Yes of course.

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on October 20, 2008, 19:10

Keith....  one question, please....  is Mr. P. Melcher still associated with your organization? =tom

I think the reason for Tom's question is the recent blog by P.Melcher and his low opinion on anybody that shoots for stock, if you haven't read it you should, I laughed my head off when I found out the same guy has been involved in running stock agencies.

Could someone post a link to the blog in question please?

I  am aware that this site has HIGH standards, but I think as a small site they are way too restrictive.  I uploaded 7 shots that were all good sellers elsewhere, and all 7 were rejected as not up to their quality.  I just checked on those 7 images at the Big 6 sites that have approved them, and each has sold 10 or more times.

I doubt if they will last if they turn away decent content on a daily basis.......and I have not recommended the site to anyone for that very reason.

hi Jeff,

I would like to relate a story:

I sat with an experienced old-school RF guy, who has made literally millions with CD sales. He pointed across the river, and showed me the landmark in his hometown, where he made his first 'bigtime' photo sale: $8000 for one shot, of a public building that is obviously available for anyone to shoot. He came to us, because, like many of the old school crew, his sales were being eroded by microstock. A trickle at first, then a problem:  multi-thousand dollar monthly royalty cheques reduced to hundreds.   

I was quite happy that he would want to sell with us, and gladly got his photos into the queue on his behalf.  A day later, he contacts me "What's goin' on, you've rejected 50% of my batch so far". I probably blushed on the phone, and assured him I would investigate and find the Reviewer team member responsible, and hang them by their <family friendly edit>.

Turns out, our Review team was absolutely correct: out of focus, chest hair visible on the poor slide scans, etc. But, these exact photos, had something like 800+ downloads on a certain big microstock site that he submitted to a year before. Hmm.. what to do?      The answer is: if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. We can only guess that those 800+ downloaders we're happy to have only paid $1 to find last nights body hair embedded in the images.. after all, it's only a small chunk of change.            We have found that the $40 - $50 range moves like hotcakes for a wide range of clients - and we simply cannot reduce our quality standards to some kind of 'common acceptance rate' as an average of the top agencies  - because, unlike some other agencies, we eat every single chargeback or customer refund complaint that is valid.   

Jeff, I am not implying your photos had such obvious defects, I have thus far not been alerted to a discrepancy between your expectations and our Review team actions, but the point is, pixels are cheap and opinions are always available on the internet: if you could post some of these rejects we are always willing to discuss why they didn't make the cut. Of course we can never be the definitive accepted guide to good stock until we are number one in the industry, but it's for this exact reason we try to be different and uphold a quality over quantity ethos.

I  am aware that this site has HIGH standards, but I think as a small site they are way too restrictive.  I uploaded 7 shots that were all good sellers elsewhere, and all 7 were rejected as not up to their quality.  I just checked on those 7 images at the Big 6 sites that have approved them, and each has sold 10 or more times.

I doubt if they will last if they turn away decent content on a daily basis.......and I have not recommended the site to anyone for that very reason.

Keith....

Classy of you to respond and to monitor the boards for people - like me - who are a bit taken aback by the very high standards of your site.

However, since you were nice enough to respond, I'm going to give it another try with a eye for quality above all else. I'll upload a handful of my very best shots (no visible defects or body hair, I promise) and see how these fare with your review team. 

Jeff

Jeff, i have to admit, i was one of those who wanted to , in Keith's own words, "hang ZYmmetrical
et co...by the ...."
in response to my email, Keith said in almost the same words and stood by his reviewers.
I submitted new images taking what Keith said to heart.
also that he was , in your own words, "nice enough to respond"...
and in my own words, i said exactly as you just said, " i 'm going to give it another try".

conclusion: i got some acceptances, and still some rejections. but this time, it didn't sound so unfair
, simply because Zymmetrical wants NOT to be like other microstock sites.

I like that attitude. I also admire someone who is not afraid to stand by his crew,
as motley as they seem to be , to us. 

cheers Keith ! your participation and open communication are what we need here, big time!

p.s.
incidentally Keith, i am still having i/o error messages trying to upload new images last night. you fixed it once before, with the Ctrl F5 but this time that did not work still. i will email you so your IT can solve it.