Jump to content

Reviewers truncating titles again!!!


Recommended Posts

OK, I don't know what the hell is going on, but when I submit an image for review, I write a description that usually maxes out to 200 characters, certainly more than 4 words!  But imagine my surprise when I saw these after having been reviewed:

2019-10-28_04-14-37.thumb.jpg.2ef4bf917c55396fbb2fc89ce2d4ba3e.jpg

Someone, probably the reviewer, changed my title and shortened it to less than the 5 word required minimum!!!

2019-10-28_04-13-37.thumb.jpg.d622802cc83edaf4db42f1bae8b46b17.jpg

And the second one was not what I wrote, either!!!

What the hell is going on here, @jeffde?!?!?  And please don't tell me it wasn't a reviewer, because if it wasn't, someone is hacking these files, and that's far worse than whatever a reviewer may be doing!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

i hope SS upholds the rules.  it should be same for everyone

Again, the TOS cites administrators, not reviewers.  There is a difference in meaning and rank.  Clarify the TOS by adding "reviewer" or "representative" and then you have a point.  Otherwise, you're

Not for all of us, Jeff!    

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

OK, I don't know what the hell is going on, but when I submit an image for review, I write a description that usually maxes out to 200 characters, certainly more than 4 words!  But imagine my surprise when I saw these after having been reviewed:

2019-10-28_04-14-37.thumb.jpg.2ef4bf917c55396fbb2fc89ce2d4ba3e.jpg

Someone, probably the reviewer, changed my title and shortened it to less than the 5 word required minimum!!!

2019-10-28_04-13-37.thumb.jpg.d622802cc83edaf4db42f1bae8b46b17.jpg

And the second one was not what I wrote, either!!!

What the hell is going on here, @jeffde?!?!?  And please don't tell me it wasn't a reviewer, because if it wasn't, someone is hacking these files, and that's far worse than whatever a reviewer may be doing!!!

wow.  is this even allowed in the TOS @jeffde

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

OK, I don't know what the hell is going on, but when I submit an image for review, I write a description that usually maxes out to 200 characters, certainly more than 4 words!  But imagine my surprise when I saw these after having been reviewed:

2019-10-28_04-14-37.thumb.jpg.2ef4bf917c55396fbb2fc89ce2d4ba3e.jpg

Someone, probably the reviewer, changed my title and shortened it to less than the 5 word required minimum!!!

2019-10-28_04-13-37.thumb.jpg.d622802cc83edaf4db42f1bae8b46b17.jpg

And the second one was not what I wrote, either!!!

What the hell is going on here, @jeffde?!?!?  And please don't tell me it wasn't a reviewer, because if it wasn't, someone is hacking these files, and that's far worse than whatever a reviewer may be doing!!!

Phil, I have two questions:

1. Did you have the metadata on file at the time of upload? Is it possible that SS autocompletes empty descriptions? I have seen this on AS and if you don't notice it, the image will be populated with AI's words.

2. Don't we need a min. of 7 words for the description for the image to go through?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the SS uploader to complete my submissions with the titles/descriptions, and keywords.  I used to use Adobe Bridge, but that program's cache fills my Mac's 256GB SSD up way too quickly.  I'm putting a new 1TB SSD in this computer tomorrow, so I'll go back to using Bridge to add metadata.

When I submitted those files, there were about 150 characters in the first and about 120 in the second.  Both more accurately described the scene in each.  If the reviewer didn't like the description, then they should've rejected the image on that basis, as has happened in the past.  What they should NEVER do is change what a contributor writes!  That is NOT part of their job description!  Sorry...this really pisses me off!

And yes, we actually need a minimum of 5 words in the title to be approved, meaning whoever approved the image also changed the title.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very unusual to hear this is happening

in effect a reviewer is putting your images at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to search and subsequent sales resulting from that search

im doubtful SS will chime in with an explanation here and bringing this up should prompt everyone else to check their own files to see if they’ve been tampered with, because that in effect is what has happened

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, njene said:

in effect a reviewer is putting your images at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to search and subsequent sales resulting from that search

Yep.  And it's not a reviewer's place to edit our metadata.  Their job is to review our submissions, not tamper with them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CH Digital Media said:

What were your original descriptions Phil? Any resemblance to the replacement titles? I ask because I'm wondering why the reviewer put'Wide angle of water hazard' as that is a little vague. Would be funny to re-upload with the reviewers title and see if the reviewer gets his title rejected :)

 

The water hazard shot originally read something like this: "Wide shot of a water hazard on a central Florida golf course featuring a fountain in the distance."  In that case, the title was completely truncated to omit the location and one of the features of the image. 

I don't recall the full title of the sheep image, only that it was significantly longer than the illegal 4 words to which it was reduced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Forum Mihai said:

modifying a caption that was previously edited by an administrator

I don't see any reference to a reviewer in your citation.  Furthermore, I hardly think an administrator would break Shutterstock's rules regarding a 5-word minimum. 

In any case, I would prefer to hear from an actual SS representative on this particular case, as I don't believe you speak for the company.  Or am I wrong in that regard?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Forum Mihai said:

I just quoted the Terms of Service for you. That's official company stuff.

I am not commenting the reason it happened, be it right or wrong (or if it happened as described). 

I am just saying that Shutterstock has the right to it. Admin or Reviewer is irrelevant. Reviewers have admin rights, for what I know.

What matters is that Shutterstock can change your metadata, both during the reviewing process and afterwards.

You must also seek Shutterstock permission to change it back (if that's what really happened) or risk a warning.

You are not a company representative or spokesman, right?

I'll wait for @jeffde or @Alex Shutterstock, or one of the other company spokespeople to chime in, since they will necessarily have better access to answers on this particular situation than you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I previously noted, this isn't the first time something like this has happened.  A few years back, I submitted this clip:

2019-10-28_09-00-09.thumb.jpg.c6a203fdfe5e9937515a37f728d398db.jpg

The title you see in the screen capture above is how it is after I went back in and fixed it.  What the reviewer had done is changed the title to the single word "Barns".

Again, if the reviewer thought the title was verbose, he should've rejected it, but had no business reducing it to a single word!

Or does a real, live company spokesman have any input as to why this is happening to my titles???

What say you, @jeffde

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CH Digital Media said:

Which is why he is waiting for response from SS to his query? Sorry I thought you were implying the OP was at fault in the uploading and tagging process "(if that's what really happened)" my bad.

I'm aware of the TOS.  I'm also aware that my titles as originally written, in no way, violated SS policies with regard to length, accuracy, or relevance.  The "expert" who cited the TOS, as has often been the case, did so because he feels compelled to act as a stand in for a company representative when no company representative has yet had a chance to review the situation or get back to me on it.

Clarification from a real company representative would be preferable in these matters. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CH Digital Media said:

Interesting to see how you get on with this :)

It would certainly be one thing if my title looked like this:

"Sheep ewe sheep female sheep sheep sheep sheep sheep sheep sheep sheep", as we have seen in other such title spam.  That was not the case in my case.  

I think if anything needs to be changed in the TOS it's this: if a reviewer feels a title doesn't accurately describe the image, reject it.  Make the contributor fix it and resubmit it.  But do not allow reviewers to edit our metadata!  They didn't shoot the image, so how the hell do they know how it should be described???

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing: the TOS does not explain why a reviewer would be taking the liberty to truncate my titles, especially shortening them below the minimum 5-word threshold.  For that, I would appreciate a mod to chime in.

More importantly, i want this record to reflect that I did not shorten them below the minimum 5-word threshold!  So if anyone is going to get dinged with a warning for violating title guidelines, it sure as hell better not be me!

@jeffde @Alex Shutterstock @Kate Shutterstock @Anna Shutterstock

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Forum Mihai said:

Yes, you are now. However, you were aware of it before my clarification or else you wouldn't have written:

Capture.JPG.572e68167824c97c07cb1f5b8ce9a73b.JPG

Your welcome!

 

Again, the TOS cites administrators, not reviewers.  There is a difference in meaning and rank.  Clarify the TOS by adding "reviewer" or "representative" and then you have a point.  Otherwise, you're citing a document that has no bearing on my case! 

And maybe the actual meaning of the TOS, in this regard, is something a mod can address, too!  In any case, your input was neither desired nor needed.

Peace.  Out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's something else I just found on one of my newly approved images:

2019-10-28_10-01-58.thumb.jpg.8f7c3bcaa37cb944fefe69a5771e80ad.jpg

First, the arrow points to my title as originally written, as I use punctuation in my descriptions.

This one, changed by a reviewer, does not include any punctuation at all:

2019-10-28_04-14-37.thumb.jpg.403479642eff35eea0a27b12a92c290a.jpg

Moreover, the categories in the first screen capture have been changed.  I chose Food and Drink as my first category.  I don't recall setting miscellaneous as even my second, as it's a completely worthless category, IMHO.

So whoever is editing my titles is messing with my categories, too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forum Mihai said:

I just quoted the Terms of Service for you. That's official company stuff.

I am not commenting the reason it happened, be it right or wrong (or if it happened as described). 

I am just saying that Shutterstock has the right to it. Admin or Reviewer is irrelevant. Reviewers have admin rights, for what I know.

What matters is that Shutterstock can change your metadata, both during the reviewing process and afterwards.

You must also seek Shutterstock permission to change it back (if that's what really happened) or risk a warning.

where does it say they can modify to make it in breach of SS rules?  this is pretty bad, Now Phil should be getting a warning for having an image that breaks the rule.  i wonder if Brady will send a note to SS about it. 

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

where does it say they can modify to make it in breach of SS rules?  this is pretty bad,

Thank you, Jean-francois.  You're right: there's nothing in the TOS that allows SS administrators to break their own submission policies to modify contributor metadata.  This looks like the work of a rogue reviewer, not the responsible act of editing by a company administrator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil Lowe said:

Moreover, the categories in the first screen capture have been changed.

I get this but before I submit it.

I started adding keywords and stuff, got called away before I could add the title. The next day I finished adding data and the categories had reversed on a few and changed on another.  I don't think it's the reviewers doing it.  

I wondered if it was the way I was navigating the page (mouse wheel and keyboard) accidentally selected these and changed them.  Another possibility is that my first and second category got swapped into alphabetical order so it might be a glitch.

In favour of the glitch thing - I noticed that if I choose categories first, it has an effect on what keywords are disallowed.  So maybe choosing the category second is influenced by what keywords I've applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

OK, I don't know what the hell is going on, but when I submit an image for review, I write a description that usually maxes out to 200 characters, certainly more than 4 words!  But imagine my surprise when I saw these after having been reviewed:

And the second one was not what I wrote, either!!!

What the hell is going on here, @jeffde?!?!?  And please don't tell me it wasn't a reviewer, because if it wasn't, someone is hacking these files, and that's far worse than whatever a reviewer may be doing!!!

I removed the images for brevity. What's in your metadata for HEADLINE? I don't know why some reviewer would care to replace your captions, seems unusual. Not going to argue TOS, they can do what they want, that's the TOS. 😉 but I've found that if I have something in Headline - which is under Origin, that's what is read instead of Description. Take a look?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @Phil Lowe, we're not currently and have not been receiving any report similar to yours. We are definitely interested in narrowing this down. Here is what we would need to investigate further, essentially a very clear rundown of your precise workflow.

  • What operating system and browser version are you using for submission
  • What other software are you using as part of your workflow
  • How many images are you submitting at once
  • Are you using milti-select to edit
  • Do they appear truncated in "Pending" or just after approval (if unsure, please try to catch this on future submission.)
  • Any other details you think may be relevant

 

Thanks, and if anyone else has experienced this, we'd be interested to hear about it. 

 

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...