Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 215907 times)

Rinderart · « **Reply #600 on:** April 18, 2015, 11:39 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 18, 2015, 10:41

Quote from: Daryl Ray on April 18, 2015, 10:35
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."

It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...

There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.
excellent post

One of the best level Headed posts ever. IMHO!

shudderstok · « **Reply #601 on:** April 18, 2015, 11:59 »

Quote from: Daryl Ray on April 18, 2015, 10:35

"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."

It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...

There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.

I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #602 on:** April 18, 2015, 12:05 »

Quote from: Cesar on April 14, 2015, 08:00

what a relief, yesterday 100% rejection got acceptance 100% with same images. -0.01 exposure.

i can breathe now.

but for how long??? the next one is going to be the same thing... rejection 100% approval on 2nd run... so obviously the first reviewer is not doing his/her job with the first round of 100% rejection...
you should twitter Big O with this and ask him why he has to pay 2 reviewers to do one job

ShadySue · « **Reply #603 on:** April 18, 2015, 12:33 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 18, 2015, 11:59

I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.

Except that so many people report getting the previously rejected files accepted without change when resubmitted. I can easily understand 'honest mistakes', but there seem to be an awful lot being reported.

heywoody · « **Reply #604 on:** April 18, 2015, 13:37 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 18, 2015, 11:59

Quote from: Daryl Ray on April 18, 2015, 10:35
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."

It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...

There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.

I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.

Yeah, there is no way the reviewer tail is wagging the SS dog – this is policy for sure.
I’d be interested to see if someone did a search to find something similar to one of the rejected images would they be spoiled for choice?
It’s strange that everyone is ok with the likes of stocksy not being interested in a submission simply on the basis that they are not interested and yet SS is expected to take anything regardless of whether it’s useful (to them) as long as it’s technically sound.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #605 on:** April 19, 2015, 03:19 »

Quote from: heywoody on April 18, 2015, 13:37

Quote from: shudderstok on April 18, 2015, 11:59
Quote from: Daryl Ray on April 18, 2015, 10:35
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."

It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...

There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.

I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.

Yeah, there is no way the reviewer tail is wagging the SS dog – this is policy for sure.
I’d be interested to see if someone did a search to find something similar to one of the rejected images would they be spoiled for choice?
It’s strange that everyone is ok with the likes of stocksy not being interested in a submission simply on the basis that they are not interested and yet SS is expected to take anything regardless of whether it’s useful (to them) as long as it’s technically sound.

Mike, if thats true then why were these images accepted yesterday? Would that be a rogue reviewer ignoring SS policy then?

I dont think you get many rejections because you create a niche of illustrations. The rejection reasons I get on some images are just plain wrong. Plain wrong, no other way about it. I understand the argument that if they dont want an image, they can reject it at their will. But at least say so then, instead of giving 3 bogus rejection reasons per image.

Yesterday 100% approval on 19 images. I am sure the next batch will see 98% rejections.

Fatmanphoto · « **Reply #606 on:** April 19, 2015, 03:45 »

Quote from: heywoody on April 18, 2015, 13:37

... and yet SS is expected to take anything regardless of whether it’s useful (to them) as long as it’s technically sound.

It is entirely reasonable for SS to reject because they perceive the image content to be of little commercial use, lots of agencies do. It is not reasonable to do so but blame it on focussing etc (when this is not the case).

If SS are rejecting for content, then give us that reason. It would save a lot of time for them and us.

heywoody · « **Reply #607 on:** April 19, 2015, 05:22 »

Quote from: Fatmanphoto on April 19, 2015, 03:45

Quote from: heywoody on April 18, 2015, 13:37
... and yet SS is expected to take anything regardless of whether it’s useful (to them) as long as it’s technically sound.

It is entirely reasonable for SS to reject because they perceive the image content to be of little commercial use, lots of agencies do. It is not reasonable to do so but blame it on focussing etc (when this is not the case).

If SS are rejecting for content, then give us that reason. It would save a lot of time for them and us.

Totally agree - bad for the submitter and bad for the site because of the bad feeling this generates when the reason given is empirically wrong.

@Ron,

Some well covered content will always get through (maybe there are quotas??) but it's turned into a bit of a lottery. I'm just getting away with it at the moment because there is a bit less of this stuff on the site. It will sell a lot less than some of the rejected images would but the buyer wouldn't have easy alternatives on the odd occasion when they do want something like this.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #608 on:** April 19, 2015, 06:06 »

Agree on the lottery part. That's the main issue. It shouldn't be like that.

cascoly · « **Reply #609 on:** April 19, 2015, 13:08 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 18, 2015, 11:59

I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.

just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they know what they're doing, and right now reviewers ARE the weak link -- nonsensical rejections keep salable images out of the market; acceptance is a lottery -- SS is huge but they are successful DESPITE such bad business practices

IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting

cascoly · « **Reply #610 on:** April 19, 2015, 13:11 »

dbl post

Rinderart · « **Reply #611 on:** April 19, 2015, 13:44 »

Quote from: cascoly on April 19, 2015, 13:08

Quote from: shudderstok on April 18, 2015, 11:59

I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.
just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they know what they're doing, and right now reviewers ARE the weak link -- nonsensical rejections keep salable images out of the market; acceptance is a lottery -- SS is huge but they are successful DESPITE such bad business practices

IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting

+1 Million.

shudderstok · « **Reply #612 on:** April 19, 2015, 16:21 »

Quote from: cascoly on April 19, 2015, 13:08

Quote from: shudderstok on April 18, 2015, 11:59

I am not questioning your integrity, expenses, or talent or anyone else's for that matter.
To say it is also a weak link in the chain (reviewer) is rather silly. If it is just one reviewer then yes that is a weak link in the chain, but I am more inclined to think it is "reviewers" in which case it is company policy to accept or reject images as chosen and trained to do.
Now a company that apparently boasts 50 million images and payouts of $80 million is not what I would call inexperienced in the whole process.
They have done this a few times and at the end of the day, they get the final say in whether they want to accept and market your work or not.
Is there anywhere in their contract that says they have to take all of your images just because you put a bit of time and money into it? I somehow doubt it.
I get work rejected all the time but I sure as heck don't have a temper tantrum about it.
just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they know what they're doing, and right now reviewers ARE the weak link -- nonsensical rejections keep salable images out of the market; acceptance is a lottery -- SS is huge but they are successful DESPITE such bad business practices

IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting

so let me get this straight... "just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they know what they're doing" yet you have submitted 9K+ images to them???

i will reach out on a limb here and presume you are the type who yells at the television telling the coach/player that they don't know what they are doing.

Fourth quarter revenue increases 38% from prior year, to $68.0 million
Full year revenue increases 39% from prior year, to $235.5 million
Adjusted EBITDA of $15.4 million in fourth quarter, increase of 37%
Adjusted EBITDA of $53.4 million for full year, increase of 53%
Quarterly paid image downloads reach record of 28.0 million
Collection exceeds 33 million images and 1.5 million video clips
Number of active customer accounts surpasses 940,000

^ yep, they really don't know what they are doing, go ahead grab your bag of dorito's and go tell em how to do it tiger. i am sure they would like to know your winning formula.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #613 on:** April 19, 2015, 16:54 »

You are missing the point and taking his point out of context

cascoly · « **Reply #614 on:** April 19, 2015, 19:29 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 19, 2015, 16:21

so let me get this straight... "just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they know what they're doing" yet you have submitted 9K+ images to them???

i will reach out on a limb here and presume you are the type who yells at the television telling the coach/player that they don't know what they are doing.

wow u can follow a link! you even get that wrong tho - I've SUBMITTED many more than 9K images & that's exactly the point - how much MORE might have been made if they dumped the faux rejections? SS is the only game in town -- so of course I submit to them -- doesn't mean they cant get better

as an aside, too bad you don't return the common courtesy of showing who u are -

IBM was the biggest name in computers til Microsoft tore their throat out in the 80's; then MS got too big and have been surpassed by other, hungrier companies; that's capitalism -- $$ & superstats don't mean u know what you're doing - just that you're selling more than anyone else AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #615 on:** April 19, 2015, 19:32 »

Quote

IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting

Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.

gbalex · « **Reply #616 on:** April 19, 2015, 21:47 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on April 19, 2015, 19:32

Quote
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting

Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.

I sometimes wonder if rejection rates jump, when the review queues drop to low levels of images waiting to be reviewed.

No Free Lunch · « **Reply #617 on:** April 19, 2015, 22:58 »

Quote from: gbalex on April 19, 2015, 21:47

Quote from: LesPalenik on April 19, 2015, 19:32
Quote
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting

Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.

I sometimes wonder if rejection rates jump, when the review queues drop to low levels of images waiting to be reviewed.

that would mean the reviewers have more time to look over the images in better detail. I've heard the same about submitting your taxes- wait until the last day April 15th and you have less than a 1% chance of being audited due to the flood of submissions. You might have a valid point here...

gbalex · « **Reply #618 on:** April 20, 2015, 12:23 »

Quote from: No Free Lunch on April 19, 2015, 22:58

Quote from: gbalex on April 19, 2015, 21:47
Quote from: LesPalenik on April 19, 2015, 19:32
Quote
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting

Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.

I sometimes wonder if rejection rates jump, when the review queues drop to low levels of images waiting to be reviewed.

that would mean the reviewers have more time to look over the images in better detail. I've heard the same about submitting your taxes- wait until the last day April 15th and you have less than a 1% chance of being audited due to the flood of submissions. You might have a valid point here...

Or they make double the money by reviewing some images twice.

Fatmanphoto · « **Reply #619 on:** April 20, 2015, 13:09 »

Quote from: gbalex on April 20, 2015, 12:23

Quote from: No Free Lunch on April 19, 2015, 22:58
Quote from: gbalex on April 19, 2015, 21:47
Quote from: LesPalenik on April 19, 2015, 19:32
Quote
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting

Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.

I sometimes wonder if rejection rates jump, when the review queues drop to low levels of images waiting to be reviewed.

that would mean the reviewers have more time to look over the images in better detail. I've heard the same about submitting your taxes- wait until the last day April 15th and you have less than a 1% chance of being audited due to the flood of submissions. You might have a valid point here...

Or they make double the money by reviewing some images twice.

Or indeed all images twice.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #620 on:** April 20, 2015, 13:33 »

Why would SS support back that up? Why would they support reviewers to generate extra unnecessary work and drive up cost?

heywoody · « **Reply #621 on:** April 20, 2015, 16:29 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 20, 2015, 13:33

Why would SS support back that up? Why would they support reviewers to generate extra unnecessary work and drive up cost?

Obviously they wouldn't because that would be stupid and SS are not stupid. It's not like there is a shortage of new stuff being submitted so no percentage whatsoever for anyone in reviewing the same thing twice.

gbalex · « **Reply #622 on:** April 20, 2015, 16:39 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 20, 2015, 13:33

Why would SS support back that up? Why would they support reviewers to generate extra unnecessary work and drive up cost?

If shutterstock did not support multiple reviews for the same image they would take solid measures to prevent the practice on both sides of the fence.

I would say that roughly 90% of contributors resubmit images which have been rejected. How many contributors do you know who have had warnings for this practice?

We would not be having this discussion if shutterstock were actually monitoring reviewers who reject images that eventually get through in future reviews.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #623 on:** April 20, 2015, 20:33 »

someone got get them to review their capcha words and now even more ridiculous capcha pixs!!!
each day ss comes up with more and more ridiculous ideas.
wish they come up with the ridiculous ultimate by giving contributors an increase in pay !!!

andy_arden · « **Reply #624 on:** April 21, 2015, 05:11 »

Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!! Uploading for over 5 years...over 20k photos and again i have accepted 2/80 photos. What .? What drunk and incompetent reviewers are you paying? All photos refused for WB and focus...yeah right...accepted on all agencies, tripled checked by me before uploading and you give me idiotic motives.. Thanks again. I won't upload anymore until you fire that morons who review.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 215907 times)

Rinderart

shudderstok

etudiante_rapide

ShadySue

heywoody

Semmick Photo

Fatmanphoto

heywoody

Semmick Photo

cascoly

cascoly

Rinderart

shudderstok

Semmick Photo

cascoly

LesPalenik

gbalex

No Free Lunch

gbalex

Fatmanphoto

Semmick Photo

heywoody

gbalex

etudiante_rapide

andy_arden

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors