that's the buzz term of the moment with DT  but this might be a different type of Beta Test. A SS Beta Test.

Software to review images is probably still in it's infancy, or the early adopters phase of development. It needs to be tested, no doubt it has been through lab tests now it's a real test (aka a beta test) on real images. Then it can be really tested, reviewed, results analysed, software can be tweaked and then retested again. But you probably would not want to tell people you're doing it. Why would you? You don't want the likes of Getty or FT/DT to know what your doing and you want to test the software under 'normal conditions' of image submissions. So you say nothing.

This software would give you a real competitive advantage in cost saving terms, you're saying nothing.

You just start using it.

Maybe the software is not able to precisely determine the reasons for non-approval (yet) so rather than a single reason being given, multiple reasons are given, WB, Focus, composition etc. Ring any bells?

OK it will cause a small amount of disruption in the short term, experienced submitters will get angry and confused, people will complain, some may even come up with conspiracy theories :) but "we need to look at the bigger picture guy's think of the money we will save in the long term" SS will say.

And then it all stops and goes back to normal again. Everyones happy and just believes Attila finally gone on holiday and it's over.

The Beta Test program will have a defined start date and finish date :)




Of course I could be wrong, maybe the reviewers are just **** :)

stealthmode

« Reply #145 on: May 31, 2014, 04:54 »
+2
Hi guys,
 
We've been in the process of creating a more detailed FAQ on Review, but to answer the basic question(s) in the meanwhile:
 
We welcome review disputes and feedback when you're unhappy. You guys put a lot of work into image creation and we respect that. Many people on the team are photographers, videographers and illustrators themselves and appreciate the effort that goes into content creation.

There are three basic scenarios that we find when we research review disputes:
 
1. Youre 100% right and there was an error made during the process. Please let us know. Well fix it.
2. The review determination was on the line and could be viewed either way.  A more forgiving second review can result in the images being approved.  This is a long-standing policy.
3. The original review determination was correct.
 
In terms of communication, we have individuals participating in the various forums.  For example, Vincent administrates the SS forums, Anna participates in the Russian-speaking forums, and Ill often respond to inquiries at MSG. We have over a dozen different communication channels, ranging from the blogs, social media, forums, workshops, contributor meetups, email tickets and more.     
 
We read all of that incoming feedback, but we often dont participate in review threads.  We also ask that support questions only go to our email address.   Why?     
 
With a large team of individual reviewers, over 55,000 contributors and millions of images passing through this process, every single case is different.  We also need to see the exact images in question.
 
The only "official" process at the moment for handling review feedback is to contact Support.  That logs a trackable ticket in our system which we can then assign to our review coordinators; the "Tier 2" leaders who work directly to evaluate, train, and mentor specific reviewers. They also own the maturation of our guidelines and standards. Tickets can be tracked, escalated, closed, and have the full history of the questions and feedback. We can tie the issue or question to a specific group of images and a specific reviewer.
 
We track the number of issues on a daily and weekly basis, as well as many metrics that allow us to analyze the review process. Statistically speaking, we receive very few complaints to Support relative to the many millions of images that we process, but any number of issues greater than zero is too many and we always want to improve.   
 
As always, if you have a specific batch that was an issue, please let us know at [email protected].  We're happy to help.

As mentioned, we're also writing up a more extensive FAQ to supplement what's found on the Contributor blog and in educational materials such as our Success guide. We don't want this process to feel mysterious. More to come.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content

Thanks, Scott, for your long reply.

But it seems to me that you are still not completely understanding the current exceptional situation.

What you suggest (contacting support) makes sense for occasional rejections. And it's what I always do in such cases.

When there are mass rejections (100% of a batch, with a random reason equal for all images), or mass acceptance (100% of a batch, which is equally bad for library quality), you should consider other ways to check your reviewers.

It's not a bunch of newbies in need of feedback on their borderline images. It's everyone - including old-timers pros. Something is wrong.

Only you have all the data. It shouldn't be difficult to statistically evaluate the work of all your reviewers and automatically find out who's cheating*. Easier than evaluating thousands of tickets.

*please also consider the case of "all rejected but one" which seems to be the latest trend with some reviewers, probably to avoid suspects
« Last Edit: May 31, 2014, 05:21 by stealthmode »

« Reply #146 on: May 31, 2014, 05:27 »
+2
often I have a feeling that  reviewers "own" ss - and that ss can do nothing against them - mr. scottbraut is a vary polite person - but it seems that  reviewers do what they want to do - and nobody can stop them  - very strange situation
« Last Edit: May 31, 2014, 05:50 by ferdinand »

« Reply #147 on: May 31, 2014, 07:52 »
+3
often I have a feeling that  reviewers "own" ss - and that ss can do nothing against them - mr. scottbraut is a vary polite person - but it seems that  reviewers do what they want to do - and nobody can stop them  - very strange situation

No doubt some, like Atilla, have a power complex.  The one area I would like to better understand are why one day 100% get accepted then the next those same images can be 100% rejected. I can defiantly understand the human element but aside from that a 100% rejection of similar or the same quality has two components in my mind:

1. Machine
2. The reviewer is going outside of the inspection parameters and injecting his or her personal like or dislike. 

In either case neither will be discussed or admitted by SS so all rejection threads are really venting threads. Fixing the root cause will never be public.

« Reply #148 on: May 31, 2014, 08:06 »
+2
Reviewers shouldn't be active contributors at the same time. Their ports should be disabled if they are reviewing. There's a clear conflict of interest for reviewers who have the power to keep out images that would compete with theirs.

« Reply #149 on: May 31, 2014, 08:22 »
0
Reviewers shouldn't be active contributors at the same time. Their ports should be disabled if they are reviewing. There's a clear conflict of interest for reviewers who have the power to keep out images that would compete with theirs.

I agree but I don't think that is the case. I think I read somewhere that you can be both.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
17643 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
22 Replies
6953 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
43880 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
10 Replies
6713 Views
Last post June 22, 2015, 14:07
by Freedom
212 Replies
34206 Views
Last post December 20, 2019, 10:08
by Snow

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle