so what? thats their rules

Makes sense to me.  They want customers to see a date and know that they interpreted it correctly.  Standardization's the right answer, whether they chose US or European format as the standard.

It's a pedantic rejection reason. ss reviewers have changed my descriptions upon acceptance, changing the date in this is a half a second job for them, not that it needs to be changed. Call me unconventional, but I think reviewers should spend more time on reviewing images and getting it right.

so what? thats their rules

+1  Same at IS.  They rejected my editorials there several times until I finally had an "ah ha" moment and figured it out.  Learn it, retain it, and enjoy the ride.

Quote from: Mantis on April 28, 2012, 08:05

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 27, 2012, 16:17

so what? thats their rules

+1  Same at IS.  They rejected my editorials there several times until I finally had an "ah ha" moment and figured it out.  Learn it, retain it, and enjoy the ride.

YEP  most people (probably all) who ever worked for or as stringer for any media is aware of STYLE MANUALS.  You do it their way or Stay Away.   

editorial images need to be objective and exact, with accurate date and location, but order and punctuation are irrelevant.  captions and tags should be designed so that users can find what they need - these extra rules do NOTHING to assit users that way.

yes, we have to do it their way - but it is ridiculous - what USER is going to care if the date is 11 MAR or MAR 11?  and whether there's a dash or a colon? and wherether the date is repeated before or after the location?  in examples that SS gives they even suggest captions that would require the photographer to guess at what's happening in the image, even though that is an editorial no-no

i've noticed several times this week that the NY Times, eg, used 3 images across a page rather than creating a montage, on their news pages, while they commonly use montaged panoramas in their travel & arts pages.  and their captions vary by use

again, the anal captioning requirements just make more work for contributors while offering little to the user - the date, in particular becomes less and less meaningful overtime for all but the most critical newsworthy events - again, the NY times will show an image of a protest captioned by year only, rarely with an exact date

THEIR rules show THEIR stupidity ;-)
 All they do is losing valuable editorial content. i don`t know how much editorial shots they already rejected from me which sell VERY well at other sites.

There are millions of really stupid reasons for good images being rejected.  By not sticking to a site's basic format rules you are just decreasing the chases of your images getting approved even further. It is not that hard to list these rules by site for specific types of images you intend to submit more of in future (then you only have to make the mistake once).

Think the caption should be "The most stupid way I got my image rejected...." 

if SS had a reasonable understanding of what editorial is, you'd be absolutely right - but silly caption rules are just that - silly.  but even when we play by their silly rules, and do the extra work to write 'proper' captions, images are still rejected en masse because they dont understand that editorial is not a synonym for newsworthy.

what's even sillier is that for all their insistence on these rules, they've never bothered to go back to the thousands of editorial images in their files that were approved before the rules changed and have captions that dont even come close to fitting the new rules.  just showing that buyers dont really care about the words or their order, but what's in  the image itself