Author Topic: Shutterstock will now accept new contributors with 1/10 passing review. (Read 41323 times)

Mackie · « **Reply #100 on:** December 04, 2015, 19:00 »

Quote from: cobalt on December 02, 2015, 16:02

I actually think this is a good thing. But it would make more sense if they make their review process consistent.

Or if they are planning to take nearly everything like istock, then they should have some kind of way of sorting incoming content by style. So customers looking for design elements can find them quickly and those looking for artistic content get their own feed they can browse.

We will see what happens, I am not worried about them.

this basically comes down to there being a need for an improved image SEARCH tool out there. Totally what I think, too, @cobalt. The "finding them quickly" is increasingly the point these days -- pretty similar to web search in the early days of the internet, until websites started coming along in volume!

We (and content buyers/editors/media pros) definitely do need a better search process, one that really works for finding specific images without losing hours on end wading through irrelevant "results"!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #101 on:** December 05, 2015, 13:36 »

Quote from: Mackie on December 04, 2015, 19:00

...this basically comes down to there being a need for an improved image SEARCH tool out there. Totally what I think, too, @cobalt. The "finding them quickly" is increasingly the point these days -- pretty similar to web search in the early days of the internet, until websites started coming along in volume!

We (and content buyers/editors/media pros) definitely do need a better search process, one that really works for finding specific images without losing hours on end wading through irrelevant "results"!

A good search tool is really important, but it depends, in part, on good keywording. There is some really awful keywording, largely because the agencies don't want to spend the money to police spam effectively. There's also some terrible keywording where important keywords are omitted, either by those new to the stock business or those who can't keyword in their native language and whose English is limited.

Keywording that doesn't allow for phrases - DT splits everything into individual words leading to all sorts of problems - is a barrier to getting good results as well

SS, and other agencies are looking to trim or hold the line on costs, so I'm not expecting to see major changes here.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #102 on:** December 05, 2015, 14:59 »

I asked it an another thread and got no response. Can anyone tell me what the terrible changes with the new agreement are? Just a link to the thread discussing it would suffice. Thanks.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #103 on:** December 05, 2015, 15:06 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 05, 2015, 14:59

I asked it an another thread and got no response. Can anyone tell me what the terrible changes with the new agreement are? Just a link to the thread discussing it would suffice. Thanks.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87314-change-to-our-initial-review-process/?pl=SubGF

"terrible" might be a bit strong. I think that alot of people are concerned with the idea of essentially eliminating any sort of quality control on new submitters. Based on what has been submitted to the review forum from new contributors who have a minimal grasp on photography let alone stock photography you could expect that there will be many more really poor images being thrown on the pile. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if the review process was consistent and robust but it isn't. Personally, I would have preferred SS working on improving the review process even if that involves lower overall acceptance rates. This change appears to indicate that they are taking the exact opposite approach. Having an increase in low quality images can't help reviewers do their jobs better.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #104 on:** December 05, 2015, 15:39 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on December 05, 2015, 15:06

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 05, 2015, 14:59
I asked it an another thread and got no response. Can anyone tell me what the terrible changes with the new agreement are? Just a link to the thread discussing it would suffice. Thanks.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87314-change-to-our-initial-review-process/?pl=SubGF

"terrible" might be a bit strong. I think that alot of people are concerned with the idea of essentially eliminating any sort of quality control on new submitters. Based on what has been submitted to the review forum from new contributors who have a minimal grasp on photography let alone stock photography you could expect that there will be many more really poor images being thrown on the pile. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if the review process was consistent and robust but it isn't. Personally, I would have preferred SS working on improving the review process even if that involves lower overall acceptance rates. This change appears to indicate that they are taking the exact opposite approach. Having an increase in low quality images can't help reviewers do their jobs better.

just as paulie said back there, no need for 7/10 application does not mean lax reviewing. it only means ss is going to be accepting anyone to submit images . after all, which other site does 7/10 initial application? not even adobe does that.

to assume ss is going to accept anything, i guess we will have to start uploading again
to test see if they indeed are going to accept crap (as chichikov think they are going to accept).
other than weed , i do not think anti non-weed crappola images will be passed through without
rejection possibility at the gate.

but we will have to see if this is true but reading the ss forum or here to see if 100% crap
will now be accepted. i don't think so, as they are looking to hire new ppl for reviewing team

Copidosoma · « **Reply #105 on:** December 05, 2015, 15:44 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on December 05, 2015, 15:39

Quote from: Copidosoma on December 05, 2015, 15:06
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 05, 2015, 14:59
I asked it an another thread and got no response. Can anyone tell me what the terrible changes with the new agreement are? Just a link to the thread discussing it would suffice. Thanks.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87314-change-to-our-initial-review-process/?pl=SubGF

"terrible" might be a bit strong. I think that alot of people are concerned with the idea of essentially eliminating any sort of quality control on new submitters. Based on what has been submitted to the review forum from new contributors who have a minimal grasp on photography let alone stock photography you could expect that there will be many more really poor images being thrown on the pile. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if the review process was consistent and robust but it isn't. Personally, I would have preferred SS working on improving the review process even if that involves lower overall acceptance rates. This change appears to indicate that they are taking the exact opposite approach. Having an increase in low quality images can't help reviewers do their jobs better.

just as paulie said back there, no need for 7/10 application does not mean lax reviewing. it only means ss is going to be accepting anyone to submit images . after all, which other site does 7/10 initial application? not even adobe does that.

to assume ss is going to accept anything, i guess we will have to start uploading again
to test see if they indeed are going to accept crap (as chichikov think they are going to accept).
other than weed , i do not think anti non-weed crappola images will be passed through without
rejection possibility at the gate.

but we will have to see if this is true but reading the ss forum or here to see if 100% crap
will now be accepted. i don't think so, as they are looking to hire new ppl for reviewing team

Having some sort of standard that shows that you can put together 7 good images out of a batch of 10 is actually useful in determining if someone has a basic understanding of how to use a camera or what a stock image "is". What other sites do is irrelevant. SS is in a different league as far as sales go in my experience. I'd rather they not go the route of everyone else.

I"m not saying that review standards will drop (i.e. that they will accept anything)> However, if you have a large number of new submitters who are unable to hit a 7 of 10 mark I don't see how it will help the review process (unless of course they do start accepting everything which will not be good for anyone in the long term).

Rinderart · « **Reply #106 on:** December 05, 2015, 17:00 »

OK, a lot of you know that in 10+ years and 47,000+ Posts with 90% being on the critique forum and Let me add selling My Images for 30 Plus years, Involved in stock Longer than any employee at SS. I completely disagree with this Move. The overall Talent Level as I see it has dropped tremendously in the last year, Big time in last 3/6 months and Im sure no One at SS has tracked this....I have. These changes and others are simply Not the SS I knew and supported. They were a "Class act" and something folks worked Hard for to be part of. It's all Going away.

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

stockmn · « **Reply #107 on:** December 05, 2015, 18:11 »

Quote from: Rinderart on December 05, 2015, 17:00

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

Maybe that's the way it should be? In my opinion, microstock should never have been anything other than low to medium quality images. Using thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment to make pennies per sale has always been unsustainable for photographers. It's reality time.

marthamarks · « **Reply #108 on:** December 05, 2015, 19:08 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on December 05, 2015, 15:44

Having some sort of standard that shows that you can put together 7 good images out of a batch of 10 is actually useful in determining if someone has a basic understanding of how to use a camera or what a stock image "is".

That's exactly how I see it too.

When you consider how many thousands of contributors have generated tens of millions of images… it sure doesn't seem like the "high" 7/10 standard has kept many contributors from getting in up to this point.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #109 on:** December 05, 2015, 19:14 »

Quote from: stockmn on December 05, 2015, 18:11

Quote from: Rinderart on December 05, 2015, 17:00

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

Maybe that's the way it should be? In my opinion, microstock should never have been anything other than low to medium quality images. Using thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment to make pennies per sale has always been unsustainable for photographers. It's reality time.

I'd agree. Not only equipment. What about the shot with a room full of model surgeons in the rented operating room. It's only a matter of time before contributors give up on this kind of stuff because the returns aren't there.

And this even applies to macro in some cases. I see these subscription macro deals come in that pay me micro level money. So when I see the "needs list" mostly requesting content that would cost a fortune to produce I don't bother with it. Unless prices stabilize to where there's a reasonable return it's not financially justifiable.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #110 on:** December 05, 2015, 22:06 »

Quote from: Rinderart on December 05, 2015, 17:00

OK, a lot of you know that in 10+ years and 47,000+ Posts with 90% being on the critique forum and Let me add selling My Images for 30 Plus years, Involved in stock Longer than any employee at SS. I completely disagree with this Move. The overall Talent Level as I see it has dropped tremendously in the last year, Big time in last 3/6 months and Im sure no One at SS has tracked this....I have. These changes and others are simply Not the SS I knew and supported. They were a "Class act" and something folks worked Hard for to be part of. It's all Going away.

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

the question is ... which macro are you going to??? i don't know any macro who is not out to be doing what micro is paying. and the only macro i know is getty and i don't hear too many ppl being happy there either.

adobe , being fotolia , is not a threat to ss; anymore than what veers used to appear like some new messenger of good hope which we now came to nothing. same for canva.

as for accepting crap (to quote our fellow commentor before here), that is not going to help anyone
submitting crap. the issue is not getting approved but getting dl and i don't know any clients who is
going to pay for crap. do you???

like it or not, ss is still our only seller and earning of $$$. they can change the admission criteria
but that's not going to affect any of us. at least, the way i see it, sales have in fact gone up ...not down , even with the absence of $80, $102 single earnings.

don't know where ss is planning to go, but since we are already contributors, the only issue for me
is the large dl-able poorly watermark issue. the rest don't affect us ,really.

cathyslife · « **Reply #111 on:** December 05, 2015, 22:11 »

Quote from: stockmn on December 05, 2015, 18:11

Quote from: Rinderart on December 05, 2015, 17:00

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

Maybe that's the way it should be? In my opinion, microstock should never have been anything other than low to medium quality images. Using thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment to make pennies per sale has always been unsustainable for photographers. It's reality time.

Exactly. I dont think the microstock model was meant to support pro photogs using high end equipment and costly studio/model shoots.

roede-orm · « **Reply #112 on:** December 06, 2015, 02:41 »

Everyone thinks the world is ending, because Shutterstock facilitates the entrance test. But what about Fotolia? They never had a test. And I think the quality of the image material is not so different.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #113 on:** December 06, 2015, 03:12 »

Quote from: Karen on December 03, 2015, 04:47

Quote from: Chichikov on December 03, 2015, 01:21
I think that their next step will be to accept any crap, like did iStock about one year ago…

You mean this crap?
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

How could he get 39,000+ like those accepted? Must know (or be) someone on the inside. OY!!

Copidosoma · « **Reply #114 on:** December 06, 2015, 09:54 »

Quote from: roede-orm on December 06, 2015, 02:41

Everyone thinks the world is ending, because Shutterstock facilitates the entrance test. But what about Fotolia? They never had a test. And I think the quality of the image material is not so different.

Given how inaccurate your first part of this statement is I'm not sure how seriously anyone should take the rest.

Concern over a change at a site which is far and away the top earner for many contributors is pretty valid as far as I'm concerned. I think you are misinterpreting what some (many) people are saying here.

FlowerPower · « **Reply #115 on:** December 06, 2015, 11:00 »

Quote from: roede-orm on December 06, 2015, 02:41

Everyone thinks the world is ending, because Shutterstock facilitates the entrance test. But what about Fotolia? They never had a test. And I think the quality of the image material is not so different.

People upload the same pictures everywhere and the agencies take what they want. Entrance exam does nothing if the reviews are like they are on SS. Now people who can't pass will upload and get rejected and find out why they don't pass the exam.

Mantis · « **Reply #116 on:** December 06, 2015, 12:58 »

Quote from: FlowerPower on December 06, 2015, 11:00

Quote from: roede-orm on December 06, 2015, 02:41
Everyone thinks the world is ending, because Shutterstock facilitates the entrance test. But what about Fotolia? They never had a test. And I think the quality of the image material is not so different.

People upload the same pictures everywhere and the agencies take what they want. Entrance exam does nothing if the reviews are like they are on SS. Now people who can't pass will upload and get rejected and find out why they don't pass the exam.

As I mentioned earlier, the question is really "why" they are doing this. If in the end no more images make it into their collection due to tough inspections, why lower the criteria? There is cause and effect built into this decision, meaning there is an end game as to why they changed the criteria. In my mind they are trying to encourage more contributors to apply in order to grow their collection. Why on earth would they loosen the acceptance criteria if their inspections block most new content? So, I have several theories but the most obvious one is probably to let in more newbies so they pay out less. It's about revenue and operating income. How better to reduce payouts than simply cutting our royalties when they can dilute long term contributor income with contributors getting 25 cents a download or whatever. Looks very good on the financials when they can say we added X new contributors, X number of images and gross margins are up 10%.

roede-orm · « **Reply #117 on:** December 06, 2015, 15:29 »

Quote from: Mantis on December 06, 2015, 12:58

Quote from: FlowerPower on December 06, 2015, 11:00
Quote from: roede-orm on December 06, 2015, 02:41
Everyone thinks the world is ending, because Shutterstock facilitates the entrance test. But what about Fotolia? They never had a test. And I think the quality of the image material is not so different.

People upload the same pictures everywhere and the agencies take what they want. Entrance exam does nothing if the reviews are like they are on SS. Now people who can't pass will upload and get rejected and find out why they don't pass the exam.

As I mentioned earlier, the question is really "why" they are doing this. If in the end no more images make it into their collection due to tough inspections, why lower the criteria? There is cause and effect built into this decision, meaning there is an end game as to why they changed the criteria. In my mind they are trying to encourage more contributors to apply in order to grow their collection. Why on earth would they loosen the acceptance criteria if their inspections block most new content? So, I have several theories but the most obvious one is probably to let in more newbies so they pay out less. It's about revenue and operating income. How better to reduce payouts than simply cutting our royalties when they can dilute long term contributor income with contributors getting 25 cents a download or whatever. Looks very good on the financials when they can say we added X new contributors, X number of images and gross margins are up 10%.

Sounds pretty convincing,. What else is possible?

marthamarks · « **Reply #118 on:** December 06, 2015, 15:32 »

Quote from: Mantis on December 06, 2015, 12:58

It's about revenue and operating income. How better to reduce payouts than simply cutting our royalties when they can dilute long term contributor income with contributors getting 25 cents a download or whatever. Looks very good on the financials when they can say we added X new contributors, X number of images and gross margins are up 10%.

BINGO!!!!

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #119 on:** December 06, 2015, 16:07 »

Quote from: FlowerPower on December 06, 2015, 11:00

Quote from: roede-orm on December 06, 2015, 02:41
Everyone thinks the world is ending, because Shutterstock facilitates the entrance test. But what about Fotolia? They never had a test. And I think the quality of the image material is not so different.

People upload the same pictures everywhere and the agencies take what they want. Entrance exam does nothing if the reviews are like they are on SS. Now people who can't pass will upload and get rejected and find out why they don't pass the exam.

finally, we agree !!!

LesPalenik · « **Reply #120 on:** December 06, 2015, 16:44 »

The problem is not so much that the inspections are strict, but more that they are inconsistent. Which means that thousands of inferior and blatantly similar images will still squeeze through.

stockastic · « **Reply #121 on:** December 06, 2015, 17:51 »

While it's hard to say what the real effect of this change will be, it's even harder to imagine the intent. Things seemed to have stopped making sense, from a contributor's viewpoint, a long time ago.

The bar is low. Some time goes by. Ooops, now the bar is high, everything is rejected for 'lighting'. Now it's really, really high, and your photos have LCV. But look, here are 10,000 nearly identical icons. And 10,000 dopey photos of a bag of pot. Guess there isn't any 'bar'. And now, the entrance exam has been made really easy. How does that fit in? Who knows. And, speaking for myself: at 36 cents a sale, who cares anymore.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #122 on:** December 06, 2015, 18:37 »

Quote from: cathyslife on December 05, 2015, 22:11

Quote from: stockmn on December 05, 2015, 18:11
Quote from: Rinderart on December 05, 2015, 17:00

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

Maybe that's the way it should be? In my opinion, microstock should never have been anything other than low to medium quality images. Using thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment to make pennies per sale has always been unsustainable for photographers. It's reality time.

Exactly. I dont think the microstock model was meant to support pro photogs using high end equipment and costly studio/model shoots.

Microstock did support pros producing high quality work until recently and you can bet the SS sales teams chasing the profitable corporate clients are showing them exactly these high production images. They won't be closing sales from backyard shots.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #123 on:** December 06, 2015, 20:34 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 06, 2015, 17:51

While it's hard to say what the real effect of this change will be, it's even harder to imagine the intent. Things seemed to have stopped making sense, from a contributor's viewpoint, a long time ago.

The bar is low. Some time goes by. Ooops, now the bar is high, everything is rejected for 'lighting'. Now it's really, really high, and your photos have LCV. But look, here are 10,000 nearly identical icons. And 10,000 dopey photos of a bag of pot. Guess there isn't any 'bar'. And now, the entrance exam has been made really easy. How does that fit in? Who knows. And, speaking for myself: at 36 cents a sale, who cares anymore.

i get what you mean. to me, it makes a lot of sense that there is one specific reviewer
who will reject everything you give as "poor lighting" , even the good ones with "poor composition"...
simply because your work has nothing to do with marijuana

as for the rest of the reviewers, i find it consistent. you get rejections which you knew was iffy
when you uploaded it, but you just wanted to push the envelope and add something different for your portfolio. but for the majority, it still get approved because there is nothing wrong with any of them.
... and yes, they sell too.

i know that, because lately, i quietly wait a little while, and resubmit without that "previously submitted " note, and they all got approved.
but what i still haven't figured out is when this marijuana reviewer works, so i can time it nicely
and not have to waste my time re-submitting when the bozo is not working.

stockastic · « **Reply #124 on:** December 06, 2015, 23:02 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on December 06, 2015, 20:34

...what i still haven't figured out is when this marijuana reviewer works, so i can time it nicely
and not have to waste my time re-submitting when the bozo is not working.

Let me know when you figure that out. Since he obviously can't recognize duplicates, I'll just submit all my photos a second time, and double the size of my portfolio.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock will now accept new contributors with 1/10 passing review. (Read 41323 times)

Mackie

Jo Ann Snover

Justanotherphotographer

Copidosoma

etudiante_rapide

Copidosoma

Rinderart

stockmn

marthamarks

PaulieWalnuts

etudiante_rapide

cathyslife

roede-orm

HughStoneIan

Copidosoma

FlowerPower

Mantis

roede-orm

marthamarks

etudiante_rapide

LesPalenik

stockastic

stock-will-eat-itself

etudiante_rapide

stockastic

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors