Jump to content

Total random rejections


Recommended Posts

I don't know what's going on but I have no idea what the guidelines are anymore and neither have the curators. This is so unprofessional, I hope someone from SS wakes up and looks at what they're doing to artists. Random rejections are going to backfire. Educate the curators because now they're just under pressure to reject clips to reach a certain 'rejection-quotum', it seems.

Examples of artists attaching a model release (twice) and that shot being rejected for not having a model release (twice), clips being rejected for not being editorial while there is no doubt that these shots are editorial, excessive noise shots that look fantastic, the list goes on...

If all the rules and guidelines have changed, communicate that with the artists, Shutterstock. So we can adapt and understand what we are doing- and what you are doing...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Is this 7,000 per reviewer? I’ve not had a major problem with rejections recently,  but I’ve had a couple rejected with motion blur in them for being out of focus, which I don’t think they are; and tw

I don't know what's going on but I have no idea what the guidelines are anymore and neither have the curators. This is so unprofessional, I hope someone from SS wakes up and looks at what they're doin

I have been getting some weird rejections lately as well. One was rejected for unlicensable content.  I couldn't figure out what they were referring to, so I sent an email to contributor support.  Aft

Posted Images

just a thought but do SS actually want our business? for some weeks now the forum is adding more and more to this topic...perhaps its their way of putting us off actually uploading images and videos to slow down the mass of uploads each week... just don't know anymore the silence is deafening IMHO :( is it worth uploading anything at the moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, worledit said:

2? I'm getting weird rejections every time I submit a bath. Most of them are accepted within the second or third time I resubmit them. Lately reviews are getting ridiculously random. Specially when submitting video. And that has happened to me every time... 

OP mentioned twice, but that's not the point 

And i agree, that there has been mistakes, i have one rejected because reviewers misinterpreted NT rules.  But this is acceptable to SS, over 7000 misassessment  per week is considered fine.  Opposite would be spending more on the process which would come out of our pocket.  

 

 

There is no conspiracy...  just the way SS has decided to do business.    You do realise that for every rejected wrongly there are accepted wrongly, which i don't see anyone complaining about, yet that goes clearly to the CUSTOMER experience

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jean-francois.me said:

as Jeff as stated, reviewers make in average over 7000 mistakes in reviews per weeks, based on SS standards.  So mentioning 2 is not proof of any conspiracy.  

Is this 7,000 per reviewer? I’ve not had a major problem with rejections recently,  but I’ve had a couple rejected with motion blur in them for being out of focus, which I don’t think they are; and two photos of scenes shrouded in artificial mist which were rejected for the same reason which look really sharp to me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jean-francois.me said:

as Jeff as stated, reviewers make in average over 7000 mistakes in reviews per weeks, based on SS standards.  So mentioning 2 is not proof of any conspiracy.  

Who mentioned a conspiracy? There's obviously a change of policy- at least what a considerable number of artists have noticed on the video side. I'm  in a group of FB micro stock producers and I'm hearing a lot of  frustrated (experienced) producers who used to have the occasional rejection but who have now experienced a consistent pattern of random, large number of unprofessional rejections. It all very much points out to a 'rejection-quotum' the curators have to reach. It's all rather respectless and zilch communication from SS to explain the new direction. Makes you wonder if anyone knows which direction we're heading... Criteria are fine, but abide by them and be transparent and conistent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, GlobeStock said:

Who mentioned a conspiracy? There's obviously a change of policy- at least what a considerable number of artists have noticed on the video side. I'm  in a group of FB micro stock producers and I'm hearing a lot of  frustrated (experienced) producers who used to have the occasional rejection but who have now experienced a consistent pattern of random, large number of unprofessional rejections. It all very much points out to a 'rejection-quotum' the curators have to reach. It's all rather respectless and zilch communication from SS to explain the new direction. Makes you wonder if anyone knows which direction we're heading... Criteria are fine, but abide by them and be transparent and conistent.

I've also noticed an aggressive uptick in rejections recently. It could be any number of things but my suspicions are leaning towards SS slowing down/reducing submissions globally. I have a few friends who also contribute confirm similar rejections. Personally, I don't have time for "re-submission games" so my participation with SS will continue to decrease. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't have it both ways, folks: either SS is going to have no standards at all, which has been the case for the last few years, or they're going to have them, enforce them, and someone is going to get their work rejected.

If an image can't get past a reviewer, why would anyone want a potential buyer to see it?

If anyone feels strongly enough about an image that they absolutely MUST have it for sale somewhere, you can either try fixing the problem and resubmit here, or upload it to another service or agency and see if they'll take it.  

Quite frankly, I would rather see strict standards enforced than what we have seen happening to the database for the last few years.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no conspiracy...fact why suddenly the surge of inconsistency in reviewing images and videos that's the frustration and why are some accepted after persisting ...appreciate we are human and err but the gene pool of examples is getting louder and have to agree with Sharkshock...also understand there must be a criteria to meet but getting accepted after multiple times in my opinion tells its own story...

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

Quite frankly, I would rather see strict standards enforced than what we have seen happening to the database for the last few years

Totally agree, Phil, but the problem is the inconsistency of enforcing the standards as stated above. I recently had a complete batch rejected for OOF, and they weren't I've been here long enough to know that,  which to me just suggests the reviewer didn't take the time to review the photos but was just clicking his way through the review process. These guys are paid per image they review, the more they can review in an hour the more they make. I do think SS is someway trying to cut down on the amount of accepted images but don't think this is the way to do it. I used to do the resubmit thing and, yes, they where usually accepted the 2nd time but I now think this is complete waste of time considering the amount of money we make, new images aren't going to be in the sells 1000's or even 100's category anymore, there is just to much competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, GlobeStock said:

@phil Go back and read what has been said - you're comment is as random as recent video rejections. My God...

+1

When they reject 11 out of 12 (!) due to "title" and the same photos get accepted at the 2nd try (without change), please don't try to put the blame on us. It's just outright stupid and rather lame on the SS reviewer's part. Not to mention humiliating!! It does make me furious for one. It feels like they throw hours of my work/time in a garbage bin!! Don't play with me. We are not in a sand box here!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Istvan Balogh said:

+1

When they reject 11 out of 12 (!) due to "title" and the same photos get accepted at the 2nd try (without change), please don't try to put the blame on us. It's just outright stupid and rather lame on the SS reviewer's part. Not to mention humiliating!! It does make me furious for one. It feels like they throw hours if my work/time in a garbage bin!! Don't play with me. We are not in a sand box here!

+1 Outright respectless...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I would like to see better consistency coming from reviewers.  Unfortunately, that has always been the issue with human reviews.  Each reviewer is going to be biased toward a different issue, and some are just downright lazy, waving through large batches of similars (even now) without looking at each image individually, or batch rejecting images because a few random selections may have been bad.  Short of having paid, full-time staff handling reviews, there isn't much that can be done about either case.  It would be nice to think that reviewers would be accountable to someone in charge of the content they approve (or reject), but that doesn't seem to be the case, as each reviewer is their own independent contractor, and the worst that can happen to them is dismissal, only to be replaced by someone with the same issues the prior one had.

It's frustrating, I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that actually pisses me off about the whole review process is when you do a lot of 'Abstract' images like I do, They constantly get rejected for the most idiotic rejections, and do get accepted at other sites. Seems like there is a sort of initial 'review' by the AI and then the 'final' review by the reviewer, if the Ai flags it and the reviewer just accepts the decision of the AI then that's a problem. The images are abstract for a reason and can't even be defined because no-one can actually define what the image is about, so there is no OOF , no excessive grain, or whatever. That's also why I do a lot of abstract paintings which do get accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wondering about this too. As the speed of the review process has gone up dramatically (from my last five pictures submitted, four were rejected within a few minutes), the quality of the reviews seems to go down. I suspect it's because of the use of not sufficiently trained AI for a first selection.

I've seen a lot of weird rejections too, lately. Tiny figures of people, completely silhouetted now require a model release. Pictures with a shallower DOF now are more often rejected because the AI considered something different the main subject. Noisy scenes like dramatic skies sooner are considered to contain artefacts and excessive noise. I hope they will do something about it, for at this moment except for the speed the process is frustrating.  Nothing wrong with rejection, but I want to understand what I have to change. Now it more seems a gamble. Hopefully this is just about the AI needing to get more training and therefore I hope human reviewers will review what was rejected by the AI too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jean-francois.me said:

OP mentioned twice, but that's not the point 

And i agree, that there has been mistakes, i have one rejected because reviewers misinterpreted NT rules.  But this is acceptable to SS, over 7000 misassessment  per week is considered fine.  Opposite would be spending more on the process which would come out of our pocket.  

 

 

There is no conspiracy...  just the way SS has decided to do business.    You do realise that for every rejected wrongly there are accepted wrongly, which i don't see anyone complaining about, yet that goes clearly to the CUSTOMER experience

Very good point 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...