pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: So they do use AI to review then...  (Read 6598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #125 on: August 16, 2020, 09:22 »
+1
Quote
    So the accusation that a IS reviewer would reject images similar to his, and would reject images, similar to a friend, so they could get more sales, it true paranoia.     

And whatever the process is now, the process used to be that a reviewer would make maybe 5 cents per image. If anyone wanted to make any kind of money, they had to fire through images fairly quickly. At one point, EONS ago (another clueless old timer here) I checked into being a reviewer for SS. Im pretty sure they were paying 5 cents an image. After I did the math, I didnt bother. It just wasnt worth the time, for me. If I didnt have rent and other bills to pay, sure.

That was the number kicked around back then.

And I'd imagine they cut that 5c down since 2008 and set higher quotas. If the rumors are right, just like the image factories, from places that are happy with the 10c, reviews have been transferred to outsourced businesses, in India for example. Cut expenses, put the work on getting something accepted, after inconsistent reviews, on the artists backs.

The original claim was back when IS was on top, and people wrote that the reviewers were rejecting their images, because of protecting reviewers friends or reviewers own markets. Some things never change. Rejections are because of insiders. Sales are because of the favorites being pushed to the front. It's all rigged... to favor someone else.  ::)


m

« Reply #126 on: August 16, 2020, 10:28 »
0

I used to think that the staff in NY was actually doing reviews, and then on weekends, they were off (like the people who watch the site or the forums, who are invisible on weekends) then they came back on Monday. That would mean the offshore contracts were still working most of the time. Just a thought, no evidence or anything, or maybe I just saw what I wanted to see?

just search on linkedin "Image Curator at Shutterstock" or "shutterstock reviewer"
« Last Edit: August 16, 2020, 10:32 by m »

« Reply #127 on: August 16, 2020, 17:15 »
+2
Just worth noting that an AI isnt guaranteed to give the same output every time its run.

It learns and adapts to inputs meaning you'd expect output to change the more its run.  Also a lot use stochastic techniques which introduce a bit of deliberate randomness.

Not saying its the case here but the "if its AI you'd get consistency" argument isnt true.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #128 on: August 19, 2020, 11:24 »
+1
Just worth noting that an AI isnt guaranteed to give the same output every time its run.

It learns and adapts to inputs meaning you'd expect output to change the more its run.  Also a lot use stochastic techniques which introduce a bit of deliberate randomness.

Not saying its the case here but the "if its AI you'd get consistency" argument isnt true.

Worth mentioning that AI doesn't train itself and doesn't change by day of the week, or one hour files are accepted, next they are rejected. AI doesn't accept half of a set one day and reject the rest of the set, the next day. AI changes slowly. AI is more consistent because it's determined by unemotional computer logic.

AI won't reject the same files twice and third time, suddenly change to accepting them.  ;D

Nope I disagree with you.

« Reply #129 on: August 19, 2020, 12:34 »
0
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #130 on: August 19, 2020, 14:02 »
0
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.

And your evidence or proof of this being true is?

« Reply #131 on: August 19, 2020, 15:09 »
0
Our royalties.

« Reply #132 on: August 19, 2020, 16:05 »
0
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.

Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.

« Reply #133 on: August 19, 2020, 18:41 »
+1
Just worth noting that an AI isnt guaranteed to give the same output every time its run.

It learns and adapts to inputs meaning you'd expect output to change the more its run.  Also a lot use stochastic techniques which introduce a bit of deliberate randomness.

Not saying its the case here but the "if its AI you'd get consistency" argument isnt true.

Worth mentioning that AI doesn't train itself and doesn't change by day of the week, or one hour files are accepted, next they are rejected. AI doesn't accept half of a set one day and reject the rest of the set, the next day. AI changes slowly. AI is more consistent because it's determined by unemotional computer logic.

AI won't reject the same files twice and third time, suddenly change to accepting them.  ;D

Nope I disagree with you.

ok, AI or human?  SS reviews today (minutes after submitting)

1. a shoot of closeups or orange and yellow nasturtiums: several orange rejected for lack of editorial caption, all other oranges and all yellows accepted
2. macro of a yellowjacket and of a fern both rejected for lack of property release

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #134 on: August 29, 2020, 10:28 »
0
Just worth noting that an AI isnt guaranteed to give the same output every time its run.

It learns and adapts to inputs meaning you'd expect output to change the more its run.  Also a lot use stochastic techniques which introduce a bit of deliberate randomness.

Not saying its the case here but the "if its AI you'd get consistency" argument isnt true.

Worth mentioning that AI doesn't train itself and doesn't change by day of the week, or one hour files are accepted, next they are rejected. AI doesn't accept half of a set one day and reject the rest of the set, the next day. AI changes slowly. AI is more consistent because it's determined by unemotional computer logic.

AI won't reject the same files twice and third time, suddenly change to accepting them.  ;D

Nope I disagree with you.

ok, AI or human?  SS reviews today (minutes after submitting)

1. a shoot of closeups or orange and yellow nasturtiums: several orange rejected for lack of editorial caption, all other oranges and all yellows accepted
2. macro of a yellowjacket and of a fern both rejected for lack of property release

Sounds like computer reviews, missing the intelligence part.  :) Makes me wonder why a flower, or wasp, tells the computer, it looks like something that needs a release?

So far the only artificial intelligence part that seems to be working, is too arbitrary and restrictive. That's the similar, that detects colors and patterns and shapes. I think if I tried, I could get a frog image and a green pepper (hypothetical) to be rejected as similar, if the colors are close enough and somewhat similar setting.

But anyway, the less similar images, is a good thing. Remember when we could find inch by inch sets, or hundreds of the same basic setup, re-positioned? Sure there are going to be less accepted new images, SS doesn't want more of the spam and slop. Buyers don't want more of the same, they want more variety.

What ever happened to the marijuana bud guy? Or the guy driving down the city street, with a GoPro on his dashboard? Terrible!

« Reply #135 on: August 29, 2020, 13:36 »
+2
Quote
ok, AI or human?  SS reviews today (minutes after submitting)

1. a shoot of closeups or orange and yellow nasturtiums: several orange rejected for lack of editorial caption, all other oranges and all yellows accepted
2. macro of a yellowjacket and of a fern both rejected for lack of property release

Computers are stupid. Even more than Oringer.



« Reply #136 on: September 19, 2020, 06:43 »
0
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.

Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.

@LaurinRinder was a reviewer? Why doesn't he answer what they got paid on Bigstock? After they sold to SS the contract is done, not secret.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #137 on: September 19, 2020, 10:44 »
0
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.

Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.

@LaurinRinder was a reviewer? Why doesn't he answer what they got paid on Bigstock? After they sold to SS the contract is done, not secret.

It's called a NDA and would be voided when the company was bought by Shutterstock. So maybe Laurin will see this and help us with an answer from the inside, not guesses and work at home websites that are terribly out of date. Also in all his research for the books and people he knows, he should be able to tell us the real answer.


« Reply #138 on: September 19, 2020, 12:33 »
0
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.

Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.

@LaurinRinder was a reviewer? Why doesn't he answer what they got paid on Bigstock? After they sold to SS the contract is done, not secret.

Why would he answer? Every time he posts here, people call him names.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2020, 17:54 by cathyslife »

« Reply #139 on: September 20, 2020, 05:02 »
0
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.

Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.

@LaurinRinder was a reviewer? Why doesn't he answer what they got paid on Bigstock? After they sold to SS the contract is done, not secret.

Why would he answer? Every time he posts here, people call him names.

Names?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4735 Views
Last post October 20, 2006, 10:23
by CJPhoto
2 Replies
1720 Views
Last post May 07, 2012, 18:06
by heywoody
5 Replies
2698 Views
Last post October 10, 2012, 17:24
by tab62
Pond 5 review changes

Started by stephenkirsh « 1 2 ... 8 9 » Pond5

210 Replies
39358 Views
Last post May 14, 2016, 18:20
by PigsInSpace
2 Replies
2488 Views
Last post September 14, 2017, 02:27
by Dodie

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle