Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 215922 times)

ethan · « **Reply #175 on:** June 06, 2014, 18:20 »

Quote from: robhainer on June 06, 2014, 18:13

It's not so hard to figure out. They hired a bunch of new reviewers to keep up with the increasing number of downloads; I remember seeing the ads, in fact. It was just a few months ago that it took 7-10 days to get your images reviewed. Now it's down to one day. It's taking some time to get some of those reviewers trained and on the same page.

Well pardon me (and multiple others) that would disagree with your point of view. I appreciate it might take someone of a less sycophantic mindset to rationalise the situation more accurately, but thanks anyway.

And BTW, why do you suddenly care what a 'anonymous' poster on MSG thinks, I thought you stated recently on these forums that in respect to anonymous posters there was no 'frame of reference' for such types and we are all trolls?

robhainer · « **Reply #176 on:** June 06, 2014, 18:26 »

Don't forget "cowardly."

ethan · « **Reply #177 on:** June 06, 2014, 18:29 »

Quote from: robhainer on June 06, 2014, 18:26

Don't forget "cowardly."

Clearly you do not have to be anonymous to be a troll.

PS. You're now on ignore, so continue to post at your leisure I won't waste any time in reading your posts

robhainer · « **Reply #178 on:** June 06, 2014, 18:38 »

Just calling it like I see it. It's not a matter of kissing up to Shutterstock. You're badgering the guy for questions he's already answered to the best of his ability.

The review system isn't perfect, but it's better than a lot of sites. They actually respond to you if you have an issue. I had a weird rejection at Canstock and put in a ticket. They responded by saying they automatically delete the image and couldn't see if it had an issue. How's that helpful? You get a rejection at Fotolia, they give you an "all of the above" reason and you can't fix it.

stockastic · « **Reply #179 on:** June 06, 2014, 19:12 »

As I see it, the question has not been answered.

We know that "humans review images". We also know that cows eat grass, but obviously other animals eat grass too.

The question is: does the SS review process include screening by software, or is reviewing done ONLY by humans?

robhainer · « **Reply #180 on:** June 06, 2014, 19:53 »

Wha else could "humans review images" possibly mean?

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #181 on:** June 06, 2014, 20:04 »

Naw the real question is!

Why is it that there are so many unjust rejections for:

1) Lighting

2) composition and or cropping

3) Focus

And these are coming from the top of the crop as well as others!

There are some contributors that have posted such rejections that aren't afraid too over in the Critique / Tips / Tricks forum and have been told they were robbed and you can clearly see they were robbed.

The thing is also the time involved with the whole re-review process which is cumbersome as well as tiring and lets not forget to mention that some people are using DATA plans so the process for those can be costly having to use more and more DATA to submit a second set that should have been approved the first time around meaning they wouldn't have needed to burn extra DATA.

And with these unjust results we can also look at some of the really true so called just reviews of isolated on white that has a grey or blue BG or perhaps some serious vignetting in the corners clearly piss poor lighting.

Some of the just focus approvals that are so far off the reviewer themselves must need a new prescription for their glasses or they need to get an eye exam.

And lets not even get into the comp / crop part of the whole process.

Sure we have had rejection problems before and probably always will but there is a difference between a proper review and a review where we are now getting into a grey area of reviewers knowing that they can make more by doing a mass rejection because they will get resubmitted and get paid a second time for what should have been approved the first time.

OK here are the links for this years threads that I know of.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130946&start=0

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137927&start=0

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138843

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

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138749

I also have a link for all the reviewer rejection threads all the way back into 2011 there-before and thereafter.

Quote

Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 11:18 am

18 rejection threads that somewhat pale in comparison to the ones as of lately

And lets not forget our good friend and reviewer Attila who without we just dont know what we would do!

Goofy · « **Reply #182 on:** June 06, 2014, 20:06 »

Okay, I heard agents of S.H.E.I.L.D., M.I.B. and the Borg are reviewing our images now -thus answering all questions about humans doing the reviewing

ethan · « **Reply #183 on:** June 07, 2014, 01:14 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 06, 2014, 19:12

As I see it, the question has not been answered.

We know that "humans review images". We also know that cows eat grass, but obviously other animals eat grass too.

The question is: does the SS review process include screening by software, or is reviewing done ONLY by humans?

That is the question.

stealthmode · « **Reply #184 on:** June 07, 2014, 01:38 »

Quote from: scottbraut on June 06, 2014, 17:26

Given that we've posted previously on these questions and we've asked contributors to contact us directly anytime they have an issue, what information are you most looking for so I can best answer you?

[...]

As stated, we're formulating a longer FAQ. We're also creating and releasing much more educational material (often in multiple languages) so that our review standards and practices are well understood. We're increasing the types of content that we accept as well.

Oh no, Scott! This is the sad proof that you are completely out of tune with the real problem.

There's a 20+ page thread on your own forum called 'Image Acceptance - getting ridiculous'
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt130946.html
where you can find all our FAQs. We don't need your FAQs, we need real answers.

There's no need for educational material to explain your current review standards and practices.
Please see here if you don't know the meaning of randomness: http://www.random.org
Whether it's human or automated I don't care - I just know that it's bad.

SS is lucky that it's still the #1 site for many, otherwise we will simply stop uploading and ignore you forever. Please, take some real action to solve this problem before it happens. We have seen other large sites fall due to their bad management, things can happen.

Now I have one more question: is ignoring the problem of bad reviews the official company policy, or just your personal view? Just to know if we need to escalate this issue to the SS owner and stackholders, to which you are not probably doing a favour. On the other hand, if it's an official policy, I give up: I won't keep bothering you with questions that you are not allowed to answer.

ethan · « **Reply #185 on:** June 07, 2014, 02:14 »

Quote from: stealthmode on June 07, 2014, 01:38

Quote from: scottbraut on June 06, 2014, 17:26

Given that we've posted previously on these questions and we've asked contributors to contact us directly anytime they have an issue, what information are you most looking for so I can best answer you?

[...]

As stated, we're formulating a longer FAQ. We're also creating and releasing much more educational material (often in multiple languages) so that our review standards and practices are well understood. We're increasing the types of content that we accept as well.

Oh no, Scott! This is the sad proof that you are completely out of tune with the real problem.

There's a 20+ page thread on your own forum called 'Image Acceptance - getting ridiculous'
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt130946.html
where you can find all our FAQs. We don't need your FAQs, we need real answers.

There's no need for educational material to explain your current review standard and practices.
Pleaase see here if you don't know the meaning of randomness: http://www.random.org
Whether it's human or automated I don't care - I just know that it's bad.

SS is lucky that it's still the #1 site for many, otherwise we will simply stop uploading and ignore you forever. Please, take some real action to solve this problem before this happens. We have seen other large sites fall due to their bad management, things can happen.

Now I have one more question: is ignoring the problem of bad reviews the official company policy, or just your personal view? Just to know if we need to escalate this issue to the SS owner and stackholders, to which you are not probably doing a favour.

You make some excellent points,many of which I would like to associated myself with, not least the section in bold. I actually did stop uploading about seven weeks ago, which I have never ever done in all my time with SS. I'd upload 10-30 images a month every two or three days in little batches, invariably with 100% acceptance.

I understand that a few others have also stopped uploading in recent weeks due to this debacle.

The less that is coming out of HQ on this issue actually say's more (to me at least).

Something is up, and it might not actually be a million miles off to suggest that they're testing out some proprietary software system which they actually cannot disclose, for a plethora of commercial and 'other' reasons. I understand that, and if it is the case, our constant pestering for more details must be both irritating and unwelcome.

Other than wait this out for a obvious conclusion I'm not actually sure what more we can do.

stealthmode · « **Reply #186 on:** June 07, 2014, 02:23 »

Quote from: ethan on June 07, 2014, 02:14

Something is up, and it might not actually be a million miles off to suggest that they're testing out some proprietary software system which they actually cannot disclose, for a plethora of commercial and 'other' reasons. I understand that, and if it is the case, our constant pestering for more details must be both irritating and unwelcome.

Other than wait this out for a obvious conclusion I'm not actually sure what more we can do.

I had that impression too (software testing);

but a completely automated system can't explain the randomness in the process, such as the the random rejection reason (same for all images) and the same images being accepted if resubmitted;

Quote from: ethan on June 07, 2014, 02:14

That is the question.

Yes, the words 'screening' and 'only' in Stockastics' question may explain it: "does the SS review process include screening by software, or is reviewing done ONLY by humans?"

My current view is that it's a combination of screening software and lazy reviewers that accept whatever the screening software suggests. I guess you agree.

heywoody · « **Reply #187 on:** June 07, 2014, 05:20 »

1. Rather than subscribe to conspiracy theories, isn't it more plausible that some submissions are borderline in terms of what they are looking for?
2. Funny that folks have a sense of entitlement to have work accepted in certain sites but are happy to accept they are not "good enough" for the "in danger of being lost in their own alimentary canal" sites.

Yure · « **Reply #188 on:** June 07, 2014, 05:39 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 07, 2014, 05:20

1. Rather than subscribe to conspiracy theories, isn't it more plausible that some submissions are borderline in terms of what they are looking for?
2. Funny that folks have a sense of entitlement to have work accepted in certain sites but are happy to accept they are not "good enough" for the "in danger of being lost in their own alimentary canal" sites.

1) No.
2) It's not entitlement. It's trying to build a portfolio.

ethan · « **Reply #189 on:** June 07, 2014, 05:45 »

Quote from: Yure on June 07, 2014, 05:39

Quote from: heywoody on June 07, 2014, 05:20
1. Rather than subscribe to conspiracy theories, isn't it more plausible that some submissions are borderline in terms of what they are looking for?
2. Funny that folks have a sense of entitlement to have work accepted in certain sites but are happy to accept they are not "good enough" for the "in danger of being lost in their own alimentary canal" sites.

1) No.
2) It's not entitlement. It's trying to build a portfolio.

Well put.

Also, to completely ignore the recent wholesale landslide of rejections, affecting many experienced and successful contributors not just the normal border-line submissions, is IMO ingenuous and shows questionable judgement.

heywoody · « **Reply #190 on:** June 07, 2014, 08:38 »

Yes ingenuous - although I guess you meant disingenuous :-D

I question your judgement in questioning my judgement - experienced successful guys like Rob seem to be having no problems, inexperienced unsuccessful guys like me are having no problems and this whole thing just seems like folks feelings are hurt. That aside, which is more likely

a) The bar has been raised an some people are struggling?
b) Someone has got it in for you?

Yure · « **Reply #191 on:** June 07, 2014, 09:10 »

Heywood,
maybe I now understand where's the misunderstanding.
Your port in SS is all illustrations. You have not experienced, I think, mass rejections on illustrations. I have half port made by illustrations too, and no issues with them.
But try to upload some photos: you'll get them all rejected for stupid reasons. Again, and again, for months.
Then go to the SS main page, make a search for a wide category, say "landscape", choose "photos", "new" then see yourself where the bar is, if it is raised or not.
Then you'll understand why some people is angry.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #192 on:** June 07, 2014, 09:10 »

I think it's probably a combination of things (these are just guesses on my part; I don't have any information):

1. They raised the bar and didn't announce it.

2. They supply their inspectors with software that opens the image at 100% in the center, and if the center's out of focus (even if you intended it to be focused somewhere else)...

3. Inspectors are paid very little and are most likely trying to get through as many images as possible as quickly as possible, so many will simply reject the image in point #2, while a few may take an extra couple of seconds to look further.

4. Inspectors are freelance and all have different levels of competency. They also make mistakes.

5. Shutterstock needs to address the problem one way or another, or they'll have a mass defection of photographers who finally throw up their hands in disgust.

Goofy · « **Reply #193 on:** June 07, 2014, 09:23 »

ditto on

3. Inspectors are paid very little and are most likely trying to get through as many images as possible as quickly as possible, so many will simply reject the image in point #2, while a few may take an extra couple of seconds to look further.

4. Inspectors are freelance and all have different levels of competency. They also make mistakes.

also, if the category is over-saturated they are told to reject them unless the are 'Perfect' and show something different or unique. Let's face it an image of a flower or tomato isn't needed anymore out of the millions in the library. Yet people keep submitting them.

robhainer · « **Reply #194 on:** June 07, 2014, 09:27 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 07, 2014, 08:38

Yes ingenuous - although I guess you meant disingenuous :-D

I question your judgement in questioning my judgement - experienced successful guys like Rob seem to be having no problems, inexperienced unsuccessful guys like me are having no problems and this whole thing just seems like folks feelings are hurt. That aside, which is more likely

a) The bar has been raised an some people are struggling?
b) Someone has got it in for you?

Oh, I had some problems. I was getting a bunch of lighting rejections all of a sudden. Then I showed the images to other photographers, and they said my images were too bright. I adjusted my screen, and the rejections more or less stopped.

That doesn't explain everything, though. I'm convinced the issue is a lot of new reviewers, some of whom are being too harsh or not trained properly or something.

There are times when composition and lighting quality are subjective. Maybe an image is better to have some shadows in it for definition or maybe the image looks better with the subject centered. In these cases, the advantage should go to the contributor. The buyers will decide whether it's a good image.

It costs Shutterstock very little to store an approved image, but it costs the site and its contributors a lot to reject potential sellers.

ethan · « **Reply #195 on:** June 07, 2014, 09:47 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 07, 2014, 08:38

Yes ingenuous - although I guess you meant disingenuous :-D

I question your judgement in questioning my judgement - experienced successful guys like Rob seem to be having no problems, inexperienced unsuccessful guys like me are having no problems and this whole thing just seems like folks feelings are hurt. That aside, which is more likely

a) The bar has been raised an some people are struggling?
b) Someone has got it in for you?

My comment was not intended to be aimed at you. And, no I did not mean disingenuous, that would have been the complete opposite of what I meant. See attached dictionary meaning for ingenuous. Perhaps I should have used the naive instead.

As for feelings being hurt, yes I think there are. But I'm glad to say not mine. My last upload was 100% accepted but I chose to stop uploading when I discovered others were having difficulties in getting perfectly good images refused. And as for your point b) why would any contributor think that?

Very odd.

Anyway, here's the attachment explaining the word ingenuous.

heywoody · « **Reply #196 on:** June 07, 2014, 10:26 »

Here's the thing. The height of the bar is not set by the sites, it's based on the quality of the competition (the high jump would be a bit higher at the olympics than at a local track meet). Photographers in particular are competing with high end professionals with high end kit - always gonna be a bit of an ask.

ultimagina · « **Reply #197 on:** June 07, 2014, 11:27 »

I aggree with 99.9% of the rejections. I can even tell upfront when a photo will be rejected by SS, but accepted by everybody else. It's simple really, it is only about quality. There is no conspiracy theory, no Atilla, or Genghis Khan among reviewers.

If the photo is well exposed, sharp and noise free, it goes through.

Today I even had 3 iPhone 5 photos accepted!!!

Can't complain!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ron · « **Reply #198 on:** June 07, 2014, 11:48 »

How would that explain replies from SS saying the review was in error and resubmit??

PixelBytes · « **Reply #199 on:** June 07, 2014, 13:25 »

Surprising to learn this is a widespread issue. Acceptances rolling along like normal for me. I didn't even read this thread til now because I am not seeing any more rejections than usual. Is it possible the problem seems worse than it is because those who don't have too many rejections aren't bothering to read or post in this topic?

I am no better than most. If I am getting my images accepted then there must be a lot of others getting accepted also.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 215922 times)

ethan

robhainer

ethan

robhainer

stockastic

robhainer

ruxpriencdiam

Goofy

ethan

stealthmode

ethan

stealthmode

heywoody

Yure

ethan

heywoody

Yure

Shelma1

Goofy

robhainer

ethan

heywoody

ultimagina

Ron

PixelBytes

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors