I agree with ichiro,

I just do not understand which images are the right ones for StockXpert.
Well penguins they take without hesitation, but other images which I believe are not so different quality wise are very often rejected because of quality. Sometimes you guys say it is out of focus. When I immediately resubmit them downsized, they are rejected, because you say they are overcompressed.
StockXpert is the only site, where I experience rejection because of overcompressed files. Aren't you selling overcompressed files, when a buyer buys a small size image?
Recently I got an image rejected, because you were not looking for such images. However on another site it was the image of the week.
The last image which was accepted by istock, and they know which image is good, was apparently not in focus.
And so it goes on. I do not want to complain although sometimes I am annoyed for a short time, when I put a lot of effort in one picture, but I really do not care so much about StockXpert regarding the new images. I have my two popular images and the new ones barely get dls.
But maybe you should reform your review system, not to chase away less patient photographers. Just from a photographers view..

regards Jan

steve-oh:

Here is some FREE but invaluable advice for your site:

Stop rejecting images that are technically acceptable.  Buyers should be the ultimate inspectors of an image.  If an image is technically excellent, then you should approve it and let buyers decide how good it is (by the sales that it will receive).

You can't predict what the market will buy.  Don't try to.  While the market might not want waterfall images today, there might be a run on waterfall images tomorrow and you might be caught without any images to satisfy customers.  What is news today, is old news tomorrow.

There have been plenty of times when I submitted an image just for . of it.  I didn't expect the image to do well, but some of those are now my best sellers.  There have also been times when I submitted an image that I thought would sell great, and it barely sells at all.  We can't predict the market.

You don't have a million images yet, so you shouldn't be worrying about disk space utilization yet.  In another year or so, when your database gets large enough, you can start to cull out images that don't sell (after having been online for at least two years), or move them to another "sale" area as a last hurrah.  That will help to reduce the amount of disk space that is required and delete any images that just aren't selling.

As far as how stock sites compare, most images do the same across all sites.  That is, an image that sells well at one site, usually sells well at another site.  The biggest variable for image sales is search engine placement.  That will vary from site to site, and thus so will sales.  But you all have basically the same customers, since you all market to pretty much the same individuals.  You all market in the same magazines, go to the same trade shows, etc.  So if an image is accepted and selling well at most of the other sites, if you reject it, then it makes you look bad.

I hope that you will pass this advice along and heed it.  It will only make your site better in the long run.

it would seem that StockXpert got 'creative' on my most recent batch with their newest rejection:

sorry, we already have too many similar photos

not only is that rejection insulting anyone's intelligence because out of 16 photos that I purposely uploaded with different themes, they have them all.  This would indicate that there is a finite number of photos and from now on, StockXpert should not accept:

macros of silk weaves
macros of PVC weaves for roller blinds
tulips
jet steam from planes
forest streams
CN Tower among others.

I initially stopped uploaded to them and then started again but now I realize why I stopped...0 for 16 is pretty bad, and 1 for 44

at least they are consistent however...reject everything!

I'm a Bouncer at LO, and to be honest with y'all, I can't tell the difference between what's a best seller elsewhere and what's not.

That is the precisely the point.  An inspector can't tell what will be a best-seller at any site because they can't predict the future.  Many images that were rejected might have gone on to become best-sellers, thus losing the site (and the artist) potential earnings.

Yes, the approval process at StockXpert is fussy.  But on the other hand for an agency with such a small number of images (500,000 approx so far) they appear to be making good progress.

Already after only a coupla weeks with them I can see improving sales and a high payout per download and relative to total images.

I believe that if anyone is going to give iStock a run for their money it will be StockXpert and possibly DT.  Of course we have Corbis to look forward to as well.

Yes, I've had images rejected at StockXpert that have been accepted elsewhere; it's frustrating but the best thing to do to shrug one's shoulders and move on.  StockXpert know their market, and I'm interested to read that they have started to mail Jupiter customers to increase promotional activity etc.  They are NOT going to risk their relationship with long established agency customers by accepting anything that doesn't fit with their standards.  In a way this is very good news - it shows that if we are serious about becoming a success in this industry we can rely on agencies like iStock and StockXpert (and increasingly DT) to filter out the rubbish and allow customers to concentrate on high quality images.  That can only be good in the longer run.

Quote from: Karimala on May 10, 2007, 13:24

I'm a Bouncer at LO, and to be honest with y'all, I can't tell the difference between what's a best seller elsewhere and what's not.

That is the precisely the point.  An inspector can't tell what will be a best-seller at any site because they can't predict the future.  Many images that were rejected might have gone on to become best-sellers, thus losing the site (and the artist) potential earnings.

And that's why there is an appeals process with all of the sites.  If you feel that strongly about any particular rejection, contact the company and ask for a second opinion.  Both of my best selling commercial and editorial photos at SS were originally rejected for focus issues, but I believed in them enough to appeal...and they were subsequently approved (the commercial photo was intentionally motion blurred in-camera...the editorial photo was a one-time private historic event involving one of the world's most famous people).  However, if I don't believe in a photo, I'm not going to waste my time or the reviewers asking for a second opinion.

From what I understand, StockXpert is really great about taking a second look at rejections.