MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 167978 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: June 07, 2014, 13:36 »
+1
Yes, if you look at the # of newly accepted images on SS each week it is a lot (like 265,000). If 5% of the reviewers are doing an awful job your chances of hitting one of them is not all that high, but the chances that a lot of people will get weird rejections are pretty high. I personally haven't had a problem in a while either, but when all or almost all of the images are rejected for focus or lighting when other images from the same shoot have been accepted in the past it does raise flags.

Many or most of the rejections are perfectly valid and it is when experienced contributors complain about them that people take more notice, especially when entire batches are rejected for the same reason.


« Reply #201 on: June 07, 2014, 13:48 »
+2
I aggree with 99.9% of the rejections. I can even tell upfront when a photo will be rejected by SS, ........


Just an example of a 0.01%

ultimagina

« Reply #202 on: June 07, 2014, 14:59 »
-2
How would that explain replies from SS saying the review was in error and resubmit??

Borderline quality.
Nobody has any interest to reject good photos!

« Reply #203 on: June 07, 2014, 15:05 »
-1
Yeah - 95% quality rather than 96%

ultimagina

« Reply #204 on: June 07, 2014, 15:07 »
0
I aggree with 99.9% of the rejections. I can even tell upfront when a photo will be rejected by SS, ........


Just an example of a 0.01%

This is not about the photo quality. I doubt you can call this error a "trend"

Ron

« Reply #205 on: June 07, 2014, 15:08 »
-2
How would that explain replies from SS saying the review was in error and resubmit??

Borderline quality.
Nobody has any interest to reject good photos!
So someone submits a dozen images, 100% rejection, resubmits, 100% approval because it was a batch of 100% borderline images. You are missing the point this is about experienced shooters. For example Dave Smith, shoots immaculate food images for 7 years, and all of a sudden his work is borderline?

ultimagina

« Reply #206 on: June 07, 2014, 15:27 »
0
So someone submits a dozen images, 100% rejection, resubmits, 100% approval because it was a batch of 100% borderline images. You are missing the point this is about experienced shooters. For example Dave Smith, shoots immaculate food images for 7 years, and all of a sudden his work is borderline?

I take your word that he is an experienced photographer, but we, both, can only speculate, since we didn't see "that" batch.

I'm only describing my experience, like it or not.

Even if I would like to see more of my photos for sale on SS, and not only on DT, FT, IS, 123 or Alamy, I can understand the reasons behind these SS rejections.

In most of the cases it's "me" not "them"

« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 15:35 by ultimagaina »

Ron

« Reply #207 on: June 07, 2014, 15:31 »
-1
Seriously, he knows what a good image is, he helps people out tirelessly in the critique forum, does workshops, etc, he wont be submitting borderline batches. If you think there is nothing wrong, thats fine. Other people beg to differ from experience.

« Reply #208 on: June 07, 2014, 16:00 »
+3
The thing is HUMAN reviewers can make mistakes...

Even at that though, a buyer will more than likely be able to find an equivalent food shot that suits so the company does not lose out and that is the name of the game - not about justice or fairness, just what will or will not make a buck for the company - course, I'm naive so what do I know.

ultimagina

« Reply #209 on: June 07, 2014, 16:14 »
-1
The thing is HUMAN reviewers can make mistakes...

Even at that though, a buyer will more than likely be able to find an equivalent food shot that suits so the company does not lose out and that is the name of the game - not about justice or fairness, just what will or will not make a buck for the company - course, I'm naive so what do I know.

Name of the game indeed!

This looks to me like the endless talks after a football match, when people argue for hours: was it penalty or not? Did the ball pass the goal line or not?
Of course there are mistakes, from time to time. And mistakes will always be part of the game.
However, most of us will still watch and enjoy the upcoming world cup matches. And the football players will keep on playing and making money out of this game, despite the few mistakes made by these "unjust" referees!

Ron

« Reply #210 on: June 07, 2014, 16:15 »
0
Again, its not about simple mistakes.

ultimagina

« Reply #211 on: June 07, 2014, 17:12 »
0
Then about what? Intentional mistakes? Conspiracy theories? Is SS targeting specific contributors, rejecting good photos only to punish them? Sadistic "Atilla" enjoying another "kill"? What is your explanation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Goofy

« Reply #212 on: June 07, 2014, 17:15 »
+6
This is starting to get me dizzy from going around in circles  :-[


« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 18:01 by Goofy »

Ron

« Reply #213 on: June 07, 2014, 17:26 »
-1
Then about what? Intentional mistakes? Conspiracy theories? Is SS targeting specific contributors, rejecting good photos only to punish them? Sadistic "Atilla" enjoying another "kill"? What is your explanation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seriously, are you now just taking the piss?? Just wumming or what? Someone else might explain it to you, but not me.

ultimagina

« Reply #214 on: June 07, 2014, 17:32 »
-2
No wumming. I sincerely believe that one should look in the mirror before blaming others for failures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Goofy

« Reply #215 on: June 07, 2014, 18:03 »
+2
No wumming. I sincerely believe that one should look in the mirror before blaming others for failures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What does this have to do with the topic of "Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up....Anyone Else?" ? Unless you are a reviewer and want to beat me up ???


ultimagina

« Reply #216 on: June 07, 2014, 18:08 »
+1
Lol, reviewer! That's a good one! Another conspiracy theory! ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ron

« Reply #217 on: June 07, 2014, 18:09 »
+1
I get the idea this a case of lost in translation or utter miscommunication

Goofy

« Reply #218 on: June 07, 2014, 22:27 »
+3
just had 18 out of 18 accepted! Thus looking good for the rest of the gang since I consider myself below average compared to the majority of folks on this site.

« Reply #219 on: June 07, 2014, 23:25 »
+3
Hi All,

Thanks for your patience - I'm now back in New York and able to respond better.

First, I think it's important to look at numbers.  We added over 3 million "accepted" images in Q1 - so obviously, images are getting accepted at record rates.  As I've stated, I can say that quantitatively, the number of complaints that we get is very small relative to the millions of images being reviewed - of which, accepted images are only a part. 

But let's hypothetically say that it's 10, 100, 500 or more disputed reviews out of millions of images processed.  It doesn't matter.  That could be 10, 100, or 500 people who have done work and gotten a result that they either: a) don't agree with; or b) don't understand.  We consider it an obligation to get it right all of the time, or at least do a better job of explaining the review.  One of our key internal measurements is contributor happiness and satisfaction and people aren't going to be happy if they feel that they didn't get an accurate review.

I've looked at a number of these personally.  I've explained in other posts that disputed reviews fall into three categories. 

1) The review was incorrect (i.e., the contributor is 100% right to complain).
2) The review was borderline (i.e., if you were liberal or conservative in interpreting our standards, you could argue the review either way). 
3) The review was 100% correct, but maybe not fully understood or agreed with.

In scenarios #1 or #2, we generally approve on a 2nd pass. We appreciate that contributors have invested their time, creativity and money in creating content, and the goal is of course to take re-review scenarios as close to zero as possible.

In terms of reviewers having an incentive to reject to earn more money - they don't (nor would we accept that).  Our review queues are always receiving new images and submissions are at an all-time high.  We also track a number of metrics related to reviewer activity which would result in seeing that behavior in the numbers or in feedback. 

Obviously, if and when we find an issue -- either internally on our own or via contributor feedback -- we address it.  We have a number of internal ways that we track review performance and the patterns of our reviewers, as well as extensive training programs.  Those things are built-upon daily and weekly and reviewers regularly interact with our coordinators.

I'm personally grateful for the hard work of our reviewers, most of whom come from photo, illustration, and design backgrounds.  They're quite skilled and many have been with us for years.  They're asked to get it right 100% of the time, which is no easy task across thousands (literally millions) of individual judgments. 

We have a large team of reviewers.  If there's an issue, it could be one or two batches out of hundreds or thousands being reviewed.  The best thing has always been to contact us and we'll address it. 

We greatly respect your hard work and welcome both criticism and feedback.

Thank you!

Best,

Scott 

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #220 on: June 08, 2014, 01:49 »
-1
The thing is HUMAN reviewers can make mistakes...
but, too much often, human SS reviewers make inhuman mistakes

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #221 on: June 08, 2014, 02:01 »
+2
Hi All,

[]  the number of complaints that we get is very small relative to the millions of images being reviewed - of which, accepted images are only a part. 
[]

It is not because the silent majority of the sheep does not complain that it agree.

And I think that a great part of the problem is really here: even if most of the contributors do not agree with the rejections and the reasons given, this does not mean that they all complain about it.

The fact is that we live in a society where more and more people just accept the status quo, silently.

« Reply #222 on: June 08, 2014, 06:18 »
+5
Scott,

thank you for taking time to post the explanation. However, the reply does not address our main concerns that are review inconsistency, and the ambiguous reasons for the bulk rejections. If we get a 100% acceptance for one batch of images, and 100% rejection for another batch of very similar content, lighting and quality with the same rejection phrase for all images, it is very puzzling to say the least, highly demoralizing and counter productive for both parties when we are told to resubmit the images.

No doubt, that many of your reviewers are highly skilled, hardworking and conscientious, but those mass rejections are not likely made by them. The question is whether such bulk rejections are made by a group of new reviewers or by some automated procedure that obviously can't match the expertise and judgment of the experienced reviewers. 

« Reply #223 on: June 08, 2014, 07:16 »
+2
yes - problem is inconsistency - not a strictness



 

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
34205 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