pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: So they do use AI to review then...  (Read 6626 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 07, 2020, 17:38 »
0
I beg you to meditate on the following points:

- The department of illustration examiners examined the files somewhat better.

- You talk about a fair test. Impossible for a human to examine with any justice a large number of photographs in a few seconds of time. Impossible to analyze with common sense.

- You talk about absurd exams.

- Conclusion, the human examiner pressed the reject button for the entire batch, without looking. Simple. A human.

- The batch rejects button is used by several agencies and is available in all agencies.

They just didn't have a job, as soon as you uploaded photos, they all rejected you. Examiners read the comments on this forum and your blog.

Before another examiner reviewed your images, they were waiting for you. Rejection of the entire upload. Absurd rejection in 5 seconds. A human.


« Reply #76 on: August 07, 2020, 17:54 »
0
Are we asking SS to worry about us? Have you ever replied to your forum? Acknowledging a possible error, apologies and that the Agency will try to improve the photography exams?
SS doesn't give a * about your exam and the rejected photos. They are dead, 123RF started treating collaborators that way, and we all know the result. SS does not exist, it is chaos, and its website closes any day.

« Reply #77 on: August 07, 2020, 18:21 »
0
I have spent entire nights uploading files and in a moment, all files approved. I re-upload files and in a moment, all approved, I re-upload files and in a moment, all approved, I re-upload files and in a moment all rejected. The examiner was another, the end of the work shift, examiners replacement, no more uploading files that night. Humans.

« Reply #78 on: August 07, 2020, 18:50 »
0
As I see that this topic is of little interest, I will continue with my monologue.

Has the Agency decided to change the time-out period for the AI exam to more than 5 seconds so as not to disturb anyone?


The supposed AI at present, how it is adjusted, examines at 20 minutes. Is it a slower AI? No, they just don't have files to review, and they don't examine at a time like months ago. Now, they are short of material and dedicate a little more common sense. They are human as in the rest of the Agencies.
SS believes that customers buy what the Agency decides the customer to buy. They do not value the work of collaborators or clients. They think they are unbeatable.

« Reply #79 on: August 07, 2020, 19:06 »
0
...

Little bit mangled, but all in all, pretty good translations. Much better than what was possible 20 years ago.
Actually, some of the re-translated sentences sound better than the original ones by Trump.

one reason the translations are reasonable is he speaks like an underperforming 5th grader

Very true. To make the job more difficult for the translator, this time I used Tenebroso's post, and translated it to French and back to English.
The translator made the Tenebroso's flowery text even more convoluted.
...
i thought about doing that but was afraid it would bring down the translator

Cobra

« Reply #80 on: August 07, 2020, 19:33 »
0
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading

All rejected or accepted?

All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!

If I know there from you I can reject in one second  ;D


« Reply #81 on: August 07, 2020, 20:16 »
0
Actually, it suits me very well that this guild is not an expert in software code. A few days ago we decided not to open a Platform to sell images for a limited number of collaborators.

We have come to the conclusion that in Microstock we are the kings of the planet AS and I, my team has decided to open three different Platforms at the same time, different conditions and different systems, to compete with ourselves.

As well as a website specialized in image searches for clients that will be the neuralgic center of the three platforms.
We do not have AI, but we do have knowledge and effort.

The planet still doesn't know that in microstock, AS and I am the bosses.

« Reply #82 on: August 07, 2020, 20:18 »
0
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading

All rejected or accepted?

All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!



Do you think that if you had sent more images, they would have approved one? It is not No, and someone decided to reject all your images as soon as they were uploaded. Be it 12 or 129.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #83 on: August 08, 2020, 06:23 »
0
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading

All rejected or accepted?

All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!



Do you think that if you had sent more images, they would have approved one? It is not No, and someone decided to reject all your images as soon as they were uploaded. Be it 12 or 129.

It seems they're using a combination of AI with humans. First filter is AI and rejects for the easy stuff like editorials with wrong captions and software that detects graffiti. These are the super quick rejections I wrote about.

However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.

More borderline cases gets sent to humans for a closer look.

SS seem to be streamlining their workflow by cutting costs - they are a technology company after all. By no means am I completely against AI, after all they receive 100,000s submissions a day, but seems strange that they've outright denied it for a long time on the SS forum (Jeff).

Snow

« Reply #84 on: August 08, 2020, 08:23 »
+1
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading

All rejected or accepted?

All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!



Do you think that if you had sent more images, they would have approved one? It is not No, and someone decided to reject all your images as soon as they were uploaded. Be it 12 or 129.

It seems they're using a combination of AI with humans. First filter is AI and rejects for the easy stuff like editorials with wrong captions and software that detects graffiti. These are the super quick rejections I wrote about.

However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.

More borderline cases gets sent to humans for a closer look.

SS seem to be streamlining their workflow by cutting costs - they are a technology company after all. By no means am I completely against AI, after all they receive 100,000s submissions a day, but seems strange that they've outright denied it for a long time on the SS forum (Jeff).

Here's another quote from Cobra above:

Quote
If I know there from you I can reject in one second  ;D

There's your answer!

Why do you think it's impossible to push a button to reject all your files in one second?

After the sixth time your work got accepted? why you think? they got bored with you and accepted, nothing more.
Don't try to make up complicated theories as to why your work was rejected. Keep it simple, it's just a human being who likes to mess around.

Aren't you the one that posted about stolen images/portfolio's and got banned for it? You call that fair treatment? So knowing that you don't think there are reviewers out there messing around as well?

I also still believe our ports are flagged and some do not get reviews at all while others get tight reviews.

Cobra

« Reply #85 on: August 08, 2020, 09:14 »
0
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading

All rejected or accepted?

All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!



Do you think that if you had sent more images, they would have approved one? It is not No, and someone decided to reject all your images as soon as they were uploaded. Be it 12 or 129.

It seems they're using a combination of AI with humans. First filter is AI and rejects for the easy stuff like editorials with wrong captions and software that detects graffiti. These are the super quick rejections I wrote about.

However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.

More borderline cases gets sent to humans for a closer look.

SS seem to be streamlining their workflow by cutting costs - they are a technology company after all. By no means am I completely against AI, after all they receive 100,000s submissions a day, but seems strange that they've outright denied it for a long time on the SS forum (Jeff).

Here's another quote from Cobra above:

Quote
If I know there from you I can reject in one second  ;D

There's your answer!

Why do you think it's impossible to push a button to reject all your files in one second?

After the sixth time your work got accepted? why you think? they got bored with you and accepted, nothing more.
Don't try to make up complicated theories as to why your work was rejected. Keep it simple, it's just a human being who likes to mess around.

Aren't you the one that posted about stolen images/portfolio's and got banned for it? You call that fair treatment? So knowing that you don't think there are reviewers out there messing around as well?

I also still believe our ports are flagged and some do not get reviews at all while others get tight reviews.

+5

« Reply #86 on: August 08, 2020, 09:53 »
+1
From their SEC filing in 2012. I'm sure that has advanced significantly in eight years.

"We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers"

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm

« Reply #87 on: August 08, 2020, 09:55 »
+2


However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.

[/quote]


And this is one of the problems with the whole industry today.

In today's whiny self entitled world one actually tries on an average of 3 times to get rejected work accepted and up to 6 times and eventually they will get accepted.

All that tells me is you need to up your game or find another hobby.




« Reply #88 on: August 08, 2020, 14:45 »
0
File rejections, in SS, from the notification of not accepting similar files, is not relevant to determine the quality of the accepted or rejected files.
In microstock, it is a very complicated subject, to determine what is quality, a professional, novice files.

Microstock is a business. Spam professionals are business professionals. Determining what is a quality file is very complicated in microstock.

Regarding the subject of reviewers, in this forum, I remember reading that a user and part of his family scan photographs of old books, without copyright, and have an agreement with SS for this work.

This is proof that reviewers don't review all users.

There are users, that the reviewers do not know in his short life as an image reviewer worker. Therefore, there are users with a green traffic light for review, or reviewed by section heads, or not reviewed. It would also be good to know if 0.10 is for all users or if there are users exempt from this new commission rate.

I doubt that by the third week of reviewing images, a reviewer's brain is in place. I think it can end with the lucidity of a person reviewing thousands of images a day, a week, a month, another month. I think it is a wreck for the mind and should be reviewed, a high-risk job and a maximum daily schedule should be regulated for this job, appropriate breaks, and vacation and disconnection periods should be regulated. It is a high risk job for the health of workers.

In addition, you would win in the quality of the reviews, if you take care of this guild of reviewers, perhaps the most important section of the microstock, more important than the work of the collaborators or the CEO.

This business is extremely complex. For me, illustrations changing the color of the soccer players' jerseys from each team in each country does not seem spammy. 4 images in Relevant from the same collaborator do not seem to me, spam in a search where there are not many images, it does seem to me to be spam 4 images in the relevant section of the same author and similar ones in the search section of the G5 or COVID.

Each topic is to be discussed for seven lifetimes.

« Reply #89 on: August 08, 2020, 15:06 »
0
When it comes to AI testing, between all of us, we'd have cheated the machine by now. Simply put, SS wanted no more than 1,200,000 images a week. Rejecting all users, images, whether of quality or not.

It would also be nice to know, the concept, Quality, in microstock.
In microstock, it would be nice if IA could examine, if SS accepted valid files.

In microstock, it would be nice if IA could examine, if SS accepted ALL valid files. The Agency is not for the concept of investing in salary to expand the staff.


But I'm afraid that they were testing whether having less images interfered with the loss of customers. To nail the 0.10 and that losing fresh image is not a loss of customers.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #90 on: August 08, 2020, 15:13 »
+1


However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.



And this is one of the problems with the whole industry today.

In today's whiny self entitled world one actually tries on an average of 3 times to get rejected work accepted and up to 6 times and eventually they will get accepted.

All that tells me is you need to up your game or find another hobby.
[/quote]

My port is open for all to see.

I'm of the particular opinion that breaking news editorial images take in the heat of the moment shouldn't be rejected for stupid reasons such as noise. I can't take out my tripod in a protest and have a perfect exposure/composition at ISO 100!

Cobra

« Reply #91 on: August 08, 2020, 15:45 »
0
"I'm of the particular opinion that breaking news editorial images take in the heat of the moment shouldn't be rejected for stupid reasons such as noise. I can't take out my tripod in a protest and have a perfect exposure/composition at ISO 100!"

In the old days the big guns would hire 20 models and stage this protest thus perfect professional lighting and ISO 100.  They would have a crew of about 5 people as well.  I bet 99% of the photographers now would never consider doing this especially for a $.10 from SS.




« Reply #92 on: August 08, 2020, 17:30 »
+1

I'm of the particular opinion that breaking news editorial images take in the heat of the moment shouldn't be rejected for stupid reasons such as noise. I can't take out my tripod in a protest and have a perfect exposure/composition at ISO 100!

I agree, however SS is hardly an industry source for breaking news photos... not even a close second or third source.

« Reply #93 on: August 08, 2020, 22:54 »
+3
I don't care about the review method they use... but i care about the 0.10 issue

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #94 on: August 09, 2020, 04:31 »
0

I'm of the particular opinion that breaking news editorial images take in the heat of the moment shouldn't be rejected for stupid reasons such as noise. I can't take out my tripod in a protest and have a perfect exposure/composition at ISO 100!

I agree, however SS is hardly an industry source for breaking news photos... not even a close second or third source.

Was merely a hypothetical example, although I have noticed that some of these more candid street shots were rejected so I wouldn't even bother with breaking news.

Agreed that SS isn't right agency for breaking news and they have an editorial arm anyway (REX Features now Shutterstock Editorial).
« Last Edit: August 09, 2020, 04:40 by Brasilnut »

« Reply #95 on: August 09, 2020, 05:07 »
0
You can do a test and upload image with some mistake - add some artificial element in photo or ad some grammatical error in hand written text in drawing. Do more tests (because many times it can be accepted even by human), but if at least one test is rejected, you can say that there is some human behind. Kind of captcha test.
Actually I did it unintentionally not long ago - I wrote the hand written text in drawing with error (but same word in title and keywords was correct) and only Bigstock and iStock rejected it. 13 others accepted it. Unfortunately it was after I stopped to upload on SS, so I don't have result from SS.

« Reply #96 on: August 09, 2020, 15:52 »
0
"I'm of the particular opinion that breaking news editorial images take in the heat of the moment shouldn't be rejected for stupid reasons such as noise. I can't take out my tripod in a protest and have a perfect exposure/composition at ISO 100!"

In the old days the big guns would hire 20 models and stage this protest thus perfect professional lighting and ISO 100.  They would have a crew of about 5 people as well.  I bet 99% of the photographers now would never consider doing this especially for a $.10 from SS.

a bigger problem is they expect every editorial to adhere to journalistic practice - no manipulation, blurring, isolation, etc. many times editorials are just images such as crowds where releases are impossible, or a cityscape w trademarks

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #97 on: August 10, 2020, 10:22 »
+1
From their SEC filing in 2012. I'm sure that has advanced significantly in eight years.

"We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers"

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm

Yes I remember that. Also many others have a pre-check for things like colorspace, size, and whatever they could care about, before anything gets near a reviewer human.


It seems they're using a combination of AI with humans. First filter is AI and rejects for the easy stuff like editorials with wrong captions and software that detects graffiti. These are the super quick rejections I wrote about.

However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.

More borderline cases gets sent to humans for a closer look.

SS seem to be streamlining their workflow by cutting costs - they are a technology company after all. By no means am I completely against AI, after all they receive 100,000s submissions a day, but seems strange that they've outright denied it for a long time on the SS forum (Jeff).

A rational assumption, trim costs, who cares if the pre-check is faulty.

However I always liked the theories that some people come up with like, the reviewer doesn't like you personally. So out of only 200,000 contributors or maybe it's only 30,000? You name comes up and zap, everything rejected. Or because the reviewer has a friend who does the same kind of shots. (go figure that one?)

But my personal favorite is, quick money, reject a whole batch, that's review money.

Or while Daddy is watching football, the kids can play at being a reviewer for awhile?  ;D



Let me say, the system is flawed and even after eight years of making it better, it's still flawed, and inconsistent.

farbled

« Reply #98 on: August 10, 2020, 10:39 »
+1
I think Pete has the right of it. I was a reviewer long ago and this was true then.Wwe got paid a set amount per accepted and per rejected. Different amounts. When a batch of 500 or 1k images came in, you picked one image and if it was acceptable, click all and approve, or reject. I can only assume that if reviewers are still paid per image, it should be unsurprising when a review takes a second or two.

One thing I do disagree with him about, in smaller shops we most definitely had favorites or people we didn't like. Time was money. Spammers actually made a reviewer more money. I can easily see (without accusing any particular company) how instantly approving thousands of similar images might be possible. Easy money.

What surprises me, and has always surprised me, in a volume discount business why people even waste time resubmitting or even looking to see what's been approved. My model was always "fire and forget", and it stood me well until SS's recent changes (down to only two images in my portfolio now, trying to determine which one to keep). But there is always more than one way to do this. It's just finding what way works best fot you. :)

The AI was for things like minimum file size, etc. Probably still is, but hopefully better.


Snow

« Reply #99 on: August 10, 2020, 12:03 »
+1
A rational assumption, trim costs, who cares if the pre-check is faulty.

However I always liked the theories that some people come up with like, the reviewer doesn't like you personally. So out of only 200,000 contributors or maybe it's only 30,000? You name comes up and zap, everything rejected. Or because the reviewer has a friend who does the same kind of shots. (go figure that one?)

But my personal favorite is, quick money, reject a whole batch, that's review money.

Or while Daddy is watching football, the kids can play at being a reviewer for awhile?  ;D

Let me say, the system is flawed and even after eight years of making it better, it's still flawed, and inconsistent.

@Pete after all this time you are still clueless old timer so stick with your hobby and your niche while you still can but don't think for a minute you know how this business works. I might not know all the ins and outs but I do know a lot more then you do.
Like I said before it amazes me how little some of you microstock "vets" really know about this business. I already knew this a few months in but then I fought for my work so had a lot of discussions with support and other contributors.

Tell me, why wouldn't a reviewer do those things? Do you think admins are looking over their shoulder? Do you think with the small pay their reviewers get they will punish them? Do you still believe in the fairytale that everything in stock is fair play? Reviewers are cute little angels eagerly waiting for your outstanding work? Almost every serious contributor out there knows what I'm talking about, been there done that but you seem to be running around with blinders. Ask some 3D guys for starters but you can't be bothered right, it's a lot faster to just ridicule other people's posts. Well if that makes your day, sure why not Pete, have a go at it! ::)

@Farbled Why we resubmit? Why you think? Keep in mind there are people who take this business very seriously and often spend a day or more even on one image. Why go all the way? we had to, that's the difference between making 100 bucks or a 1000 bucks a month. But you are right in that many of us shouldn't even be in this business, we are expecting too much.
You contradict almost every point Pete made but still think he was right?
If you have been a reviewer you know I'm right. I was asked to review myself (not top or even middle tiers btw) and got a sneak peek into the workflow but that's all I'm going to say.

Take care and be safe lads, I'm off!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4738 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
2700 Views
Last post October 10, 2012, 17:24
by tab62
Pond 5 review changes

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

210 Replies
39370 Views
Last post May 14, 2016, 18:20
by PigsInSpace
2 Replies
2490 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