lazyllama

Someone is in for a nasty shock come 01 June when they realize that the vast majority of subscription downloads will only earn contributors 10c/image in revenue.

I'll ask again. When are we and buyers going to be able to sort portfolios by new content. Lot's of people have asked for a specific time frame. All we get is 'soon' - which is meaningless.

Do you have a better estimate of when customers will be able to sort our portfolios by freshest content etc? It's not very helpful to just say 'soon'. Is that next week? Or next month (year)? Personally I would have thought this was an absolute priority and I'm surprised the new format went live without this feature. I don't feel like contributing new content until buyers can actually easily search for this in mu portfolio as it will just disappear very quickly

Same problem here. Many, many 'not in focus' rejections'. All these images are 100% tack sharp. This new batch of inspectors clearly need to be retrained. Although it's worry that these people have even been hired since they clearly have no clue about the technical aspects of photography

Exact same issue here. Just suddenly started happening today. I've never had problems in the past. I'm using Safari on a Mac, if that has any bearing. Cheers for bringing it up.

Yes, I'm experiencing the same problems. In addition, all keywords on accepted files are now taking forever to load. Something strange is going on

These improvements are a big step in the right direction. Very good to know SS are listening to their contributors. But why don't you just ditch the 'Categories' section? As is, they really are useless - a needless step. Do they serve any purpose at all? More work needs to be invested for this 'feature' to really offer anything meaningful to buyers This is even more important now that reviewers are rejecting images 'en masse' for 'inappropriate category'. Honestly this is so subjective given the few but broad categories.... especially when the images in question that were rejected ar

Is this issue supposed to be resolved now? I still have images missing. An update would be much appreciated. If it's going to be weeks or months before they are visible to buyers I'd rather just upload.

Ridiculous that you now can't submit an image with what the 'system' deems an irrelevant/erroneous keyword. There are many well-known place names in the world that are not on SS list of acceptable keywords. How on earth are customers going to search for these specific images going forward?

The policy is fine... it's the interpretation of the policy by the reviewers that needs work. The policy clearly states that graffiti is unacceptable when it is isolated or the sole/primary focus of the image. That shouldn't mean any minor or incidental graffiti that is visible in a small portion of a scene should automatically mean that image is rejected. SS need to communicate this to their reviewers.

New interface is incredibly clumsy. Was this really tested thoroughly? I can't believe the wasted space and that I now have to scroll and scroll down and move my cursor right across my screen just to complete what should be a very simple task. All this scrolling and moving my cursor around is just a huge waste of time.

When is this issue going to be resolved? I still have many images missing from my portfolio?

Yes hinterhof - these are prime examples of the types of editorial images that are, without exception, now getting the 'non-licensable content rejections'. If SS wants to be this strict with incidental, minor graffiti in an image then you could argue that they may as well not sell any image unless a property release is attached for EVERY single man-made element visible. Every building, every item of clothing, every single car/bike/train/aircraft, every sign, every appliance, every piece of furniture, every item of technology. These items have all been designed and are protected to an even

Why are all editorial images featuring minor amounts of incidental graffiti being rejected? The intention of this new rule is clear - only images featuring isolated graffiti or graffiti that is the ONLY or PRIMARY subject are no longer acceptable. That doesn't mean that inspectors should reject every image that include just a small amount of minor graffiti. We can't manipulate these images to clone out the graffiti since they're editorial. Can someone please brief the inspectors on the intention of this new rules as they clearly don't understand it.

I don't understand why SS graffiti policy is now being interpreted by inspectors as a complete blanket ban. It's quite clear that the new rule is only intended for isolated graffiti or for when the graffiti is the ONLY or PRIMARY subject. (which is fair enough). But the implementation of this is out of control... any minor i ncidentalgraffiti in an editorial image results in that image getting a rejection. You can't clone out the graffiti even if you wanted to as editorial images can't be manipulated. Something is very wrong. Inspectors need to be briefed clearly on this new rule - the in