Author Topic: SS rejections explosion!!! (Read 35825 times)

borg · « **on:** December 18, 2008, 18:09 »

Have you noticed an explosion of rejections of images almost to 100%...

My personal record of rejected photos 13/13, yesterday 3/6, today 5/5...
Only in December...

My approval rate(till now) about 80-90 %...

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** December 18, 2008, 18:36 »

Not noticed any change, I had one rejected recently but everything else has been accepted.

borg · « **Reply #2 on:** December 18, 2008, 18:55 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 18, 2008, 18:36

Not noticed any change, I had one rejected recently but everything else has been accepted.

Same topic is on SS forum, I am not alone...

traveler1116 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 18, 2008, 18:59 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 18, 2008, 18:36

Not noticed any change, I had one rejected recently but everything else has been accepted.

yup

Peter · « **Reply #4 on:** December 18, 2008, 19:19 »

I usualy got accepted almost everything. But today, I got rejected 10 out of 10 in a batch. Reason - dust on subject that I shoot. They were right, there were few dust particles, but not that much...

But it is a good thing. I whish SS raise the bar a lot. I mean, 60.000 new images every week?! No wonder we have low sales. I remember last year, 20.000 new images per week, sales were much better. So I look at tougher standards as a positive thing, not negative at all.

vonkara · « **Reply #5 on:** December 18, 2008, 21:44 »

Quote from: Peter on December 18, 2008, 19:19

I usualy got accepted almost everything. But today, I got rejected 10 out of 10 in a batch. Reason - dust on subject that I shoot. They were right, there were few dust particles, but not that much...

But it is a good thing. I whish SS raise the bar a lot. I mean, 60.000 new images every week?! No wonder we have low sales. I remember last year, 20.000 new images per week, sales were much better. So I look at tougher standards as a positive thing, not negative at all.

Honestly, I think we have the same minding on many issues. You've deleted many images, what I will do when my portfolio is going to be big enough (I'll do it only in hope of cleaning searches). I don't see either anything good about the addition of sixthy thousands images a week.

The agencies are showing proudly these numbers to buyers without even thinking about quality or sellability. I'm a buyer myself. I buy clothes, LCD TV and computers. There's no way I will go buying these things to wal-mart, just because they have huge selection of craps... at lower prices

shutterdrop · « **Reply #6 on:** December 18, 2008, 21:48 »

Rejection rates have increased 50% since October. Some the reasons are very strange one. I believe SS has develop a severe case of PMS.

faber · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2008, 01:02 »

Quote from: borg on December 18, 2008, 18:09

Have you noticed an explosion of rejections of images almost to 100%...

My personal record of rejected photos 13/13, yesterday 3/6, today 5/5...
Only in December...

My approval rate(till now) about 80-90 %...

Similar for me, big drop at shutterstock while rejection rates at other sites remain relatively constant.

domencolja · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2008, 05:06 »

Honestly I was praying to see SS inspectors become more jerky/attentive. Higher rejection rates are good for the community and for the business.

p.s.: Don't know if this "behaviour" applies to vectors as well, but I can only hope for it (and wait for my next batch to get trunkated).

nicemonkey · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2008, 06:00 »

I agree with Domen, its about time shutterstock tightened their acceptance criteria, some of the files that get approved are poor to say the least. They have nearly 5.5 million images online...how many do they want? Quality will always shine through and sell I just pity the customers that have to wade through all that chaff!

Fran · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2008, 06:20 »

6/6 rejected yesterday, but they were poor shots so I'm happy if they raise the quality standards.

borg · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2008, 07:35 »

Quote from: Fran on December 19, 2008, 06:20

6/6 rejected yesterday, but they were poor shots so I'm happy if they raise the quality standards.

I hope!

But my record is 13/13 100% REJECTED

FT rejected 4/13, IS 3/13, DT 2/13 form same batch...

Dreamframer · « **Reply #12 on:** December 19, 2008, 07:57 »

Borg, I heard that there is someone on SS who rejects almost everything. And it's not the first time. Simillar thing happened before. But contributors made huge thread about it on SS forum, and the problem was solved quickly

borg · « **Reply #13 on:** December 19, 2008, 08:40 »

Quote from: whitechild on December 19, 2008, 07:57

Borg, I heard that there is someone on SS who rejects almost everything. And it's not the first time. Simillar thing happened before. But contributors made huge thread about it on SS forum, and the problem was solved quickly

I hope it was solved!

Because FT is baby for SS for now!

Thanks white!

shutterdrop · « **Reply #14 on:** December 19, 2008, 08:41 »

There is a pattern emerging at SS. They are accepting about 60,000 images per week. That means 100,000 to 150,000 images are being submitted.
That is the only plausible explanation for the eratic increase in rejections and strange reason for rejections!

The increase submitter volume SS had to outsource the work load to FT reviewers.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #15 on:** December 19, 2008, 08:45 »

Yes borg, it was successfuly solved. And shutterdrop, I don't believe that's the reason. As far as I know there is no such policy on SS.

melastmohican · « **Reply #16 on:** December 19, 2008, 10:18 »

So it was not only me :-) At first I was pissed when go 100% rejected but then I decided keep trying since same images are accepted and sold on other agencies.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #17 on:** December 19, 2008, 16:55 »

Does this mean we can re upload the images without penalty? I submitted 4 images isolated on white and they were all rejected for poor lighting.

Here's one of the 4 on Fotolia. http://us.fotolia.com/id/11030503

If you can see the problem please fill me in because I'm at a loss.

lisafx · « **Reply #18 on:** December 19, 2008, 17:03 »

I have noticed a big increase in rejections at SS. If it was just a matter of tightening standards, that would be fine with me, but this appears too inconsistent to be the result of a policy change.

Whole batches or most of whole batches where others in the series were accepted the day before and where all are accepted at other sites is the hallmark of a rogue reviewer or at least a new reviewer who doesn't understand the process.

Several sites seem to be plagued with this problem including Istock and Fotolia along with Shutterstock. Although it is a human process, there should be more consistency to rejections - if not across all sites, at least on the SAME site from one batch to the next. Seems like maybe new reviewers are not getting adequate training on the sites that keep having these problems crop up.

cathyslife · « **Reply #19 on:** December 19, 2008, 17:39 »

I have some rejections, but for the most part I haven't noticed any big increase.

Though I got an image rejected today because I left a note for the inspector in the Description field instead of putting it in the Notes to Reviewer at the bottom. I don't mind that they pointed it out, but did they have to reject the image? To me, that's just stupid.

gbalex · « **Reply #20 on:** December 19, 2008, 18:34 »

I have not noticed any change and I am still getting almost 99.9% accepted.

Knock on wood, hope this does not change when/if I run into a new reviewer.

borg · « **Reply #21 on:** December 19, 2008, 18:42 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on December 19, 2008, 16:55

Does this mean we can re upload the images without penalty? I submitted 4 images isolated on white and they were all rejected for poor lighting.

Here's one of the 4 on Fotolia. http://us.fotolia.com/id/11030503

If you can see the problem please fill me in because I'm at a loss.

Same to me!

In 90 % my rejection reason is "poor lighting",never noise...

vikavalter · « **Reply #22 on:** December 20, 2008, 03:47 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on December 19, 2008, 16:55

Does this mean we can re upload the images without penalty? I submitted 4 images isolated on white and they were all rejected for poor lighting.

Here's one of the 4 on Fotolia. http://us.fotolia.com/id/11030503

If you can see the problem please fill me in because I'm at a loss.

the last thing I want to do is to sound annoying, but your silver leg has greenish tint to it, you probably wouldn't want that on the product shot. I would use hue/saturation layer in colour mode to take all the tints from the metal parts while masking the non metal ones out.

e-person · « **Reply #23 on:** December 20, 2008, 04:27 »

Although I am not particularly unhappy with SS rejections, I too did notice some blanket rejections of photos accepted elsewhere. In the past there was a legendary "Attila the Reviewer". Haven't heard of him/her recently, though.

MikLav · « **Reply #24 on:** December 20, 2008, 04:44 »

Quote from: borg on December 18, 2008, 18:09

Have you noticed an explosion of rejections of images almost to 100%...

My personal record of rejected photos 13/13, yesterday 3/6, today 5/5...
Only in December...

My approval rate(till now) about 80-90 %...

No, in average they accept about 95-98% of my pictures.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SS rejections explosion!!! (Read 35825 times)

borg

sharpshot

borg

traveler1116

Peter

vonkara

shutterdrop

faber

domencolja

nicemonkey

Fran

borg

Dreamframer

borg

shutterdrop

Dreamframer

melastmohican

NancyCWalker

lisafx

cathyslife

gbalex

borg

vikavalter

e-person

MikLav

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors