MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock will now accept new contributors with 1/10 passing review.  (Read 22073 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: December 03, 2015, 09:36 »
+1
OMG. At first I thought that was broccoli. LOL.


Good luck with using that excuse in court! :-)


Makes you wonder where the guy is based for that to be legal. Netherlands?


At a guess all the agencies lowering standards are working on the principle that you can't sell what you don't have.
I always thought personally that accepting anything is a disservice to buyers for the reasons you give.
Whatever there is obviously something in it for the agencies.





« Reply #51 on: December 03, 2015, 09:37 »
+9
Very sad news. SS has been corrupted from within.

« Reply #52 on: December 03, 2015, 09:47 »
0
i agree with jo ann (more like rejecting everything ...like is) and
disorderly (not sure it's a bad thing).

yes, there is some sort of automation going on, as evident in the instant rejection or approval.
not sure how they do it; must be based on histogram or whatever technical genius created by Brainiac
. or perharps it is based on ratio of approval/rejection historically of our portfolio.

disorderly , you're right in that there is a review after that initial auto-review.
i think it will do the new contributors a lot good too, in that , those who take the rejection seriously
will quickly learn the ropes of what ss wants and not want.

as opposed to having them submit their best 10 to get in with 7/10. we all know that even we too
still sometimes submit the wrong stuff and fail 6/10 even after so many years,
or when we try to get on a new niche and experiment which ss may or may not think it's something
they like to have.

still, consider that ss is still our best and by far biggest earner, i will not say it's a bad thing.
the more rejections they get with the new contributors; they better we look to them  ;)

Shelma1

« Reply #53 on: December 03, 2015, 09:48 »
+2
OMG. At first I thought that was broccoli. LOL.


Good luck with using that excuse in court! :-)


Makes you wonder where the guy is based for that to be legal. Netherlands?

According to his/their Stockfresh port, he/they are based in "Montclair, USA."

https://stockfresh.com/gallery/jeremynathan

« Reply #54 on: December 03, 2015, 10:04 »
0
OMG. At first I thought that was broccoli. LOL.


Good luck with using that excuse in court! :-)


Makes you wonder where the guy is based for that to be legal. Netherlands?

According to his/their Stockfresh port, he/they are based in "Montclair, USA."

https://stockfresh.com/gallery/jeremynathan


None of my business of course. I just wondered. Illegal here in the UK, and lots of other places.
Legal for medicinal use in some places in the States I believe?

« Reply #55 on: December 03, 2015, 10:14 »
+5
None of my business of course. I just wondered. Illegal here in the UK, and lots of other places.
Legal for medicinal use in some places in the States I believe?

Legal in about half the US states for medicinal purposes, and legal for recreational use in four states and the District of Columbia.  Some things change.

« Reply #56 on: December 03, 2015, 10:19 »
+4
None of my business of course. I just wondered. Illegal here in the UK, and lots of other places.
Legal for medicinal use in some places in the States I believe?

Legal in about half the US states for medicinal purposes, and legal for recreational use in four states and the District of Columbia.  Some things change.
Thanks. Very sensible too I think. I never really saw the point in it being illegal anywhere. Politics rather than common sense.

« Reply #57 on: December 03, 2015, 12:10 »
+4
Very sad news. SS has been corrupted from within.

That's the elephant in the room.  There's no way these thousands of junk photos made it through the 'official' inspection process.  They were back-doored.

« Reply #58 on: December 03, 2015, 12:30 »
+1
Geeeez... I feel Shutterstock is so very corrupt!

« Reply #59 on: December 03, 2015, 12:36 »
+3
Very sad news. SS has been corrupted from within.


That's the elephant in the room.  There's no way these thousands of junk photos made it through the 'official' inspection process.  They were back-doored.


I agree. And I bet there will be even more back-dooring when the entry bar is dropped to the floor.

Like the 1962 Chubby Checker song:

"Limbo Rock"

Every limbo boy and girl
All around the limbo world
Gonna do the limbo rock
All around the limbo clock

Jack be limbo, Jack be quick
Jack go unda limbo stick
All around the limbo clock
Hey, let's do the limbo rock

Limbo lower now
Limbo lower now
How low can you go?

First you spread your limbo feet
Then you move to limbo beat
Limbo ankolimboneee
Bend back like a limbo tree

Jack be limbo, Jack be quick
Jack go unda limbo stick
All around the limbo clock
Hey, let's do the limbo rock

La, la, la
La, la, la
La, la, la

Get yourself a limbo girl
Give that chic a limbo whirl
There's a limbo moon above
You will fall in limbo love

Jack be limbo, Jack be quick
Jack go unda limbo stick
All around the limbo clock
Hey, let's do the limbo rock

Don't move that limbo bar
You'll be a limbo star
How low can you go?



To paraphrase Chubby Checker: SHUTTERSTOCK, HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?

For those youngsters among us who weren't around in the '60s and don't remember this classic, here it is: 
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq7pxUgjLz0" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq7pxUgjLz0</a>
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 13:48 by marthamarks »

« Reply #60 on: December 03, 2015, 12:44 »
+4
^The worrying thing is, that to quote the song from Bachman Turner Overdrive
"You ain't seen nothing yet"
And that goes for this whole business!

« Reply #61 on: December 03, 2015, 12:58 »
0
OMG. At first I thought that was broccoli. LOL.


Good luck with using that excuse in court! :-)


Makes you wonder where the guy is based for that to be legal. Netherlands?

According to his/their Stockfresh port, he/they are based in "Montclair, USA."

https://stockfresh.com/gallery/jeremynathan

There's a Montclair in Oregon, where it is legal. Maybe that's where he is from?  8)

Shelma1

« Reply #62 on: December 03, 2015, 13:17 »
0
There are also Montclairs in Nj and CA. Probably one or two in every state. ;)

MxR

« Reply #63 on: December 03, 2015, 13:33 »
+5
Istock makes this mistake two years ago... crap flood is coming... Shutter now is Istock and Shutter is Adobe.

« Reply #64 on: December 03, 2015, 13:51 »
+3
I don't think it is good for anybody. As a purchaser of stock it is getting harder and harder to sift through all of the really bad or just mediocre images. Often there will be 20 or 30 bad images from the same shoot, just slightly different from each other. They would never have all been accepted in the past.
And as a contributor, I think it just lowers the image of microstock across the board.
As a purchaser, even though clients don't like spending the money and I don't like the hassle, I am being driven back to Rights Managed just to more easily find quality images.

« Reply #65 on: December 03, 2015, 14:00 »
0
I think that this is part of the natural evolution of a microstock company, first they are flexible with aceptance because they need a huge number of images to compete in the market, but when they have a decent gallery, then they get more rigorous with the acceptance, and accept only the elite ones.

In the other hand, it is also a good way to control the exponential growing of contributors/images, and give everybody a decent income.

I really think that this is not a bad new at all.

« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2015, 14:23 »
0
I think that this is part of the natural evolution of a microstock company, first they are flexible with aceptance because they need a huge number of images to compete in the market, but when they have a decent gallery, then they get more rigorous with the acceptance, and accept only the elite ones.

In the other hand, it is also a good way to control the exponential growing of contributors/images, and give everybody a decent income.

I really think that this is not a bad new at all.

if i understand you correctly, i too think it could work out better for ss.
we all started badly with the other right hand side column of agencies before we attempted
to join ss. and as someone once pointed out, even Yuri was not very good at the beginning
of his career.

so once again, letting the door open wider could work to their advantage of not losing
a potential good contributor to adobe,etc where it is easier to start.
or you can go Canva way to accept everything and then delete everything later.

Mrblues101, what's your opinion on that???


« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2015, 14:25 »
+2
I don't think it is good for anybody. As a purchaser of stock it is getting harder and harder to sift through all of the really bad or just mediocre images. Often there will be 20 or 30 bad images from the same shoot, just slightly different from each other. They would never have all been accepted in the past.
And as a contributor, I think it just lowers the image of microstock across the board.
As a purchaser, even though clients don't like spending the money and I don't like the hassle, I am being driven back to Rights Managed just to more easily find quality images.

you can be a follower of the ppl whose works you like. this way, you won't need to sift through everything that comes in. 
i noticed that with my "followers" as i see a regular downloading trend which i assumed
is due to these clients who FOLLOW me.

« Reply #68 on: December 03, 2015, 14:32 »
0
-
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 14:45 by Mrblues101 »

« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2015, 14:42 »
0
Istock makes this mistake two years ago... crap flood is coming... Shutter now is Istock and Shutter is Adobe.

how do you figure that ??? i don't see Adobe asking for 7/10 to be a contributor

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2015, 15:26 »
+7
I think that this is part of the natural evolution of a microstock company, first they are flexible with aceptance because they need a huge number of images to compete in the market, but when they have a decent gallery, then they get more rigorous with the acceptance, and accept only the elite ones.

In the other hand, it is also a good way to control the exponential growing of contributors/images, and give everybody a decent income.

I really think that this is not a bad new at all.

But what's happening is the very opposite of what you suggest above.
First of all iStock had high standards, then dropped them almost totally, then SS had high standards, then their inspection was all over the place, now they are lowering the entry standard.
So I don't see how this can "control the exponential growing of contributors/images, and give everybody a decent income". Au contraire.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2015, 15:29 »
+3
Lots of openings for human reviewers (See the Content category):

http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs/listings

 ???

« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2015, 15:36 »
+2
I think that this is part of the natural evolution of a microstock company, first they are flexible with aceptance because they need a huge number of images to compete in the market, but when they have a decent gallery, then they get more rigorous with the acceptance, and accept only the elite ones.

In the other hand, it is also a good way to control the exponential growing of contributors/images, and give everybody a decent income.

I really think that this is not a bad new at all.

But what's happening is the very opposite of what you suggest above.
First of all iStock had high standards, then dropped them almost totally, then SS had high standards, then their inspection was all over the place, now they are lowering the entry standard.
So I don't see how this can "control the exponential growing of contributors/images, and give everybody a decent income". Au contraire.
Agreed
Agreed

All this has nothing to do with contributors as such, and everything to do with with maximising their profits. Where something is obviously a success in doing that, and as iStock hasn't reinstated stricter inspections we can only assume that it is a success, and that the others will ultimately follow suit.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 15:49 by Difydave »

« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2015, 16:06 »
+4
It's obvious. Aliens have invaded Shutterstock and it's on self destruct.

« Reply #74 on: December 03, 2015, 16:08 »
+1
Lots of openings for human reviewers (See the Content category):

http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs/listings

 ???


Interesting.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle