MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Shelma1 on May 07, 2015, 14:59
-
"In the past year, we have further upgraded the ways that we review content by introducing innovative data-driven auditing to monitor and manage reviewer performance. Despite the diligent review procedures we have in place and the immense number of the content submissions, the efficiency of our review team enabled us to get the vast majority of images up on our site in less than 24 hours."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3154256-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-on-q1-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=6&p=qanda&l=last (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3154256-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-on-q1-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=6&p=qanda&l=last)
-
Just for my own understanding, how does that indicate or explain the rejections? Clearly they still use reviewers. The quote says they reviewers are monitored not that the technology reviews the image.
-
Just for my own understanding, how does that indicate or explain the rejections? Clearly they still use reviewers. The quote says they reviewers are monitored not that the technology reviews the image.
It's pretty much what I hypothesized several days go. They're auditing reviewers because they have a certain ratio of rejections, and I think the reviewers are now under pressure to reject a certain percentage of submissions because they know they're being audited. The easiest way to do that is t reject a batch or most of a batch. Also, it sounds like they're under pressure to get reviews done as quickly as possible, which leads back to quick batch rejections.
-
It probably means once you are on the naughty list its hard to get off it and if a reviewer is (un)lucky enough to get a run of good or poor images they will be under scrutiny. If its a statistical method the best strategy for a reviewer would be to accept/reject images randomly to keep within statistically acceptable parameters.......or am I being too cynical. Most (all) performance targets have unintended consequences in this case rejecting ALL my images!!! :'(
Surely review turnround time is the WRONG priority.
-
Just for my own understanding, how does that indicate or explain the rejections? Clearly they still use reviewers. The quote says they reviewers are monitored not that the technology reviews the image.
It's pretty much what I hypothesized several days go. They're auditing reviewers because they have a certain ratio of rejections, and I think the reviewers are now under pressure to reject a certain percentage of submissions because they know they're being audited. The easiest way to do that is t reject a batch or most of a batch. Also, it sounds like they're under pressure to get reviews done as quickly as possible, which leads back to quick batch rejections.
I dont understand this. Are you implying they need to reject i.e. 20% of the total amount of submitted images as a target? Why on earth would that be a target? Shouldnt they want all images that are good accepted? And why would an admin agree with a bogus rejection?
-
All I can do is guess. Knowing SS they've taken a look at the percentage of rejections averaged over the years. If they're using an automated system to audit reviewers, I would think reviewers who have substantially more or less than that percentage would be scrutinized. Reviewers are paid by volume, I believe, so they need to get through images quickly. The people who review the reviewers also need to work quickly. It's easier to just say "we agree with the reviewer" than to really take a close look. I've had them say they agree, then when I ask them to point out to me specifically where in the image the problem is, they're forced to actually look and usually overturn the rejection.
Also, as competition increases higher and higher-quality images are being submitted, which raises the bar across the board. So you need to submit better and better work to be in the percentage that's accepted. It makes the collection more attractive to buyers and results in more sales and a better collection to sell to large enterprises, which now make up a larger percentage of SS revenues.
Again, just an educated guess.
-
Obviously they would use software to monitor reviewers in the same way that service desk organisations monitor their people. Most likely they would be looking at activity outside statistical norms rather than specifying some random required rejection ratio.
-
So a reviewer accidentally ending up reviewing batches of Andresr, Sean, Lise Gagne, Monkey Business, Yuri, etc would at some point have to reject 20% because other wise it gets suspicious to let 100% through? Come on.
-
I would think the chances that one reviewer would end up reviewing only stellar contributors is pretty slim.
-
Thats not the point. Its basically what you and Mike are implying if I understand correctly. If I am missing the point, I am sorry, please explain differently, because sometimes that happens.
-
So a reviewer accidentally ending up reviewing batches of Andresr, Sean, Lise Gagne, Monkey Business, Yuri, etc would at some point have to reject 20% because other wise it gets suspicious to let 100% through? Come on.
Didn't Sean report a rejected batch fairly recently?
-
Thats not the point. Its basically what you and Mike are implying if I understand correctly. If I am missing the point, I am sorry, please explain differently, because sometimes that happens.
No, I think what we're saying is that they use software to keep track of reviewers. If a reviewer rejects substantially more or less than the historical statistical norm, someone will say hey, you're rejecting too many good images or hey, you're letting too many bad images through. After a while you'd get an idea of about what percentage of image rejections would be acceptable to SS. If you have a handle onn that the easiest way to get there is by rejecting a certain percentage of batches rather than image by image. If you review Lisa Gagne you see she's a real pro, so you let all her images through, and then you have to make up for that somewhere else. Or you check one image in a batch, see some noise, and reject the whole bunch because you figure there's probably noise in all of them, so why bother really looking?
Clearly the auditing put pressure on reviewers when it comes to rejection rates.
-
All I can do is guess. Knowing SS they've taken a look at the percentage of rejections averaged over the years.
In the end we are left with the above oxymoron.
Without actually being involved in shutterstock's review or content screening process; we are left to guess.
Based on shutterstocks statement all we actually know for sure, is that the process involves storing undefined data or attributes for each review in a database.
We could take a leap and also assume that they use data driven database queries to analyze that data, combined with review statistic's which they have already collected .
-
How is the statement an oxymoron, exactly?
-
How is the statement an oxymoron, exactly?
If you work for shutterstock and are familiar with the process as well as the review attributes which they collect and utilize while compiling review data for this database; you would not need to guess.
If you are guessing in regard to shutterstock's review processes, are not intimately part of the process and have no knowledge of the details or review attributes collected and monitored.
Then your statement "Knowing SS they've taken a look at the percentage of rejections averaged over the years" is an oxymoron to your first statement "All I can do is guess."
-
SO....Robots are reviewing.lol probably just want to automate everything. Trouble is they can't automate us.
-
Whatever is happening is a result of a policy shift integrated with some form of automation. And it doesnt work and they dont care. With a bazillion images they are in a position of sustainability so to cut costs through inspection labor only adds to the bottom line. And they can simply afford the defection of uploads as a consequence of their failed system.
Its all about shareholder wealth.
-
Whatever is happening is a result of a policy shift integrated with some form of automation. And it doesnt work and they dont care. With a bazillion images they are in a position of sustainability so to cut costs through inspection labor only adds to the bottom line. And they can simply afford the defection of uploads as a consequence of their failed system.
Its all about shareholder wealth.
We all judge the process by our experiences. To date I have not experienced an increase in rejections.
That does not mean that others are not, they could be testing segments of our population and have not rolled this out for everyone. When I experienced a downturn in sales a small segment of my friends experienced the same, over time that changed and more of us have been hit.
In any case I agree that they do not care on any level how their actions affect our workflows or income. I am more convinced everyday that my passion for stock is counter productive to my overall goals.
-
SO....Robots are reviewing.lol probably just want to automate everything. Trouble is they can't automate us.
I don't think they are saying Robots are reviewing rather they are saying they are using statistically based sampling methods to audit quality.
-
SO....Robots are reviewing.lol probably just want to automate everything. Trouble is they can't automate us.
I don't think they are saying Robots are reviewing rather they are saying they are using statistically based sampling methods to audit quality.
I agree they seem to be talking about a data-driven application which audits, monitors and manages reviewer performance.
"we have further upgraded the ways that we review content by introducing innovative data-driven auditing to monitor and manage reviewer performance'
-
They should monitor and manage reviewer performance based on the tsunami of complaints from real people who supported SS to get where they are now, instead of relying on data-driven drivel.
-
They should monitor and manage reviewer performance based on the tsunami of complaints from real people who supported SS to get where they are now, instead of relying on data-driven drivel.
Yes their new application seems to have blatant flaws as evidenced by contributor real time experience.
-
Thats not the point. Its basically what you and Mike are implying if I understand correctly. If I am missing the point, I am sorry, please explain differently, because sometimes that happens.
I think Shelma and I are implying totally different things. My point is that this kind of high volume activity would be subjected to some form of statistical monitoring to achieve a consistent standard (as far as possible). There may or may not be some automated QC of images but, frankly, some of the folks complaining would never submit images with the kind of technical issues that would be picked up by an automated review. Again, logically, these must be human decisions based on company guidelines.
-
So a reviewer accidentally ending up reviewing batches of Andresr, Sean, Lise Gagne, Monkey Business, Yuri, etc would at some point have to reject 20% because other wise it gets suspicious to let 100% through? Come on.
Didn't Sean report a rejected batch fairly recently?
i don't think rejecting Sean was a case of avoiding suspicion;
more a case of conflict of interest . reviewer is a contributor too.
how else would an experienced top seller be getting rejections ???
not unless Sean is also giving his kid , or pet monkey ...to do his latest batches
-
I am more convinced everyday that my passion for stock is counter productive to my overall goals.
Have you managed to maintain a passion for stock in the face of all the disasters we contributors have faced in the past couple of years? If so, my hat is off to you. My passion for stock has gradually morphed into an intense dislike.
And before some smarta*s asks "then why are you still doing it". The answer is FOR THE MONEY. But if the money continues to evaporate, the answer to that same question will eventually be I'M DONE.
-
Here I'm completely guessing...but how's about all uploaded images for review are first passed through various proprietary software checks and 'flagged' for the reviewers attention (maybe camera types, sharpness, white balance, histogram etc). If a whole batch is flagged by some piece of software first, the reviewer can be 'lazy' and just reject the lot. Gets paid anyway without the responsibility of letting through something that might not be 100% which could come back to bite them later.
Alternatively, reviewer takes the time to evaluate every 'flagged' image separately and carefully deciding that the majority of the batch is up to scratch and OKs it. Which of these two scenarios is most likely?
Let's face it, a reviewer would have to be very confident in their own abilities to OK anything that has been flagged as dubious by software and passing the image for the collection would take time that the reviewer doesn't have when they're on a piece rate. Plausible??
-
1) I think they automatically reject based only on iso or camera type. Good to strip off all the EXIF info.
2) Reviewers really have reject targets, two of them confiremd this to me. So in fact its easier to simply accept everything and then reject to fill the quota and you save a LOT of the time.
3) Unless agencies quit this crap behaviour causing me substantial loss of time, I will resubmit the same images again and again. I will not bother complaining at forums or posting questions to support - it never works. Simply minor change and resubmit. This is especially true on SS, but also Pond is now rejecting photos like mad.
-
The other day I reported somewhere on MSG that after a few complete-batch rejections from SS, my acceptance level had returned to normal.
OOPS!!! Spoke too soon.
A small batch of 9 was totally rejected this morning. Perfectly sharp at 100%, noise-free images from the very same shoots as the ones that were accepted a few days ago are now dumped for "Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized" or "Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution."
It's just too erratic to be credible. Some of these images will go back into the mix for another try later on.
-
1) I think they automatically reject based only on iso or camera type. Good to strip off all the EXIF info.
My latest images were shot with a brand-new Canon D7 and my tried-and-true Canon 500 4.0 L, which is a fantastic combination for birds and other wildlife. Usually at ISO 100, although I'll go as high as 160 for early-morning shots.
It's hard to believe SS reviewers would reject those images for either iso or camera/lens type.
-
I have a 6D and L lens. Still get rejections. Images with 450D shot template get 100% acceptance. Meta data rejections I don't bebelieve in that.
-
So, basically you're all saying, with top lens, you can't make bad photo?
Because, while it's true, you can't make a good quality photo with bad lens, you can make a bad quality photo with good lens.
-
No one is saying that
-
2) Reviewers really have reject targets, two of them confiremd this to me. So in fact its easier to simply accept everything and then reject to fill the quota and you save a LOT of the time.
3) Unless agencies quit this crap behaviour causing me substantial loss of time, I will resubmit the same images again and again. I will not bother complaining at forums or posting questions to support - it never works. Simply minor change and resubmit. This is especially true on SS, but also Pond is now rejecting photos like mad.
Well said! Shocking about targets and so true about complaining doesn't work! (http://www.microstockgroup.com/members-only-discussion/my-recent-experience-with-pond5-never-ever-using-them-again/msg415185/#msg415185 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/members-only-discussion/my-recent-experience-with-pond5-never-ever-using-them-again/msg415185/#msg415185))
-
Because, while it's true, you can't make a good quality photo with bad lens, you can make a bad quality photo with good lens.
We all know that.
I've made plenty of bad images with my "L" lenses. But those get tossed out in the first round of culling in Lightroom and are not the ones that make the cut through repeated rounds of 100% inspections and post-processing and ultimately find their way to SS.
-
1) I think they automatically reject based only on iso or camera type. Good to strip off all the EXIF info.
2) Reviewers really have reject targets, two of them confiremd this to me. So in fact its easier to simply accept everything and then reject to fill the quota and you save a LOT of the time.
3) Unless agencies quit this crap behaviour causing me substantial loss of time, I will resubmit the same images again and again. I will not bother complaining at forums or posting questions to support - it never works. Simply minor change and resubmit. This is especially true on SS, but also Pond is now rejecting photos like mad.
Something's definitely going on. I had to contact SS about the review on my editorial images - 6 rejected for focus issues, wrong descriptions, color cast, etc... They almost drove me bonkers by telling me my images have the same descriptions - they do not!!! They say all images are out of focus - the are not!!! All sharp, right relevant descriptions, no cast - all 6 are accepted *everywhere* else I submit to, and that's a few dozens agencies.... Seemed completely absurd to me until I saw this thread - looks like someone's trying to improve their reject stats or fulfill quota or whatever, I see no other explanation. I won't be resubmitting the images, having close 15000 images in my port it's not gonna make or break me, but for sure weird stuff is happening there...
Being in this business for over 10 years I see a pattern: it looks like the more agency is selling (=the more submissions they get) the weirder their review process becomes... I guess you can only handle so many submissions in a reasonable way, it's doesn't scale right, so you get results that are close to random.
-
Not at all justifying the rejections and reviewers,
but lets' look at the numbers:
At present, SS is accepting presently 400,000 images a week.
If they are rejecting about half, that would be another 400,000,
the current practice discourages photographers from resubmitting 200,000 images and dissuades them from submitting another 200,000 - adding all these numbers to the present 400,000 would bring it to a total 1,200,000 images a week or 62 million new images every year. Where it will end?
-
Not at all justifying the rejections and reviewers,
but lets' look at the numbers:
At present, SS is accepting presently 400,000 images a week.
If they are rejecting about half, that would be another 400,000,
the current practice discourages photographers from resubmitting 200,000 images and dissuades them from submitting another 200,000 - adding all these numbers to the present 400,000 would bring it to a total 1,200,000 images a week or 62 million new images every year. Where it will end?
Good point, Les.
-
Not at all justifying the rejections and reviewers,
but lets' look at the numbers:
At present, SS is accepting presently 400,000 images a week.
If they are rejecting about half, that would be another 400,000,
the current practice discourages photographers from resubmitting 200,000 images and dissuades them from submitting another 200,000 - adding all these numbers to the present 400,000 would bring it to a total 1,200,000 images a week or 62 million new images every year. Where it will end?
Good point, Les.
I can understand that they felt the need to limit the acceptance of the massive influx of images, but why question our intelligence with ridiculous reasons such as "focus" and "noise" when that is clearly incorrect. Why not provide a valid and honest reason such as" Thank you for your submission, but due to an oversupply of images of this subject we limit the acceptance of such images to more unique images, even though your image may be technically correct".
-
" Thank you for your submission, but due to an oversupply of images of this subject we limit the acceptance of such images to more unique images, even though your image may be technically correct".
If honest, that would mean that for every submission, the inspectors would need to look at the collection and compare the new image's subject with what's already there. That would be pretty time-consuming, thereby costly either for the inspector or the agency.
-
" Thank you for your submission, but due to an oversupply of images of this subject we limit the acceptance of such images to more unique images, even though your image may be technically correct".
If honest, that would mean that for every submission, the inspectors would need to look at the collection and compare the new image's subject with what's already there. That would be pretty time-consuming, thereby costly either for the inspector or the agency.
They are already rejecting images based on criteria other than the reported reasons. All I want to see is a valid reason rather than something that not only agitate contributors but also contribute nothing towards the improvement of future submission.
-
It wouldn't surprise me if SS are starting to use the underlying data from EXIF's and other sources to monitor the review process. Most agencies hold more data than they know what to do with, however, SS have put out a few blog posts recently that would indicate that they're focusing on it e.g. the pass rate for different cameras. After reading that I went back and calculated my pass rate to compare and I was within a small margin of the average.
Hopefully this is what they're doing so that they can try and bring some consistency to their review process which is critical to they're success.
-
Has anyone read Rob Sylvan's book "Taking Stock"? Rob was a reviewer at IS and has some great insight into rejections and ways to mitigate them. I think we all have felt the sting of a summary rejection of an entire batch. More often than not, I have gotten them all approved just by intermixing them in with other submissions...I consider it the cost of doing business in a commodity environment.
-
Not at all justifying the rejections and reviewers,
but lets' look at the numbers:
At present, SS is accepting presently 400,000 images a week.
If they are rejecting about half, that would be another 400,000,
the current practice discourages photographers from resubmitting 200,000 images and dissuades them from submitting another 200,000 - adding all these numbers to the present 400,000 would bring it to a total 1,200,000 images a week or 62 million new images every year. Where it will end?
Les, sure they shouldn't be accepting everything that get thrown their way, but you would expect at least some common sense in the review process. They reject high quality content for absurd reasons and non-existing issues, I don't know if it's their software malfunctioning or human factor but it's sometimes just pure nonsense. Here is a couple of images that I mentioned in my post earlier:
https://500px.com/photo/106062461/nice-tramway-at-place-massena-by-elena-elisseeva?from=user_library
https://500px.com/photo/105787421/waterfront-restaurants-in-villefranche-sur-mer-by-elena-elisseeva?from=user_library
- these are accepted to 500 Prime, note they have absolutely relevant and very different descriptions, there is no technical problems with them, and yet I am told by SS review team that the descriptions are the same and images are blurry. This is after my second attempt to resubmit (with proper process). This doesn't make any sense whatsoever, so something is just not working right.
-
Elena,
I totally agree with you and most other posters.
I wasn't siding with the reviewers by any means, since I get enough of the same illogical rejections myself. Sometimes, you really wonder if a human could write such a nonsense.
My comment was merely to show that for SS, our rejections are just a drop in the sea of the ever increasing image tide. And maybe a misguided attempt to stem that tide.
-
Elena,
I totally agree with you and most other posters.
I wasn't siding with the reviewers by any means, since I get enough of the same illogical rejections myself. Sometimes, you really wonder if a human could write such a nonsense.
My comment was merely to show that for SS, our rejections are just a drop in the sea of the ever increasing image tide. And maybe a misguided attempt to stem that tide.
Been thinking that also a long time Les. But. Like said there mentality is 400,000 accepted every week. so who cares.
-
All I can do is guess. Knowing SS they've taken a look at the percentage of rejections averaged over the years.
In the end we are left with the above oxymoron.
Without actually being involved in shutterstock's review or content screening process; we are left to guess.
Based on shutterstocks statement all we actually know for sure, is that the process involves storing undefined data or attributes for each review in a database.
We could take a leap and also assume that they use data driven database queries to analyze that data, combined with review statistic's which they have already collected .
There are several clues which point to some data driven rejection criteria.
Case in point:
Recently, I submitted some pictures taken by Nikon Coolpix A. This is a tiny camera, however it uses an APS-C sized sensor with 16MP. According to DXO Mark, it has higher IQ (and resolution as well) than D300. The lens is a very sharp fixed 18.5mm wide angle.
The pictures I took were taken all outside in good light, at base ISO, and as far I can see the IQ is way better than D300 and or Canon 7D.
a) Paradoxically, despite the sharper image from this camera, most of these pictures were rejected due to:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
If the better images by Coolpix A are rejected and the mediocre ones by D300 are accepted, one can only assume that the reviewers (human or automated) do not look at the image quality, but only at the camera model in exif.
b) Another clue pointing to automated reviews could be the recent change in submission comments from a free-form text field to a drop-down menu with just a few standard (and useless) options.
-
b) Another clue pointing to automated reviews could be the recent change in submission comments from a free-form text field to a drop-down menu with just a few standard (and useless) options.
Yup means no human is expected to read it... agreed. It's like automated "customer service" for most companies these days - they don't even give you an option for "operator" anymore (although stubbornly pressing "0" about 25 times sometimes still works:))
-
I'll say it again I shoot with a 6D and get bogus rejections. I firmly believe images are not rejected on meta data. It's just another conspiracy theory.
-
"speak to representative" or repeatedly shouting "Help" seem to work also.
b) Another clue pointing to automated reviews could be the recent change in submission comments from a free-form text field to a drop-down menu with just a few standard (and useless) options.
Yup means no human is expected to read it... agreed. It's like automated "customer service" for most companies these days - they don't even give you an option for "operator" anymore (although stubbornly pressing "0" about 25 times sometimes still works:))
-
I don't think they reject based on EXIF.
I use Sony(A6000 for the moment), and have untill a month ago stripped EXIF from my stock photos, because I had som bad experience some years ago where people looked at exif in digital competitions, and just ignored my photos. Without EXIF they were not ignored.
But a month ago I stopped stripping EXIF from the stock photos to see if it had any influence, and it hasn't. I am not as productive as many of you, but I have managed to upload 36 photos in that month with EXIF, and only two were rejected. One of them I agree with, the other I'm not sure.
ISO has generally been from 100 to 320, but one of the accepted is ISO 1000, which makes me think that they don't automaticly reject based on EXIF.
-
Well, as usual half my recent jpgs were rejected for "poor rasterization" while the vectors sailed through. They've now stopped responding to my emails as well.
-
b) Another clue pointing to automated reviews could be the recent change in submission comments from a free-form text field to a drop-down menu with just a few standard (and useless) options.
Yup means no human is expected to read it... agreed. It's like automated "customer service" for most companies these days - they don't even give you an option for "operator" anymore (although stubbornly pressing "0" about 25 times sometimes still works:))
Well, as I've mentioned in past threads their IPO documentation cited "new proprietary automated inspection software", so I think that the probability of rejections due to software decision interface is VERY HIGH.
-
Once shareholders are involved we all know that ways and means have to be found to demonstrate operational costs are being driven down - so they can pay for all the new Vice Presidents of this that and the other, plus ping pong tables and foot massages in the breakout area.
It would make sense then to use software to try and streamline the review process and perhaps one day, allow them to take a scythe to the inspector cadre and thin the herd.
In the meantime I'll continue to fight my corner on work that I am convinced passes muster.
-
In the meantime I'll continue to fight my corner on work that I am convinced passes muster.
I agree with your assessment of how this is happening and why.
But I'd love to know how you continue to fight for your work? How does one do that with this increasingly impersonal and unresponsive site?
-
In the meantime I'll continue to fight my corner on work that I am convinced passes muster.
I agree with your assessment of how this is happening and why.
But I'd love to know how you continue to fight for your work? How does one do that with this increasingly impersonal and unresponsive site?
I'm still using submit@shutterstock - although response times have drifted out to a week plus of late. Probably backlog.
My rejections have all been in the editorial space, either for focus or noise. On second opinion, about half of them have got through. I personally believe that SS are struggling to cope with the workflow and this has forced a knee jerk decision on acceptance criteria - but they will never tell.
If i were seeing large batches kicked back I might take a different approach - but this is a problem as you have correctly pointed out - SS have become largely incommunicado....on everything.
-
In the meantime I'll continue to fight my corner on work that I am convinced passes muster.
I agree with your assessment of how this is happening and why.
But I'd love to know how you continue to fight for your work? How does one do that with this increasingly impersonal and unresponsive site?
I'm still using submit@shutterstock - although response times have drifted out to a week plus of late. Probably backlog.
My rejections have all been in the editorial space, either for focus or noise. On second opinion, about half of them have got through. I personally believe that SS are struggling to cope with the workflow and this has forced a knee jerk decision on acceptance criteria - but they will never tell.
If i were seeing large batches kicked back I might take a different approach - but this is a problem as you have correctly pointed out - SS have become largely incommunicado....on everything.
Which to me is VERY,VERY sad. Scott was just starting to come out, then Boom. Maybe someone upstairs put out a directive for everyone to keep there Mouth shut on anything. Why would a company do that?
-
In the meantime I'll continue to fight my corner on work that I am convinced passes muster.
I agree with your assessment of how this is happening and why.
But I'd love to know how you continue to fight for your work? How does one do that with this increasingly impersonal and unresponsive site?
I'm still using submit@shutterstock - although response times have drifted out to a week plus of late. Probably backlog.
My rejections have all been in the editorial space, either for focus or noise. On second opinion, about half of them have got through. I personally believe that SS are struggling to cope with the workflow and this has forced a knee jerk decision on acceptance criteria - but they will never tell.
If i were seeing large batches kicked back I might take a different approach - but this is a problem as you have correctly pointed out - SS have become largely incommunicado....on everything.
Which to me is VERY,VERY sad. Scott was just starting to come out, then Boom. Maybe someone upstairs put out a directive for everyone to keep there Mouth shut on anything. Why would a company do that?
Because there is a lot more bad news to come.
-
If bad news means 20% increased sales, like in the last two months (and how it's going so far, this month also), then bring 'em on.
-
20% on 500 images is a difference of 30$ per month which is basically just normal swings in todays volatile pattern of sales. Next month expect to be down a tenner or 2.
-
20% on 500 images is a difference of 30$ per month which is basically just normal swings in todays volatile pattern of sales. Next month expect to be down a tenner or 2.
Exactly. I've read a lot more about sales going down the last couple of months than going up. Which matches my experience.