I've had a couple of those "too many like this already" rejects at StockXpert again, and I was asking myself as a designer if that's good or not.

When I download photos, I look for an agency that has lots of variations over the same theme. Choice is king, and as long as there's not too much keyword spamming, there simply can't be to much of a good thing. The fact that most of the micros have lots of second rate images dating back to their start-up period makes this even more important. If the old photos aren't removed, the only way to make them less visible is to drown them in lots of high quality stuff.

Interestingly, the two most successful agencies, SS and IS, have never rejected any of my photos because they have "too many" or "we are not looking for...". As long as the quality is good, most photos are accepted, also those that are a bit off-beat. A broad selection is probably as important as a deep one. Although I'm not searching for "Buddhist temple in Himalaya" every day, the agency who has it when I need it, gets my vote.

So, I don't buy images at StockXpert, but at DT, or at IS if I can't find it at DT.

StockXpert, are you listening?

epixx,

You aren't having a very good week over at StockXpert, are you?

We are definitely listening. Peter has done an amazing job with StockXpert, but he his only one man. Therefore he put in place some policies that would ensure he could manage the site as it grew, even if it meant the site might grow slower than it should.

Now that Jupitermedia has added resources to the site, we have begun re-evaluating and revamping policies that are necessary to accelerate the growth of the collection and sales. But this takes a little bit of time. We want to make sure we implement clear and flexible guidelines for our contributors and our reviewers.

You guys have been invaluable to this process, both in terms of bringing it to our attention and how we should prioritize.

Thanks!

I mostly agree with grp_photo.  Expect for the "we're not looking for this" rejections (which sometimes are quite ridiculous IMHO), the rejections are generally reasonable and I find that indeed there is room for improvement.  I wish they had not been so picky with some illustrations in the past, because when they are accepted, they sell well (my shamrock illustrations are doing fine there).  It's not my best selling site, but it's been consistently among my best four (and it's the 2nd so far in March) and I'm making an average of 86c per dld, so I am quite satisfied.

Regards,
Adelaide

epixx,

You aren't having a very good week over at StockXpert, are you?

We are definitely listening. Peter has done an amazing job with StockXpert, but he his only one man. Therefore he put in place some policies that would ensure he could manage the site as it grew, even if it meant the site might grow slower than it should.

Now that Jupitermedia has added resources to the site, we have begun re-evaluating and revamping policies that are necessary to accelerate the growth of the collection and sales. But this takes a little bit of time. We want to make sure we implement clear and flexible guidelines for our contributors and our reviewers.

You guys have been invaluable to this process, both in terms of bringing it to our attention and how we should prioritize.

Thanks!

Sorry for being such a nuisance, but the reason why I'm so critical at the moment is that StockXpert has a good concept, and I want it to succeed. But it annoys me even more then, when things doesn't work right for me, neither as a photographer nor as a designer.

Although there are no standard answers to anything in this business, some standards have been set by SS and IS, and although it's tempting to try to find ones own way through the jungle, the main road is more often the successful route. To become the winner, you need the best car with the fastest engine. We, the photographers, are the engine, so I think it's a good idea to keep us happy, although some of us do a lot of whining   

I had to laugh today an image that got rejected at a few sites for bad light had an extended licence sale at StockXpert which earnt me $50.

Certainly a sweeter taste than after entire batches being rejected

rejected a photo of a rare bird because they have too many of that subject.  I did a search and they have zero of that subject

A birds a bird, get over it 

i agree all sites should try to limit the amount of the "too many" rejections.  So what if they have 1000's of 2mp shots of something, surely new 8 - 12mp shots are better.  This way they constantly revolve their photos.  Start by deleting photos that haven't sold in 3 years (automatically).  it wont be much but it is better than nothing.

The only problem I have there is that after the  changes the site is almost completely dead for me. This time last month i used to have at least 6-7 sales at day , now I have one sale every 4-5 days , and all of them only from old images , so I stopped uploading for some time.