Agency Based Discussion > Shutterstock.com
So they do use AI to review then...
Uncle Pete:
--- Quote from: cathyslife on August 15, 2020, 11:00 ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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. I’m pretty sure they were paying 5 cents an image. After I did the math, I didn’t bother. It just wasn’t worth the time, for me. If I didn’t have rent and other bills to pay, sure.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 16, 2020, 09:13 ---
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?
--- End quote ---
just search on linkedin "Image Curator at Shutterstock" or "shutterstock reviewer"
gnirtS:
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:
--- Quote from: gnirtS on August 16, 2020, 17:15 ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
trabuco:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version