pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 167748 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #375 on: January 28, 2015, 13:18 »
0
i don't know about illustration but about pictures this is my experience:

crappy studio isolation = 98% acceptance rate
studio composition   =  60% acceptance rate
outdoors and landscape = 10% acceptance rate

I don't shoot crappy studio isolations or studio compositions. Only shoot outdoors, landscape, and wildlife. My acceptance rate at SS is about 90%.

Everybody's miles will vary.


« Reply #376 on: January 28, 2015, 13:18 »
0
i don't know about illustration but about pictures this is my experience:

crappy studio isolation = 98% acceptance rate
studio composition   =  60% acceptance rate
outdoors and landscape = 10% acceptance rate

as u all know me for one of ss biggest critic here, i have to say there is a reason why #3 is 10% vs crappy isolation 98%
perharps u mean crappy as in subject matter, but a poor isolation will get u 100% rejection too.
as for isolation being 98% acceptance, it's obvious because like it or not, isolation even of crappy (for you maybe ) objects make the most money for many of ss-ers. that's what buyers want.
i have images that took me some creative work that sells 0
while  an isolation that took 0 mind other than plop it on white board and lighting it properly
so there is no shadow and clean edge etc that out sells many of the stuff that took time to create.
so why bother wasting time when u know crappy isolation sells?
u will be like a frustrated cordon-bleu chef working in the golden M and cussing how the food taste like cardboard .
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 13:23 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #377 on: January 31, 2015, 21:53 »
+4
Shelma, that's exactly why I'm so confused! It is the same, just the same with me. Rejection-email-mistake-resubmit-approve-sales (up to hits)... Some kind of stupid game here, really  ::)

It was OK for me for the last 5 months or so last year but now gone back to that.

I've had batches approved all 100% last year across multiple periods.  But this year even some images from those same batches are getting rejected randomly and approved randomly.

The last few i've had 100% rejection for a single reason despite being of 5 different topics spread over 3 months apart with 3 different cameras.  Every single one of those images got approved and sold resubmitting 24hrs after that rejection (and are amazingly selling).  After that i submitted ONE image in a batch (because internet here died for 3 days) and it got rejected for "too many similar images in the submission batch".

Last week 12/12 rejected for poor lighting, noise, focus,overuse.  Same 12 all accepted again 48hrs later.

I don't think anyone minds standards and high standards but its the utter lack of consistency causing the problems.  If they had a standard and ruthlessly applied that consistently across the board i really can't see many people complaining.  But generally they don't.

It's annoying for me here as each image takes me roughly 30 minutes to upload and costs me roughly $0.10 due to the capped and draconian internet bandwidth allowances per month.  That means an entire rejected batch for 1 reason where they clearly didn't look at any of the images past maybe the first one forcing me to reupload taking substantially more time and more money gets irritating fast.


Rinderart

« Reply #378 on: February 01, 2015, 01:25 »
+4
Seems theres another reviewer Flu going around agin. I've seen some rejections by folks that are just Plain stupid!!!!! Flowers requiring a MR. C-mon.

« Reply #379 on: February 01, 2015, 04:38 »
+1
... images from those same batches are getting rejected randomly and approved randomly..

Randomly is good word here, if we talk about SS reviewers opinion  ::)

I told my man about this stupid situation lately and all he said is: "don't they (SS) want earn money??  :o Why reject something what can bring money? It's like kill the hen giving golden eggs "

Snow

« Reply #380 on: February 01, 2015, 05:49 »
0
Ah the beauty of stock, incompetent or competitive reviewers can hinder your progress, believe me I've had my share. But in the end it's your fault, your work just isn't good enough, at least that's what agencies or some fellow contributors with their head up their own .ss will tell you ;)
« Last Edit: February 01, 2015, 05:52 by Snow »

dpimborough

« Reply #381 on: February 01, 2015, 05:55 »
+2
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.

Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o

There's some real junk on that site.   ::)

They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS 

Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)
« Last Edit: February 01, 2015, 05:59 by Teddy the Cat »

« Reply #382 on: February 01, 2015, 06:04 »
+1
They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS 
Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)

Teddy, I think we should start giving them that "note to reviewer" when uploading new files ;) Good point here!


Ps. I have deleted a lot of old files from my port lately, they were reeeaaally bad images and I felt bad having them in my gallery ;)
« Last Edit: February 01, 2015, 06:06 by Ariene »

Snow

« Reply #383 on: February 01, 2015, 11:14 »
+4
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.

Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o

There's some real junk on that site.   ::)

They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS 

Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)

Exactly my point, they reject work from established contributors with high quality work but take in the crap. My theory is that they know the low quality won't sell anyway so not in competition with their own or their dear friends work.
Then there's those who don't know wth they are doing in this business. What they should look for is copyright, releases and review ports occasionally to see if the contributor is uploading good quality, not inspect every batch.
Nope after 4 years I still haven't got the slightest respect for these guys even though I don't have any problems with them anymore.
Like Ariene I clean out my own port. I do a far better job then those reviewers anyway. If some are reading this, sorry guys but it's the truth, an easy job for you but nothing but a pain in the .ss to those who know what they are doing and trying to be successful in this business.

dpimborough

« Reply #384 on: February 01, 2015, 11:59 »
+3
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.

Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o

There's some real junk on that site.   ::)

They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS 

Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)

Exactly my point, they reject work from established contributors with high quality work but take in the crap. My theory is that they know the low quality won't sell anyway so not in competition with their own or their dear friends work.
Then there's those who don't know wth they are doing in this business. What they should look for is copyright, releases and review ports occasionally to see if the contributor is uploading good quality, not inspect every batch.
Nope after 4 years I still haven't got the slightest respect for these guys even though I don't have any problems with them anymore.
Like Ariene I clean out my own port. I do a far better job then those reviewers anyway. If some are reading this, sorry guys but it's the truth, an easy job for you but nothing but a pain in the .ss to those who know what they are doing and trying to be successful in this business.

Yes seeing as the reviewers are also contributors makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to stifle potential competition  ???

I've heard of reviewers rejecting photos then stealing the concept and duplicating it themselves.


Snow

« Reply #385 on: February 01, 2015, 12:04 »
0
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.

Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o

There's some real junk on that site.   ::)

They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS 

Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)

Exactly my point, they reject work from established contributors with high quality work but take in the crap. My theory is that they know the low quality won't sell anyway so not in competition with their own or their dear friends work.
Then there's those who don't know wth they are doing in this business. What they should look for is copyright, releases and review ports occasionally to see if the contributor is uploading good quality, not inspect every batch.
Nope after 4 years I still haven't got the slightest respect for these guys even though I don't have any problems with them anymore.
Like Ariene I clean out my own port. I do a far better job then those reviewers anyway. If some are reading this, sorry guys but it's the truth, an easy job for you but nothing but a pain in the .ss to those who know what they are doing and trying to be successful in this business.

Yes seeing as the reviewers are also contributors makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to stifle potential competition  ???

I've heard of reviewers rejecting photos then stealing the concept and duplicating it themselves.

Hey I would! so what's stopping them? reviewer admins? yeah right but as I've said it's not a big issue for me anymore though I pity those who are having issues with them.

dpimborough

« Reply #386 on: February 01, 2015, 15:15 »
+2
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.

Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o

There's some real junk on that site.   ::)

They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS 

Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)

Exactly my point, they reject work from established contributors with high quality work but take in the crap. My theory is that they know the low quality won't sell anyway so not in competition with their own or their dear friends work.
Then there's those who don't know wth they are doing in this business. What they should look for is copyright, releases and review ports occasionally to see if the contributor is uploading good quality, not inspect every batch.
Nope after 4 years I still haven't got the slightest respect for these guys even though I don't have any problems with them anymore.
Like Ariene I clean out my own port. I do a far better job then those reviewers anyway. If some are reading this, sorry guys but it's the truth, an easy job for you but nothing but a pain in the .ss to those who know what they are doing and trying to be successful in this business.

Yes seeing as the reviewers are also contributors makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to stifle potential competition  ???

I've heard of reviewers rejecting photos then stealing the concept and duplicating it themselves.

Hey I would! so what's stopping them? reviewer admins? yeah right but as I've said it's not a big issue for me anymore though I pity those who are having issues with them.

Well I have more honor than to do that.


Snow

« Reply #387 on: February 01, 2015, 16:00 »
-1
What makes me laugh is that SS reviewers still allow tons of crap through the doors.

Poor lighting, poor comp, poor keywords, ridiculous similars. :o

There's some real junk on that site.   ::)

They need to clean out at least 50% of the so called art/crap that inhabits SS 

Get some real quality in there not this Walmart stack it high sell it cheap philosophy 8)

Exactly my point, they reject work from established contributors with high quality work but take in the crap. My theory is that they know the low quality won't sell anyway so not in competition with their own or their dear friends work.
Then there's those who don't know wth they are doing in this business. What they should look for is copyright, releases and review ports occasionally to see if the contributor is uploading good quality, not inspect every batch.
Nope after 4 years I still haven't got the slightest respect for these guys even though I don't have any problems with them anymore.
Like Ariene I clean out my own port. I do a far better job then those reviewers anyway. If some are reading this, sorry guys but it's the truth, an easy job for you but nothing but a pain in the .ss to those who know what they are doing and trying to be successful in this business.

Yes seeing as the reviewers are also contributors makes you wonder if they are deliberately trying to stifle potential competition  ???

I've heard of reviewers rejecting photos then stealing the concept and duplicating it themselves.

Hey I would! so what's stopping them? reviewer admins? yeah right but as I've said it's not a big issue for me anymore though I pity those who are having issues with them.

Well I have more honor than to do that.

There is no honour in selling your work for pennies, you are in the wrong business then ;)
Of course I wouldn't do that and I've been asked to review before but kindly declined because I wouldn't want to be the guy that screws around with another man's income.

dpimborough

« Reply #388 on: February 01, 2015, 16:27 »
+3
A Man without honor
is worse than dead.

~ Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra  8)

« Reply #389 on: February 06, 2015, 11:46 »
+2
There is no honour in selling your work for pennies
Honour and money are two different things

ultimagina

« Reply #390 on: February 06, 2015, 16:47 »
+3
Interesting example that just happened to me:
1. I get a rejection with the reason:
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized

2. I followed the procedure announced recently and I send the question to [email protected] challenging the rejection. I'm certain that my photo had no noise or grain when viewed at 100%

3. After 3 days, I'm telling myself, "what the heck, I got a bad review, my picture is fine, I'll resubmit with no change"

4. Shortly after, I received the answer to my email. I am told that picture has no noise (!) but rather an excessive use of noise reduction and sharpness problems! What now? I'm told that the reviewer was right (?). How can he be, since there is a different standard rejection reason for noise reduction or sharpness problems.

5. The same day, I get the answer to my second upload attempt: Image approved! The same image that was initially rejected for one reason, and confirmed as rejected for the opposite reason!

Probably the rule of averages worked in my case: (too much noise + too much noise reduction)/2 = image OK

Anyway, I'm happy, since I'm certain that my photo was OK to start with! And I'm certain that it will sell very well!

All well when it ends well!





« Reply #391 on: February 07, 2015, 04:33 »
+3
Don't worry ultimagaina, it happens all the time, for all of us... Just keep it upload more... ;)  ;D


« Reply #392 on: March 01, 2015, 11:29 »
+4
anyone else having problems with the editorial review? wb problem and focus problem from a week now at tons of photos that are accepted on all other agencies. i do stock for 7 years with over 20000 photos and never ever  had this problem before. i think there is a drunk at the review buttons or what . is going on?

Rinderart

« Reply #393 on: March 01, 2015, 11:44 »
+6
If ya look back in the history of forums. theres 2 topics that way outpace all others by a Mile. Sales and rejections. rejections are normal and without seeing the Images in question it's just words. The Inconsistency at SS is the main Issue By far. and, At some point Must be addressed. Someone said there are 200 Reviewers? If thats true, Theres no way as I see it that they can all be on the same page. They need to revamp there system, It IS out of control at this point.

« Reply #394 on: March 01, 2015, 12:24 »
+2
Thank you mr. Rinder for your answer. I have enough experience that i can see myself if i am or not wrong with the photos...and i am not.. i don't know what is in the reviewers heads when they reject anything for a long period of time and then approve the ones reject...it is the Russian roulette at ss for a while i see.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #395 on: March 01, 2015, 15:56 »
+3
anyone else having problems with the editorial review? wb problem and focus problem from a week now at tons of photos that are accepted on all other agencies. i do stock for 7 years with over 20000 photos and never ever  had this problem before. i think there is a drunk at the review buttons or what . is going on?
I had some editorial rejected for composition and lighting. It always baffles me, that they reject images that depict the actual scene for lighting. A shadow, or sunny day, is just that.

« Reply #396 on: March 01, 2015, 16:55 »
0
Quote
Someone said there are 200 Reviewers?

If there are indeed 200 reviewers, 400,000 accepted images per week, and average acceptance rate is about 50%, that would translate to 4000 inspected images for each reviewer in a week. At 25% acceptance - 8,000 inspected images per reviewer per week or over 1,000 per day. 8,000 viewed images paid by 5 cents each would translate to $400 a week in remuneration for each inspector. Significantly higher than an average contributor would make.




OM

« Reply #397 on: March 01, 2015, 20:02 »
0
anyone else having problems with the editorial review? wb problem and focus problem from a week now at tons of photos that are accepted on all other agencies. i do stock for 7 years with over 20000 photos and never ever  had this problem before. i think there is a drunk at the review buttons or what . is going on?
I had some editorial rejected for composition and lighting. It always baffles me, that they reject images that depict the actual scene for lighting. A shadow, or sunny day, is just that.

Nice directional sunlight = doubleplusgood
Natural shadows that come with that sunlight = doubleplusungood = rejection.  :(

Not saying that this actually happens but when a person is paid per reviewed image, all the responsibility of the reviewer is in the accepted images. They have to comply with the SS criteria for acceptance. For rejections they get paid the same but without any 'real' responsibility. Up to the contributor to resubmit.

I once submitted an image that was rejected on poor isolation whilst the image wasn't isolated at all. I fixed some things that I imagined the reviewer might have rejected it on but pointed out that the image wasn't isolated in the first place....WRONG MOVE! It was rejected the second time for poor lighting, OOF and poor composition. Conclusion: Reviewers can be vindictive beetches. Henceforth, effem. They don't get no second chance and the image goes elsewhere.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 20:24 by OM »

Rinderart

« Reply #398 on: March 01, 2015, 21:08 »
+3
Quote
Someone said there are 200 Reviewers?


If there are indeed 200 reviewers, 400,000 accepted images per week, and average acceptance rate is about 50%, that would translate to 4000 inspected images for each reviewer in a week. At 25% acceptance - 8,000 inspected images per reviewer per week or over 1,000 per day. 8,000 viewed images paid by 5 cents each would translate to $400 a week in remuneration for each inspector. Significantly higher than an average contributor would make.


Les, I reviewed for 3+ years 2006/09 then we had 15 reviewers. we got 10 cents per Image, Plus a Bonus of $500 for doing More than 10,000 a Month, a $750 Bonus for doing more than 15,000. Last I heard reviewers are getting a straight 3 cents Now. I did on average a 1000 a day. it took about 5 Hours. reviewers I Think and have always said should be paid a salary by time on the clock.And if the sites Paid a Liveable wage it would Perhaps attract Better qualified people.It is also a very transient Job at best. Burnout is very High.

Ever seen the qualifications? Geeeez. Sometimes these folks think there curating at the Guggenheim Museum.

Ever read a Post I did On the day in the Life? 100% true and very funny. written By a fellow reviewer. probably Holds up today as well.


http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847

« Reply #399 on: March 02, 2015, 00:40 »
+1
A Man without honor
is worse than dead.

~ Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra  8)

Cool dude, that don Miguel.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
17627 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
22 Replies
6950 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
43861 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
10 Replies
6709 Views
Last post June 22, 2015, 14:07
by Freedom
212 Replies
34128 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