MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 168088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #650 on: April 24, 2015, 10:10 »
0
Hmmm, thats an interesting theory.


« Reply #651 on: April 24, 2015, 11:00 »
+1
 
My best guess is that inspectors are aware that there has historically been about a 40%-ish rejection rate, so they just go through everything as quickly as possible and reject 40% of everything. The easiest way to do that is to reject 40% of submitted batches in one fell swoop, rather than studying each image individually. That would account for a batch being rejected once and then accepted the second time.

If you make money based on volume/speed, there's little incentive to spend time actually looking at things. And as long as acceptance/rejection ratios remain steady, there's little incentive for SS management to look into things furthertheir library is still growing at the same rate.

but that's not what's being reported -- we're getting 90+% rejects and 2nd submissions are getting rejected for DIFFERENT reasons

Shelma1

« Reply #652 on: April 24, 2015, 12:06 »
+2
Perhaps they've identified photographers they really like and approve everything from them. So they need to make up the 40% rejection rate elsewhere. Perhaps when you resubmitted, your inspector still hadn't gotten to the 40% that day. And had to click a different rejection button.

This is pure speculation on my part. But I have the same problem with jpg illustrations. Well, until recently, I think because I complained so much. But that can change in an instant, and they can go right back to being rejected for invisible "noise" again.

Rinderart

« Reply #653 on: April 24, 2015, 14:55 »
0
Perhaps they've identified photographers they really like and approve everything from them. So they need to make up the 40% rejection rate elsewhere. Perhaps when you resubmitted, your inspector still hadn't gotten to the 40% that day. And had to click a different rejection button.

This is pure speculation on my part. But I have the same problem with jpg illustrations. Well, until recently, I think because I complained so much. But that can change in an instant, and they can go right back to being rejected for invisible "noise" again.

Well, It's true when I reviewed I couldn't wait for yuri ,Andres and so many others. Also The last I heard which could be BS is... 22% was the rejection rate. That was 2 years ago though. And yes....We had favorites. Thats pretty Normal I think. some Just "Get" what you do and others don't see it or feel it. pretty simple.

« Reply #654 on: April 24, 2015, 16:39 »
+5
I just took a look at the front page for contributors. I don't want to disrespect other's work but if SS feel these images represent the best of the site no wonder we have problems with what they are looking for. I used to sign in there and think I hope one day I can come up with images that good.

« Reply #655 on: April 24, 2015, 17:06 »
+1
I just took a look at the front page for contributors. I don't want to disrespect other's work but if SS feel these images represent the best of the site no wonder we have problems with what they are looking for. I used to sign in there and think I hope one day I can come up with images that good.

bravo someone finally noticed that too!!!
problem is Pauws99, is this to show us their best
or is this to tell us there are one measuring stick with bar lifted so high for experienced contributors
and there is another for less experienced
or is it to show us there is one rule for us ,
and another rule for selected privilegios

« Reply #656 on: April 24, 2015, 17:25 »
+8
I think all these theories are way too complicated.

The truth may be much simpler. For SS it's a pure numbers game. They are still accepting 400k+ images per week. They can be sure that there's a lot stuff in those 400k that's sellable and keeps the collection looking fresh enough for buyers.

And inspecting such amounts of images must be a huge cost item - if you want to do it absolutely correct, with clear guidelines, extensive trainings for reviewers, paying well to get good reviewers...

They are trying to keep costs down, spend as little as possible on the whole reviewing process from guidelines to actual reviewers - and consider what we see as inconsistency, as lost revenue opportunity, as unfair, ... - simply as collateral damage.

Yes, they may lose a few commercially valuable, technically flawless images - but does that matter when you get 400k others that you accept per week?
Yes, they may produce a few disgruntled contributors who may (or may not) lose interest and upload less in the future - but does that matter if hundreds if not thousands are waiting to get in?

To get to an "optimal" review process (one that rejects any image that is not commercially viable or not technically correct and accepts all others) they would need to invest. Into Trainings, technology, reviewer salaries...

The question they will ask is: What's the ROI on that investment?
Maybe they have figured out that they'll make more by investing that money in marketing or some other customer facing features...


Shelma1

« Reply #657 on: April 24, 2015, 18:15 »
0
Perhaps they've identified photographers they really like and approve everything from them. So they need to make up the 40% rejection rate elsewhere. Perhaps when you resubmitted, your inspector still hadn't gotten to the 40% that day. And had to click a different rejection button.

This is pure speculation on my part. But I have the same problem with jpg illustrations. Well, until recently, I think because I complained so much. But that can change in an instant, and they can go right back to being rejected for invisible "noise" again.

Well, It's true when I reviewed I couldn't wait for yuri ,Andres and so many others. Also The last I heard which could be BS is... 22% was the rejection rate. That was 2 years ago though. And yes....We had favorites. Thats pretty Normal I think. some Just "Get" what you do and others don't see it or feel it. pretty simple.

"58% of all submitted photos were approved in 2014. Of the top 10 cameras, the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and the Nikon D800 had the highest approval rates, with 69% and 68%, respectively."

From the Peta Pixel article referenced in the Shutterstock top ten cameras thread.

« Reply #658 on: April 24, 2015, 19:12 »
-1
I just took a look at the front page for contributors. I don't want to disrespect other's work but if SS feel these images represent the best of the site no wonder we have problems with what they are looking for. I used to sign in there and think I hope one day I can come up with images that good.

bravo someone finally noticed that too!!!
problem is Pauws99, is this to show us their best
or is this to tell us there are one measuring stick with bar lifted so high for experienced contributors
and there is another for less experienced
or is it to show us there is one rule for us ,
and another rule for selected privilegios


So, your theory is that SS is rejecting great material from experienced shooters in favour of rubbish from newbies - how does that make any kind of commercial sense?  If you were selling any product, would you fill your shelves with row upon row of almost identical goods or would you try and offer some bit of variety?

« Reply #659 on: April 24, 2015, 19:25 »
+3
I recall that SS's financial report when they went public said that they had invested in proprietary inspection software. I just wonder if they are testing it. If they are it doesn't work worth a (S)hit.

« Reply #660 on: April 24, 2015, 19:44 »
+3
I've been saying this for years -- what they need to do is put upload limits on contributors and let us edit ourselves. As you get more successful, your upload limit would increase. Likewise if you make poor decisions your maximum number of uploads would decrease, giving you incentive to be choosier about what you upload. They could save a ton of money on reviewers, contributors would be much happier, and I think the overall quality of uploads would improve. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

« Reply #661 on: April 24, 2015, 23:33 »
0
I just took a look at the front page for contributors. I don't want to disrespect other's work but if SS feel these images represent the best of the site no wonder we have problems with what they are looking for. I used to sign in there and think I hope one day I can come up with images that good.

bravo someone finally noticed that too!!!
problem is Pauws99, is this to show us their best
or is this to tell us there are one measuring stick with bar lifted so high for experienced contributors
and there is another for less experienced
or is it to show us there is one rule for us ,
and another rule for selected privilegios


So, your theory is that SS is rejecting great material from experienced shooters in favour of rubbish from newbies - how does that make any kind of commercial sense?  If you were selling any product, would you fill your shelves with row upon row of almost identical goods or would you try and offer some bit of variety?

 no theory needed. unless  you missed the amazing high standard images chosen on the homepage .
variety ???  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 23:36 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #662 on: April 25, 2015, 04:46 »
+3
On the contributor side I see my own account page, on the customer side I'm not seeing anything horrible.  This thing is that your perception of a high standard (or mine) is completely irrelevant - this is just product on a shelf and the commercial basis of adding to the collection is to produce sales that they probably wouldn't get otherwise.  If someone wants a picture for a web site, do you think they give a rats how good it looks at 30 MP full resolution as long as it suits the purpose?

« Reply #663 on: April 25, 2015, 07:46 »
0
On the contributor side I see my own account page, on the customer side I'm not seeing anything horrible.  This thing is that your perception of a high standard (or mine) is completely irrelevant - this is just product on a shelf and the commercial basis of adding to the collection is to produce sales that they probably wouldn't get otherwise.  If someone wants a picture for a web site, do you think they give a rats how good it looks at 30 MP full resolution as long as it suits the purpose?

I can see what you mean and it is true that my perception is not that relevant. I just think if I was a buyer I currently wouldn't be very impressed. Also I thought SS said they were looking to eat into the higher priced market and not all their sales are for web sites. As a contributor I am confused as to what it is they are looking for.

« Reply #664 on: April 25, 2015, 10:26 »
+4
I recall that SS's financial report when they went public said that they had invested in proprietary inspection software. I just wonder if they are testing it. If they are it doesn't work worth a (S)hit.

That well could be. Since they changed the "Notes for Reviewer" field in the submission dialog from free text to a drop menu with three fixed options, this could be interpreted in such a way that this field is not read by humans.

No Free Lunch

« Reply #665 on: April 25, 2015, 11:54 »
+1
Probably been said already in this post- I've been told that some companies have a 'Hit List'- things not to accept anymore so they just automatically reject them. For example, management tells the reviewers stop taking mountains images until told otherwise.


« Reply #666 on: April 25, 2015, 12:05 »
+4
Some sites tell you they already have enough and unless its better than what they have it won't get accepted (Dreamstime I think) - seems a sensible approach.


No Free Lunch

« Reply #667 on: April 25, 2015, 12:21 »
0
Some sites tell you they already have enough and unless its better than what they have it won't get accepted (Dreamstime I think) - seems a sensible approach.

Believe GL use to do the same but now they don't accept anymore images at all. 

No Free Lunch

« Reply #668 on: April 25, 2015, 12:25 »
0
Most of my photos are very basic objects (all done in studio) and lack attitude that many of the higher end photographers have in their images maybe explaining the lower acceptance rate.  The high end pro's maybe boarding Stocksy style which will fail acceptance in a lot of companies. Just my two cents worth... ???


« Reply #669 on: April 25, 2015, 12:48 »
-1
I've been saying this for years -- what they need to do is put upload limits on contributors and let us edit ourselves. As you get more successful, your upload limit would increase. Likewise if you make poor decisions your maximum number of uploads would decrease, giving you incentive to be choosier about what you upload. They could save a ton of money on reviewers, contributors would be much happier, and I think the overall quality of uploads would improve. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

That is actually a great idea - if you ever set up a site let me know!

Semmick Photo

« Reply #670 on: April 26, 2015, 01:00 »
0
I recall that SS's financial report when they went public said that they had invested in proprietary inspection software. I just wonder if they are testing it. If they are it doesn't work worth a (S)hit.

That well could be. Since they changed the "Notes for Reviewer" field in the submission dialog from free text to a drop menu with three fixed options, this could be interpreted in such a way that this field is not read by humans.
what about checking for trademarks and relases?

« Reply #671 on: April 26, 2015, 02:18 »
0

what about checking for trademarks and relases?

Machines could make a first read and reject some pictures





Envoy de mon iPod touch l'aide de Tapatalk

« Reply #672 on: April 26, 2015, 02:24 »
+1

what about checking for trademarks and relases?

Machines could make a first read and reject some pictures
Envoy de mon iPod touch l'aide de Tapatalk
Exactly! Many things are automated. Micro is micro, but human interests exist on any level. Automatic detection of trends in work manner of every reviewer is absolutely doable too. If sales machine still functioning on acceptable for owners level - who will care about this?

« Reply #673 on: April 26, 2015, 08:14 »
+8
Some sites tell you they already have enough and unless its better than what they have it won't get accepted (Dreamstime I think) - seems a sensible approach.

There are two sides to this, but you are right. If I send in a shot that they have lot's of and I feel mine is better/more useful, I am not allowed to compete. However, if I weighed the factors, I would rather not shoot stuff that agencies already have a pile of.  To be successful it's really up to us to differentiate our ports, shoot new concepts or very different compositions than the pile of stuff they already have. Frankly, for me, as frustrating as it is when I upload some nice nature stuff and it gets rejected, it motivates me to be different, so I appreciate the honest, candid "reasons for rejection" from DT. Why? It tells me EXACTLY why they don't want it and, consequently, what to avoid submitting moving forward.  With SS you DO NOT KNOW the reason....as we have pretty much debunked WB & focus rejections, so one is left TO GUESS. How freaking productive is that?

SHUTTERSTOCK, PLEASE COME CLEAN. Many of us rely on the income from SS and cannot grow our income as serious business people. PLEASE DO NOT become one of "THEM".

« Reply #674 on: April 27, 2015, 00:46 »
0
When I started getting rejections for noise for the first time I realised something was not quite right! :)


 

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
34208 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