MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What???? Lots of image rejections  (Read 13990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 13, 2011, 07:39 »
0
I applied to join Stockfresh around last June.  I was finally accepted around last October.

Due to work committments, I  have not had the time to upload around 1700 of my images.  However, in the last few days, I uploaded them all, and then started moving over 25 per day, which is the maximum permitted in each 24-hour period.

Within a few hours of moving them across, they were inspected.  To my great disappointment, out of the first batch of images, 28 were rejected, and 21 were accepted...one didn't upload properly, so I deleted it.  So far, that's less than a 50% acceptance rate.....way below every other of the 13 sites that I upload to.  I expected some rejections...each site has different requirements and standards, but not this many!

One of the images rejected is my best seller on iStock.  See here: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5642037-air-conditioning-ducts.php  The image has sold 297 times on the site, and earned me around $300.00US.  It's also a good seller on some other sites.  If that wasn't enough, another of the rejections has sold 42 times on iStock.

Are other people having the same experience?

I don't intend to waste my time moving any more across, if this is how it's going to be, and I wrote and told Peter that.

admin edit: changed the subject to be more descriptive.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 08:16 by leaf »


microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2011, 08:40 »
0
Yes, sometimes they reject more than 50% of pictures, but on average - after 3 months - my acceptance rate is about 70%+, in line with other sites.

So I wouldn't care too much about single rejections, and simply upload entire portfolio. They are still in content acquisition phase, and what matters to us is to be there with a large portfolio when they will start marketing. If they will become a major player, then I will start caring about having all my picture accepted.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2011, 08:45 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2011, 09:10 »
0
Every site has their own quirks.  I've had a bunch of images rejected for "bad background" when in fact they are pure white isolations.  I believe that some of their inspectors are inexperienced.  Other rejected for "needs property release" when the image was shot CLEARLY from a distance in public domain.  So it's taking a bit to adjust to their way of doing business.  Now, here's how I have dealt with them on high rejections. If you disagree with a rejection, fill out their "contact us" form and itemize each rejected image and why you think the rejection is unfair.  The owner (I forget his name) is very fair about this.  He sends them to another inspector who reads your notes and makes a final decision.  I have had heavy moving images rejected on Stockfresh and point that out to them.  Most (but not all) have been overturned.  It's more of a pain in the ass to do it this way but if you believe that Stockfresh will eventually evolve into a decent ROI microsite then it's best to spend the time to maximize your port.  They are new and will surly improve as them grow (we hope they'll grow anyway). 

Also, I get 50 images per day, not 25.  Maybe they've changed the rules.  Out of about 1900 images I have more than 200 to go....so it's been months since I've started uploading.  I upload based on open time only.

So as a whole the owner gets it if you're willing to work their system they way it currently stands.

« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2011, 09:36 »
0
I had images rejected that StockXpert had previously approved. Which proves that it is all a gamble and inspections are subjective, subject to the whim of that particular inspector.

« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2011, 11:59 »
0
I have some good feelings about Stockfresh!  I've had my share of questionable rejections but they've re-reviewed my submittions and have proven to me that they are thorough with reviews.  The reviewers explained the issues my rejects had and this made me realize that I have a calibration issue with my monitor and I didn't see the flaws in those rejects.

Once Stockfresh starts their marketing campaign I believe it will be a winning situation for all involved!

« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2011, 14:05 »
0
so far they are my best agency regarding approval ratio got 133 from 150.. (accepted days ago) I got 50 slots..
« Last Edit: February 13, 2011, 14:07 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2011, 15:39 »
0
Oh, well, it's all now too late!

I sent the site an e-mail after the first 25 were inspected, and protested about the number of rejections, and then yesterday, when the same pattern occurred with the second batch, which included my best seller on iStock, I asked them to close my account.  I could not be bothered with so many rejections on a new site, when I'm so well and truly established on 13 sites, and have been on most of them for nearly four years.   

I've just tried to log in to my account.......it's been closed!

Strange, really, as I didn't receive a reply to my first e-mail,in which I protested about the number of rejections, but my second e-mail, which I sent some 30 hours after the original one, was read, and acted upon within a couple of hours.  It's a pity that someone from the site didn't reply to either of my e-mails, before acting so swiftly on my request to close my account. 

« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2011, 15:51 »
0
e-mail, which I sent some 30 hours after the original one, was read, and acted upon within a couple of hours.  It's a pity that someone from the site didn't reply to either of my e-mails, before acting so swiftly on my request to close my account. 

They closed your account because you complained?

Personally, I stopped taking care about my approval ratio since it doesn`t seem to have anything to do with the financial performance of the site. On the sites with an high acceptance ratio I usually find lots of trash and competition from lower quality versions, on the sites with higher quality standards there is less competition and I get more performance per Image.
Ironically, my two best sellers are shutterstock, which accept like 95%, and istock, which accept maybe 50% of my works.

« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2011, 00:22 »
0
I can't remember the exact words that I used to them in the site-mail, but I expressed my dismay at some of the rejections, particularly, the two images that are amongst my best sellers in iStock.  Because of this, I could not see the point in having my images on the site, if some of my best sellers were rejected.  That is what I used as the justification to ask for my account to be closed.

As I said, after the first inspection, I sent them an e-mail to express my frustration that my Eiffel Tower image had been rejected.  It is my best seller on Shutterstock....it's sold 131 times!  I received no reply to my e-mail, but when I sent the second e-mail, some 30 hours later, asking for my account to be closed, for the aforementioned reasons, it was closed within two hours of me sending the e-mail.

I can't understand that I wasn't sent an e-mail to address my frustration, before my account was closed.

I certainly wouldn't treat any of my suppliers this way in business.

« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2011, 02:25 »
0
I found them pretty good not sure overall, but I guess 5-10%, mostly for not perfect white isolations like stockxpert :) I think it may be a personal bugbear for Peter :)

« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2011, 06:44 »
0
huh you asked for your account to be closed and they did it as requested so now your upset ?

« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2011, 06:46 »
0
Yes, that's correct I did, but it appears you have not read all of my posts in this thread!!!

« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2011, 10:02 »
0
well what do you want them to say?  I agree to the extent that perhaps they should have at least sent something to acknowledge that they had responded to your request to close your account.  But you asked for them to close it so they did.  If you were looking to have a dialog to discuss why your images were rejected, then asking to have your account closed seems to me to end that dialog. 

Perhaps you could have instead waited to get a response if you were interested in finding out why the rejection rate was so high.  It is a new site and yes, I've had a few questionable rejections myself, but I just move on as the rejected images are still for sale elsewhere.  I am assuming they are putting most of their efforts into the building and marketing of the site.


helix7

« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2011, 15:52 »
0
Still amazes me that everyone wants StockFresh to be different, to stand out in microstock and maybe become a major contender, and yet they expect the company to also operate in exactly the same way as other companies.

I'm one of the folks on the SF bandwagon, hoping that they become a major player in microstock because I think they offer the buyers a refreshing, simple, no B.S. way to buy images, while the competition is going the other way with overly complicated and bug-ridden search engines, increasing prices, and wildly varied price points.

That said, I don't expect SF to ever make a dent in this business if they were to do things exactly like every other company. If that means that they are a little more demanding with image reviews, more likely to reject stuff, take a bit longer to review applications, reject more applications, etc., then I'm fine with that.

If SF just did everything the same way the other companies do, there would be folks in here whining about how SF looks just like every other microstock company.

I say SF should just keep doing what they're doing. Have at it, Peter. I think you should reject more images, mine included. I don't expect you to accept some of the older stuff that I've managed to slide past reviewers elsewhere. I'd rather see SF have 1 million really strong images than 7 million of the exact same stuff other companies already have. Especially when it comes to older stuff. Anything from 2009 and earlier should be rejected.

« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2011, 22:40 »
0
So far, excellent review of my images, well over 90% acceptances with rejections in agreement with most other sites; very fast processing of images-they are online nearly as fast as they allow me to upload.  I would like to see the quota of 50 images a day raised for good acceptance ratio; it is a bit of a pain to upload a port by coming online every day just to click up the next batch.

« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2011, 01:27 »
0
I applied to join them last August and my application is still under review.

« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2011, 04:28 »
0
Wow! That's a lot of wasted time..

« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2011, 04:51 »
0
I applied last June, still waiting! I can take a hint. ;)

« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2011, 07:38 »
0
Wow! That's a lot of wasted time..

For them, maybe ... for me, it makes me question how serious they are. They don't seem to be putting the necessary resources in place to achieve anything much. If they want a huge collection for when they launch, they should employ a pile of reviewers to handle the rush otherwise they are likely to find that the game is over before they've turned up for the match.

« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2011, 08:33 »
0
Still amazes me that everyone wants StockFresh to be different, to stand out in microstock and maybe become a major contender, and yet they expect the company to also operate in exactly the same way as other companies.

I'm one of the folks on the SF bandwagon, hoping that they become a major player in microstock because I think they offer the buyers a refreshing, simple, no B.S. way to buy images, while the competition is going the other way with overly complicated and bug-ridden search engines, increasing prices, and wildly varied price points.

That said, I don't expect SF to ever make a dent in this business if they were to do things exactly like every other company. If that means that they are a little more demanding with image reviews, more likely to reject stuff, take a bit longer to review applications, reject more applications, etc., then I'm fine with that.

If SF just did everything the same way the other companies do, there would be folks in here whining about how SF looks just like every other microstock company.

I say SF should just keep doing what they're doing. Have at it, Peter. I think you should reject more images, mine included. I don't expect you to accept some of the older stuff that I've managed to slide past reviewers elsewhere. I'd rather see SF have 1 million really strong images than 7 million of the exact same stuff other companies already have. Especially when it comes to older stuff. Anything from 2009 and earlier should be rejected.

This is where I stand.  I think they have a chance to become a moderate player to maybe even become the BIG 5 (as opposed to the big four).  Time. Learn their system.  Work with them on your images rejections, but first remember to zoom in at 100 percent.  I had some old images rejected for out of focus and when I opened up the image they were slightly soft.  In the old days that was acceptable.  Today it's not.  So image you have that sell will today may be older images that aren't perfect, so they will get rejected by today's standards.  I didn't bother re-uploading those rejected images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
67 Replies
25274 Views
Last post February 28, 2007, 16:14
by epixx
2 Replies
4565 Views
Last post July 08, 2009, 16:13
by madelaide
4 Replies
4612 Views
Last post September 20, 2010, 09:56
by Nordlys
8 Replies
5542 Views
Last post January 24, 2011, 07:16
by cathyslife
14 Replies
3817 Views
Last post April 07, 2022, 13:27
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors