pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS new world record: review time 15 ( fifteen) SECONDS  (Read 10588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2016, 21:19 »
0
I don't think much to his tattoo... should have gone with 'love' and 'hate'. Classic.


« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2016, 21:41 »
+3
...when is 20,000 tomatoes by example enough???...

The count is even scarier :) For all media types, it's 1,371,634

For photos only, it's just 1,285,086... That's a lot of tomatoes.

Even marijuana photos are up to 52,257

The current phase of taking almost anything has rendered the Most Recent search useless - there's so much rubbish to wade through. And here we have someone new wondering why he has no sales - one look at the accepted files explains that.

Shelma1

« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2016, 22:10 »
+2
But they get to announce they have a billion images, and that's all that matters. Like McDonald's.

Contributors don't like it, buyers don't like it (too much stuff to wade through), but if investors like it Oringer can drive up the stock price enough to get his bonus, sell the company and move on to jet setting.

Millionstock.com

  • Architecture; Arts; Historic buildings, Landscapes

« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2016, 05:51 »
0
Same experience by my side. A very short time for the rewiew. It should be a BOT

« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2016, 07:03 »
+1
But they get to announce they have a billion images, and that's all that matters. Like McDonald's.

Contributors don't like it, buyers don't like it (too much stuff to wade through), but if investors like it Oringer can drive up the stock price enough to get his bonus, sell the company and move on to jet setting.
If buyers don't like it it will fail but I wonder if it is like McCDonalds...clever marketing hiding a horrible product......

« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2016, 09:36 »
+1
...when is 20,000 tomatoes by example enough???...

The count is even scarier :) For all media types, it's 1,371,634

For photos only, it's just 1,285,086... That's a lot of tomatoes.

Even marijuana photos are up to 52,257

The current phase of taking almost anything has rendered the Most Recent search useless - there's so much rubbish to wade through. And here we have someone new wondering why he has no sales - one look at the accepted files explains that.

as john used to say, "how many (ar$e)holes does it take to fill (the albert hall) ?"
we have a new saying...
"how many tomatoes does it take to fill shitterstock???"

who was it here who first coined microstock as crappola???
he was about 10 years ahead in prediction . ..  the day has finally come!

« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2016, 14:13 »
0
...when is 20,000 tomatoes by example enough???...

The count is even scarier :) For all media types, it's 1,371,634

For photos only, it's just 1,285,086... That's a lot of tomatoes.

Even marijuana photos are up to 52,257

The current phase of taking almost anything has rendered the Most Recent search useless - there's so much rubbish to wade through. And here we have someone new wondering why he has no sales - one look at the accepted files explains that.

That doesn't mean there are 1.371.634 images of single tomatoe. That inclued all kinds of food etc...

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2016, 07:23 »
0
Four minute average review time now for me. I do not think the reviewers are rejecting only on technical and what looks "normal" to them. Hence, when I submitted an isolated hat made in a style that hasn't been en vogue for 200+ years, they rejected it. But when I submitted a version with the hat on top of a human head a minute later, they accepted it. Obviously the reviewer had no idea it was a hat and didn't bother to read the description.  :o

« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2016, 12:42 »
+3
...when is 20,000 tomatoes by example enough???...

The count is even scarier :) For all media types, it's 1,371,634

For photos only, it's just 1,285,086... That's a lot of tomatoes.

Even marijuana photos are up to 52,257

The current phase of taking almost anything has rendered the Most Recent search useless - there's so much rubbish to wade through. And here we have someone new wondering why he has no sales - one look at the accepted files explains that.

That doesn't mean there are 1.371.634 images of single tomatoe. That inclued all kinds of food etc...

I don't think nitpicking the details alters the overall point, but in the service of precision:

Isoslated tomato (photos only) 342,338
Tomato (photos only, exclude keywords  sauce,pasta,soup,bowl,pie,sandwich ) 661,793

There's a lot of terrible keywording (if you search newest first you'll see much more of that) so you could take 25% off the totals assuming that there's not a tomato in sight in some of those images.

Bottom line, it's a lot of tomatoes and a lot of repetition

« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2016, 12:51 »
0
So I went and searched for myself, even if you put in search isolated, white background, there's tons of food containing tomatoes, pizza, hamburgers etc..., that are isolated on white...

There's a lot of tomatoes, agree, but definitely not 300.000....

Rinderart

« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2016, 15:53 »
+1
ROFL...OK well submit some more I guess., speaking Of reviewing LOL I did a little test, Kinda Like the original Poster. I submitted 19 Images and when I hit submit I hit a stopwatch and switched to my New mail page. 19 approved Images in 13 seconds. Thats Impossible........ Im glad I guess But, Impossible. Gonna write a letter But I don't expect an answer. No one can inspect 19 Glamour Model Poses in 13 seconds. NO One thats alive anyway.

« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2016, 16:02 »
+1
Your work is so spectacular, that you're username is on "Auto accept"....

Rinderart

« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2016, 23:40 »
0
LOL

Rinderart

« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2016, 23:43 »
0
 actually Very funny. don't we wish.

« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2016, 09:53 »
0
I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is a sliding "auto accept" scale that  they apply based on past history.   13 seconds?  Impossible for a human to inspect 19 images image at 100% from top to bottom in 13 seconds.

« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2016, 11:40 »
+2
I think if we could actually do the math we'd see that at the volume they're getting now, real inspection would be impossible - they'd never pay what it would actually cost.

So they've done what any high volume manufacturer does - they're sampling some percentage of what they get, inspecting that percentage, then categorizing and ranking suppliers accordingly.  Based on past history, you're fast-tracked to either Accept or Reject. You probably still get sampled now and then, but they're not wasting any more inspection time - i.e. money - on you unless something changes.  That's how you reduce cost on incoming inspection.

They know that this system will inevitably let some amount of junk through, and reject some good material, and they accept that because it's all a calculation based on time and money.  The guiding principles are: buyers will sort it all out in Search, buyers are impressed by big collection numbers, and contributors are a dime a dozen.  Basically they're telling buyers: we have every image in the world, so what you want is here; just go through the Search results until you find it.  From that point forward they're counting on popularity-based ranking to push the junk down in the results, and eventually they're just paying server storage costs for vast amounts of material they'll never sell.  At some point they automatically designate an image as "dead" and while they probably can't totally delete it, it's moved to lower cost storage with less backup and longer access times.


« Last Edit: September 23, 2016, 13:13 by stockastic »

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2016, 12:34 »
+1
What nonsense. A complete insult to the industry and a false sense of accomplishment. Once again SS lowers the bar.


« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2016, 15:23 »
0
They know that this system will inevitably let some amount of junk through, and reject some good material, and they accept that because it's all a calculation based on time and money. 
Hmmm... is this why new photos have 0 sales?  In case they let junk slip through, they want the photos to prove themselves worthy of search ranking - even if they are on page 83 until they've had a sale or two?

Rinderart

« Reply #43 on: September 23, 2016, 17:30 »
0
I think if we could actually do the math we'd see that at the volume they're getting now, real inspection would be impossible - they'd never pay what it would actually cost.

So they've done what any high volume manufacturer does - they're sampling some percentage of what they get, inspecting that percentage, then categorizing and ranking suppliers accordingly.  Based on past history, you're fast-tracked to either Accept or Reject. You probably still get sampled now and then, but they're not wasting any more inspection time - i.e. money - on you unless something changes.  That's how you reduce cost on incoming inspection.

They know that this system will inevitably let some amount of junk through, and reject some good material, and they accept that because it's all a calculation based on time and money.  The guiding principles are: buyers will sort it all out in Search, buyers are impressed by big collection numbers, and contributors are a dime a dozen.  Basically they're telling buyers: we have every image in the world, so what you want is here; just go through the Search results until you find it.  From that point forward they're counting on popularity-based ranking to push the junk down in the results, and eventually they're just paying server storage costs for vast amounts of material they'll never sell.  At some point they automatically designate an image as "dead" and while they probably can't totally delete it, it's moved to lower cost storage with less backup and longer access times.

I pretty much agree. But...heres another fun thing that happened and Been reading happening to others. After the  super fast thing that was a Joke. Right after, the next day I uploaded 19 of some Images I found when changing Computers last weekend some Model stuff came up  That slipped through the cracks I assume. i've never had More than 3/4 Rejections. My fault, I fixed and all good. this time all 19 In seconds. So getting approved and getting rejected is SUPER fast. Like seriously 20 seconds. I got Hit with Not a Valid SS Model Release. 2 years ago and Both Models No Longer Live here. I wrote a note asking for a favor so well see. I also said If Not, Im Good .."I'd rather send it to another site that has better sales....LOL So..If theres a BOT. It's scanning the releases also super fast.

OH well. Like said theres no way any human reviewer could study 19 MR's in that amount of time. Really depressing to see this stuff. I also sent a yosemite Image and that approval was Instantaneous.

« Reply #44 on: September 23, 2016, 18:14 »
+3
The key to the whole thing is that a buyer's time, or contributor's time, don't cost SS anything, but a reviewer's time does.   


Rinderart

« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2016, 19:07 »
0
good point.

« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2016, 19:45 »
0
I had never gotten one of those before till today. As I was submitting the images, some went through, some had misspellings, and by the time I was doing fixing the misspellings of the remaining ones, the first ones had already been approved and by the time I hit send about 30 s passed and they were all approved.  ???

« Reply #47 on: September 24, 2016, 01:11 »
+1
What nonsense. A complete insult to the industry and a false sense of accomplishment. Once again SS lowers the bar.
Although as you probably know Istock have been letting everything through for longer

« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2016, 01:50 »
0
I think if we could actually do the math we'd see that at the volume they're getting now, real inspection would be impossible - they'd never pay what it would actually cost.

So they've done what any high volume manufacturer does - they're sampling some percentage of what they get, inspecting that percentage, then categorizing and ranking suppliers accordingly.  Based on past history, you're fast-tracked to either Accept or Reject. You probably still get sampled now and then, but they're not wasting any more inspection time - i.e. money - on you unless something changes.  That's how you reduce cost on incoming inspection.

They know that this system will inevitably let some amount of junk through, and reject some good material, and they accept that because it's all a calculation based on time and money.  The guiding principles are: buyers will sort it all out in Search, buyers are impressed by big collection numbers, and contributors are a dime a dozen.  Basically they're telling buyers: we have every image in the world, so what you want is here; just go through the Search results until you find it.  From that point forward they're counting on popularity-based ranking to push the junk down in the results, and eventually they're just paying server storage costs for vast amounts of material they'll never sell.  At some point they automatically designate an image as "dead" and while they probably can't totally delete it, it's moved to lower cost storage with less backup and longer access times.
I'd like to think that and that would be the logical way to go but it doesn't explain why if I resubmit rejected photos within minutes they normally get accepted. It may be that's what they are aiming for and its just not working very well.

« Reply #49 on: September 24, 2016, 01:51 »
+1
The key to the whole thing is that a buyer's time, or contributor's time, don't cost SS anything, but a reviewer's time does.
Its a risky strategy as I suspect many buyers are very aware of the cost of their time sifting through images...which is probably higher than the cost of the image.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4215 Views
Last post May 02, 2011, 14:52
by daveh900
41 Replies
7268 Views
Last post May 03, 2012, 17:21
by luissantos84
11 Replies
2970 Views
Last post May 28, 2012, 03:34
by fotografer
1 Replies
1671 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 07:01
by nicku
2 Replies
1006 Views
Last post July 23, 2018, 17:42
by increasingdifficulty

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results