Author Topic: SS rejections explosion!!! (Read 35861 times)

shutterdrop · « **Reply #25 on:** December 20, 2008, 09:08 »

John:

You did not answer the two issue in the forum.
1. Why the sudden increase in rejection rate?
2. Has SS changed it standard on acceptable images?

When did the SS admin become unable to communicate on their forum?

Every other business I know use it forum to communicate with customers and associates.

Hello all,

Thank you for offering up your comments - contrary to how many of you feel, we take your thoughts and comments seriously and with consideration.

If you feel you're receiving too many rejections, please refer to the Critiques forum, where you can post your images for other members to offer constructive criticism. We also address particular rejection reasons in our monthly newsletter - these can also be helpful.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4

http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/109/article2.html

Lastly, if you wish to reach us, contact us directly at [email protected]. Calling out admins in a forum thread is not the most efficient way to reach us, as these forums are intended as a venue for you to interact with each other.

Thanks again,

John

borg · « **Reply #26 on:** December 20, 2008, 09:10 »

Good questions!

shutterdrop · « **Reply #27 on:** December 20, 2008, 10:55 »

Am I the only one who believes that some agencies have forgotten who they work for?
Without contributors submitting their images and designers purchasing images there is no business. An agencies is to provide service that includes communications to their clients.

Administers and managers should have a copy of definition the "agency" on their desk.

–noun, plural -cies. 1. an organization, company, or bureau that provides some service for another: a welfare agency.
2. a company having a franchise to represent another.
3. a governmental bureau, or an office that represents it.
4. the place of business of an agent.
5. Indian agency.
6. an administrative division of a government.
7. the duty or function of an agent.
8. the relationship between a principal and his or her agent.
9. the state of being in action or of exerting power; operation: the agency of Providence.
10. a means of exerting power or influence; instrumentality: nominated by the agency of friends.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #28 on:** December 20, 2008, 11:26 »

Where in the contract does it state that microstocks are acting as our "agent?" It doesn't because they are not agencies. They are more like consignment shops. We supply the images, they sell them and we get a commission on the sale. Yes it would be nice if they were more forthcoming with information about site changes and new sales venues, but they are not required to be.

Do you think Toy's R Us calls Hasbro and says "Hey what do you think about us adding an infant section?" Do you think that Walmart calls Sony and says "Do you think we should raise the price on DVD players?" Then why would an image licensing company contact a photographer and ask "What do you think about this?"

That said it is always good business to inform your suppliers of major changes in advance so that they can have the product ready, but each company is free to run their business as they see fit. Just like you are free to sell (in this case license) your product through whatever means you feel are appropriate.

shutterdrop · « **Reply #29 on:** December 20, 2008, 23:33 »

The first sentence on SS home page:

Shutterstock is the largest subscription-based stock photo agency in the world.

Quote from: azurelaroux on December 20, 2008, 11:26

Where in the contract does it state that microstocks are acting as our "agent?" It doesn't because they are not agencies. They are more like consignment shops. We supply the images, they sell them and we get a commission on the sale. Yes it would be nice if they were more forthcoming with information about site changes and new sales venues, but they are not required to be.

Do you think Toy's R Us calls Hasbro and says "Hey what do you think about us adding an infant section?" Do you think that Walmart calls Sony and says "Do you think we should raise the price on DVD players?" Then why would an image licensing company contact a photographer and ask "What do you think about this?"

That said it is always good business to inform your suppliers of major changes in advance so that they can have the product ready, but each company is free to run their business as they see fit. Just like you are free to sell (in this case license) your product through whatever means you feel are appropriate.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #30 on:** December 21, 2008, 00:09 »

All I want is for adequate, transparent communication to contributors. Random increases in rejections with no policy change is not fair to contributors. And I think SS should cap the number of uploads per 5 day period per contributor. Perhaps this can give them a chance to go through and cull the old, nasty file. Protects the little guy a bit, and at the same time, works on creating a quality database. Starting with the next uploaded batch is not the complete answer, but going backwards in time and getting the old, bad photos out is where it should start.

iStock (as bad a rep as some of us give them in the forums for ridiculous rejections and their policies towards non-exclusives) is always posting the current happenings in some form or another. At least they try to keep everyone informed to a certain degree.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #31 on:** December 21, 2008, 08:17 »

Quote from: shutterdrop on December 20, 2008, 23:33

The first sentence on SS home page:

Shutterstock is the largest subscription-based stock photo agency in the world.

Where does it say this in your contract? Where in the contract do they promise to represent the contributor as a client? What the site puts on their front page is marketing and not legally binding.

I agree with Ichiro17. We do need communication from the sites, particularly about site changes so that we can decide the best direction for our companies. I also think that we need to realize that we are not management. We don't run the microstock companies, we supply them.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #32 on:** December 21, 2008, 12:54 »

Yes and without supply there is no end product. So if you piss off all your suppliers, where does that get you? If your suppliers know that you don't want wood but you want steel, for example, then they will stop giving you wood if you tell them. If you don't, you are going to receive a fresh shipment of that wood you don't want. And the backlash is justified because SS has a poor record of demonstrating communication.

Why can't they all merge into one super-site that gives us what we want and contains all the best attributes of all the sites?

ichiro17 · « **Reply #33 on:** December 21, 2008, 13:06 »

Just to update: Rejected 10/12 because of poor lighting/composition

yes, because I can control the lighting (which these files have been accepted (90% of them) on all other sites) and some where aerial landscape shots. Rejection reasons are complete garbage. Bothers me to no end.

Especially when you take a picture of a beaver and its in the middle of the water. Composition is fairly good for the situation and would be prove to be a classical nature shot but its got composition issues? Well Mr. Reviewer, why don't you grab a camera and go and do the same shot. Be my guest and step on the frozen river, because if you fall in, I won't help you out. Thank you SS for making your contributors feel like crap.

PS - I have 1600 pictures online. I think I'm pretty good at this stuff by now.

Sorry I had to rant

cascoly · « **Reply #34 on:** December 21, 2008, 13:32 »

i agree completely -- i just had an entire set of snowstorm traffic images rejected by SS for lighting -- what are they expecting in a STORM pc? in addition, some of the images they've taken earlier are good sellers, even though they have worse lighting and composition than this new set!
steve

ichiro17 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 21, 2008, 13:55 »

Well needless to say I'm constantly uploading the rejections that I feel should have been accepted in the first place, and after a certain point they get accepted anyways.

The reviewers have to get themselves out of that tunnel they think photos should be like and start looking for something commercially viable outside that. I've made all my microstock money without business images. And I'm proud of it but I've had to fight over and over to get them online

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #36 on:** December 21, 2008, 16:05 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 21, 2008, 12:54

Yes and without supply there is no end product. So if you piss off all your suppliers, where does that get you? If your suppliers know that you don't want wood but you want steel, for example, then they will stop giving you wood if you tell them. If you don't, you are going to receive a fresh shipment of that wood you don't want. And the backlash is justified because SS has a poor record of demonstrating communication.

Why can't they all merge into one super-site that gives us what we want and contains all the best attributes of all the sites?

Because we aren't the customers and because a monopoly is only good if you own the monopoly. What will the site gain by giving to every contributor whim? Alamy allows every technically acceptable image that crosses their desk to go live, regardless of composition or usefulness. Badly composed snapshots are all over the place there. Is that really what you would prefer the micros do? Just open the flood gates and let everything in?

Many of the micros have issues with letting suppliers know about major site changes and promotions. Many contributors appear to have the issue that they think they are partners instead of contractors and want more control as to how the sites are run. It would help both sides to find some middle ground.

shutterdrop · « **Reply #37 on:** December 22, 2008, 09:08 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 21, 2008, 00:09

All I want is for adequate, transparent communication to contributors. Random increases in rejections with no policy change is not fair to contributors.

If SS wants to increase their standards, I agree and it should be done with adequate transparent communications. That has not occurred!!

SS response was absolute arrogant that contributors were even questioning the increase in random rejections! Now the have completely pull the thread instead of communicating.

Perry · « **Reply #38 on:** December 22, 2008, 09:37 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 21, 2008, 13:55

The reviewers have to get themselves out of that tunnel they think photos should be like and start looking for something commercially viable outside that.

I couldn't agree more. I really hate when I feel that only accepted lighting style is something like a softbox from camera direction. If i try to create some cool looking artistic lighting my images are rejected at SS: too uneven lighting, wrong color temperature or some other nonsense reason.

melastmohican · « **Reply #39 on:** December 22, 2008, 10:47 »

I have had couple hundred images rejected in Dec. I got really upset on Sunday and start uploading same large batch thru whole day. They got "reviewed" extremely fast like 2-3 hours so I was re-uploading them again cause it think most of them should not be rejected. Eventually I got 5 uploads/reviews in whole day and some images accepted. Today some of them were sold. Maybe reviewers are just paid per image and rejection is the fastest way to make big numbers. Everybody needs extra bonus for Christmas :-)

dbvirago · « **Reply #40 on:** December 22, 2008, 11:08 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 21, 2008, 13:55

Well needless to say I'm constantly uploading the rejections that I feel should have been accepted in the first place, and after a certain point they get accepted anyways.

The reviewers have to get themselves out of that tunnel they think photos should be like and start looking for something commercially viable outside that. I've made all my microstock money without business images. And I'm proud of it but I've had to fight over and over to get them online

Agree, there are two many subjective rejections that are simply the opinion of the reviewer. My rejection rate has doubled in the last two months. Many get accepted on a resub or on writing to support. Many have been lighting on isolations which makes me wonder if the reviewer is looking at a histogram and seeing clipped highlights. Of course LCV and composition rejects are back at an all time high as well.

I know the reviewers work hard and most of them do a good job. I think a simple solution would be to look at the individual reject rate of all reviewers. My opinion is that there is one or two that are off the charts.

CCK · « **Reply #41 on:** December 22, 2008, 13:05 »

I uploaded 6 photos to SS today, and when I signed in about 3 hours later 5 accepted. Fortunately I was away the first half of this month so this was my first upload in 3 weeks - so I missed Atilla.

hofhoek · « **Reply #42 on:** December 22, 2008, 14:09 »

Well, Atilla is still there. Or all his clones anyway. The only thing you can do is stop uploading for a while and then see if they change the mode... Almost all my batches have been rejected because of bad lighting. Bull.

borg · « **Reply #43 on:** December 22, 2008, 14:19 »

FT at now is twice better in approval rate than SS for me...

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #44 on:** December 22, 2008, 15:13 »

I find it interesting to see what site reject what. I mentioned early that a series of menorahs was rejected by SS for poor lighting. IS, who rejects everything for poor isolation, approved all 4 images. Not complaining just making an observation.

dbvirago · « **Reply #45 on:** December 22, 2008, 16:18 »

What is as disturbing as double the rejection rate over 2 month period is during the same period SS % of micro revenue has fallen 25%. It's not just frustration over being rejected, it's lost revenue. SS is still getting 50K plus images a week, so maybe they don't care, but this is money out of my pocket.

2nd place, DT has been about 1/3 of SS revenue, for Dec it is well over half and gaining without an increase in it's volume.

litifeta · « **Reply #46 on:** December 23, 2008, 06:20 »

Been a while since I have seen an advertisement for a reviewer, but the last time I did, they got paid a few cents for each image. Not sure whether that is per approval or not. It would be interested to find what motivates them.

Perhaps they are all just in the good Christmas cheer mood ... ha ha

dbvirago · « **Reply #47 on:** December 23, 2008, 13:36 »

Had 4 of a batch of 5 get rejected for reasons that didn't make sense. Noise or too much noise reduction on 2 images from same shoot where there was neither. Sent the batch to support and they replied 3 of the 4 are fine, so resub with a note. Did that and continued normal uploading. Not only did those get rejected anyway, but so did 100% of the rest of the submissions.

SX went thru a period like this a while back and I had to quit uploading until it got straightened out. SS has just reached that point for me. My handful won't be missed in their 50K images aweek, but I can't waste any more time on them right now.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #48 on:** December 23, 2008, 14:13 »

They aren't making sense at all. I have three theories:

They can't hire a single competent reviewer - possibly true, because everyone is having the same problems.

They are trying to be badasses to scare away all the people they accepted and shouldn't be there/don't want there, thus are now flooding with horrible photos?

They have an algorithm they are testing and its horrible. Still no communication. Pretty horrible.

JG

hali · « **Reply #49 on:** December 25, 2008, 21:19 »

I am glad I don't have all your problems, as
I am a total failure at SS. 3 times submitted and three times rejected within half hour of my submission. Yet I am a regular contributor with the other of the Big 6 and more. Even Alamy and the once Photo Shelter.

So I guess I was born not to be a Shutterstock-er, ay ?

today they sent me an email to "invite" me to "try again".
I wrote them to say, "um, thanks but no thanks !"
whoopy dink !

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SS rejections explosion!!! (Read 35861 times)

shutterdrop

borg

shutterdrop

NancyCWalker

shutterdrop

ichiro17

NancyCWalker

ichiro17

ichiro17

cascoly

ichiro17

NancyCWalker

shutterdrop

Perry

melastmohican

dbvirago

CCK

hofhoek

borg

NancyCWalker

dbvirago

litifeta

dbvirago

ichiro17

hali

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors