Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'reviewer'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Shutterstock
    • Forum Guidelines
    • Announcements
    • Contributor Experience
    • Show and Tell
    • Technical Issues
    • Hardware & Gear
    • Archive
    • Critique Forum

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL







Found 10 results

  1. Hello. I uploaded like 40 pictures a few days ago, and yesterday they got approved. But at least 15 of them got rejected for having noise and I dont know why. They just dont have it or I can't see it. 5 of them were pictures of a river taken at ISO 250 with a Canon 80 D. Others were taken at ISO 800 or 1000, never more than that. Actually some of them were taken a month ago and I had already uploaded some of those, they are similar pictures taken in the same place at the same moment with the same camera parameters. They were accepted before but not now. I'm kinda new here (only 150 pics uploaded and a very few sales) and I don't know how all this works, but I had a few photos rejected for this reason before and they actually did have some noise. But never so many and with no noise at all. I'll try to upload one of the pictures here so you guys can see it. Should I reupload again the same pictures? Do I waste time in PS trying to eliminate the almost non-existant noise before uploading? Was this just a reviewer having a bad day? Is it because they are getting more strict with the pictures they allow? Maybe I'm over sharpening them in PS? Please enlighten me because I'm lost. Thanks for the help in advance.
  2. On 22 April, I tried to submit nearly 100 photos with different concepts (flowers, food, destination, animals...). Some of them shares same concepts so I must share same titles for them. For example: 1. 1376691290 - Groups of Succulent plants (20 photos in different styles): Description: Succulent plants are growing widely in highland areas, Dalat City. The nice atmosphere brings benefits for the plants to grow in bundle. There are many types such as burro tail, crown of thorns, hens and chicks. Reject reason: Title: Title must be descriptive of the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess. What is that the other language in my description? Dalat is a proper name of a travel destination, the same like Paris, New York or Kuala Lumpur, I have used such words for many of my approved photos. So why today it is rejected? Is Shutterstock reviewers new joiner? 2. 1376146865 - Groups of Puzzle numbers (35 photos in different styles) Description: Number puzzle mat for children. Children can both play to fill right numbers to the blank (3,4,5,6,7) or can change the square shape into a mat to sit on. The colorful toy is safe for children to play Reject reason: Title: Title must be descriptive of the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess. Again, what is the wrong with this title - describe a group of puzzle number ? Previously I submitted some of them, and they were approved, but today all are rejected. I must count in details every single numbers in the 35 photos to meet the descriptive expectation? 3. 1376677016 - Set of food photos (4 photos in different styles) Description: Phnom-penh clear rice noodle soup in Vietnamese style (or Hu tieu Nam Vang): Vermicelli noodles is cooked with pork broth and added with topping such as shrimps, offal, cooked pork, squid, & vegetable Reject reason: Title: Title must be descriptive of the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess. Again, What is that the other language in my description? Pnom Penh is capital of Cambodia, should I use their special writing letters instead of Latin words? And the food has it own name - Hu tieu Nam Vang the same like Pho in Vietnamese, I did input in the parenthesis marks for explanation "&" mark to meet expected word length. What should I do here? Create a new translation for the food name so that the reviewers can totally understand without minding to cross check what are those words in case they dont understand? I have many hundred food photos were approved previously, then why are they rejected today? 4. 1376888597 - Set of animal photos (16 photos in different styles) Description: Wildlife animals at Vinpearl Phu Quoc Safari, Kien Giang Province, Vietnam. They are parrots, goats, lions, giraffes.. Visitors can walk through open areas or drive in bus to visit some endangered one. Reject reason: Title: Title must be descriptive of the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess. When I visited a Safari, I described where and what I saw, wrote down and listed some of the animals I see in the Safari. Is it not descriptive? And even if my 2 type of photos are different (lions sucking milk vs the parrot), why was either the parrot or lion rejected, instead both of them are rejected? There are more of my photos rejected among this ~100 photos. I dont have time to check all. All contributors for Shutterstock spent a lot of time for creating photos, then describe all effortlessly. But today I feel disappointed with Shutterstock reviewers' reject reasons. It proves the reviewers' inability to smartly widen their knowledge on the contents of product they are qualifying except the look. I tried to introduce the food, the destination, the creativity; however, the reviewers prefer checking the technical end instead of the stories behind each photos. Contents that are so famous to others but strange to the reviewers' world are enough to make them switch "reject" automatically without any close checking why and how. We need a human reviewer, not a machine. Thank you.
  3. I'm really not sure what's going on. I SWEAR I did not upload duplicates myself! - I found them after the images were approved and catalogued. Not just these, but not everyone. Is there a reviewer lurking around my forum posts with a sense of humor or something? What the heck!! Has anyone else had a similar problem?
  4. I am totally confused. I have submitted this image twice. I was sure I had a drunk reveiwer the first time, but I got the same result the second time. I really do want to submit this photo, although not everyone will think it's a good one. It's not really large (cell phone photo), so I can't crop it as much as I'd like, but it's crystal clear and the model is really cute! I also didn't find a lot like it on Shutterstock. It's meaningful because the little guy is being treated like a baby with his soft blankie. The rejection reason both times was Rejection reasons (1) Objectionable Content: Image and/or metadata contains potentially objectionable content. The desciption is Adorable baby white-faced capuchin monkey in a blanket being held by woman with glitter fingerpolish in front of a bokeh outdoor background Here are my keywords: monkey, baby, cute, face, nature, hair, animal, wildlife, portrait, pet, pretty, owner, love, mammal, natural, outdoor, young, summer, small, comforting, primate, security, blankie, blanket, comical, maternal, adorable, domestic, breed, beautiful, little, furry, funny, creature, baby monkey, closeup, expression, monkeys, nurturing, species, hands, hold, baby white-faced capuchin, capuchin, fun, lifestyle, exotic, close up, sweet, carry; Hum, maybe "breed" or "love"? Do you guys see anything else before I try #3? FYI: Dreamstime just accepted this little guy. FYI 2: I submitted a small photo. The orignal shows every hair and the monkey is totally in focus.
  5. I've been experiencing problems with reviewer(s) mass declining images. They all seemed to come through at the same time so I'd imagine it’s one reviewer. Model release declines. These are all made using Easy Release, as recommended by Shutterstock. They’re dated correctly (22/04/2017), signed and witnessed. No reason for declining them. Basically, the same as the passed examples at the very bottom. This has happened in the past and were later approved. I can only think the reviewer is mis reading the date format. If there are issues, please provide a clear and full explanation as to why the recommended release is not acceptable. Next up was a large batch of "File Transfer Error". All of these have viewable thumbnails and no error message on submission. Is there a technical problem on your website or, was this a quick way to get rid of images from the reviewers workflow? EDIT- This could be a technical problem. Receiving more of these and again, they're not showing on "Image Status". Next up was a batch of "Non-Licensable Content". I've never had this until today. Images of hikers (editorial) have been accepted in the past and images of Wallington were taken from a public highway. If the Wallington ones are unacceptable (edit - removed from list) , no problem but there is no reason to decline the hiking shots for this reason. Other images that were showing as rejected on the Shutterstock app are not showing on “Image Status - Rejected Photos”. In fact, they are no longer showing up anywhere at Shutterstock. It looks like these have been deleted from the server straight away. Why? Looks like someone is covering tracks.... or, technical problem (more likely). Just very suspicious when combined with the above. Edit - Some of these are appearing now but not all. Would suggest technical problems. This looks like a reviewer was trying to offload large volumes of work from their workflow. If this is the case I hope they are dealt with accordingly as this shows a complete lack of appreciation, understanding of the amount of effort and time involved in preparing and submitting content. It is also very annoying and frustrating for the contributor and makes Shutterstock look unprofessional. Please, if someone could look at this as a matter of urgency as I’d hate for this to be happening to other contributors as well. Bear in mind that I normally experience minimal rejections as this list would represent a years worth but in one day! Thanks for looking Duncan Issued to support as well. The last time I had to do this, I got the, "Reviewer is right" as a quick stock response and the decision was only reversed after challenging it. I hope I don't have to go through this again. EDIT. Removed "Non-Licensable Content -- Due to legal compliance restrictions" rejections (apart from hiking shots) as I believe the Wallington shots are not acceptable. More File Transfer Declines coming through. This is looking like a technical problem. If that is the case this needs sorting as it doesn't tell you this on submission and lets you keyword the files etc (wasting further time). The main issue appears to be "Rejecting Model Release" that are dated correctly and recommended by SS and "File Transfer" rejections after the files passed submission process, had thumbnails and were keyworded. Batch Numbers below. Model Release Declined 245599876 245599663 245599648 245599651 245599654 245599660 245599657 245599627 245599615 245599618 245599633 245599624 245599609 245599639 245599621 245599603 245599636 245599630 245599612 245599645 245599606 245573491 245571949 245550052 File Transfer Error -- Please check your file and resubmit. (All these images had viewable Thumbnails and no error message was returned on submission) 245564272 245564275 245564089 245563114 245550076 Non-Licensable Content -- Due to legal compliance restrictions, we cannot license this content in our collection. 245542810 - Hiking Shot. 245542798 - Hiking Shot. 245542804 - Hiking Shot. 245542801 - Hiking Shot. Declined Images not showing on rejected list. Image numbers as apposed to batch as no batch numbers available. File Transfer Error -- Please check your file and resubmit. (All these images had viewable Thumbnails and no error message was returned on submission) #1021623982 #1021623970 #1021601467 #1021623796 #1021607203 #1021609789 #1021609798 #1021607209 #1021609801 #1021607278
  6. The use of singular isn't a mistake. After more than a year submitting UN coverage to SS without going through credentials, my latest batch was kicked back demanding credentials. I wrote to <credentials@ss.com> explaining the problem. They finally wrote back insisting the reviewer was correct. Wrong. Just to be sure, I checked their credentials policy page, & no, the UN would not require credentials to SS anymore than a city council meeting or other political event would. Adding insult to injury is that through Rex & other agencies, SS is now obtaining UN coverage from colleagues of mine, some of whom have never heard of SS; their work is just channeled in via these other agencies. And because they don't have to submit, it gets in faster than mine however on point I might be about submitting. So now, a new barrier. I've written to support, but who the hell knows ... it's obvious that there's nothing as trivial as the SS contributor. The pity is my UN stuff sells better on SS than on the agency that accredits me there in the first place. It's just maddening that one newbie reviewer has the power to change the submission process by virtue of his or her own ignorance. andy
  7. I've just had 18 photos rejected for "File transfer error". These were photos uploaded at several different times, and submitted in the span of a few hours, a few hours of work that are now lost How is this possible? It has never happened!!! Maybe 1 or 2 photos, not all!!!! How can I be sure that this won't happen again? How do I know that this is not an error on the reviewer's part? Are they getting paid also if they reject photos using this reason? Is this a problem of the new submission page?
  8. Strange circumstance with some images of Salvation Mountain in California that I submitted for editorial use. They were rejected for possible copyright breach. I didn't quite follow that, particularly as there are other images of that location on sale, so sent an email to SS support asking for clarification (I also raised it on this forum but can't find the thread for the life of me). Anyway, in the absence of a response, I decided to contact the Salvation Mountain people directly and ask if they minded use of the images. Their board considered it and, very politely, declined (not in the spirit of the founder's intentions). I have no problem with that. Coincidentally, on the very day that I got that response (yesterday), I also received a long-awaited reply from SS support asking me to resubmit and all would be OK. I'd thank Carl at support for apparently resolving the issue but I'll respect the views of the owners of the location. So the Reviewer was right it would seem, even though I was baffled at the time. In my short time in this business, I have learned to just move on in the face of a rejection. For 25c it isn't worth the time - and I'm likely to be the one at fault!
  9. Had a review recently. It was literally an instant review. Yeah, they have definitely automated the reviewing. A machine is reviewing your work folks!
  10. I had the ever more uplifting experience of contributing to this site brought to a new high with the rejection of 10 out of 13 videos with some of the rejections with the rejection reason left blank and others for keyword relevancy. I understand the reviewer would be and expert on the local tourist attractions of the world heritage areas of Tasmania and its vernacular from the distant shores they occupy, but the files rejected without any reason given, well that's a new one. Contributing to these sites is such a demoralising experience it would be probably more rewarding to be a crack addict living in a cardboard box. Unfortunately revenge cannot not be a dish I serve as the internet in my country is so slow it takes two years to upload one files so any dreams of being a reviewer that ticks and flicks is beyond my reach. Oh I pray for my salvation through the few pennies from heaven to enliven me, so my efforts can be rewarded with just a dollar so I can continue with blind faith that things will turn around, as the meek (enslaved) shall inherent the earth one penny at a time. I know I need an undiscovered niche that is also popular but cost effective to produce.
  • Create New...