Author Topic: DT's approval policy - your thoughts (Read 15418 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #25 on:** July 25, 2012, 11:46 »

They just want to boost short-term profits by cutting reviewing costs.

When a reviewer rejects a photo as 'similar' he spends no time looking at quality. That cuts costs immediately, probably in a big way.

They don't care if individual contributors find they can no longer make money on a shoot because only 1 out of 3 photos is accepted; they have so many images now, the real limitation to sales is their search functionality, not the supply of new images. If contributors quit, well that's a problem for the future. Which doesn't exist for these companies.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #26 on:** July 25, 2012, 11:48 »

OK so the first one has been accepted and the second (as well as others) two were rejected for similar this is really a long shot at best?

??

djpadavona · « **Reply #27 on:** July 25, 2012, 12:00 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 25, 2012, 10:20

Quote from: cthoman on July 25, 2012, 10:05
I would assume that they want a diverse catalog, and want contributors to fill it with a new and different subject or topic with each file. Unfortunately for them, most professional contributors don't work like that. They work in sets and revisit popular topics, so these rules have the opposite effect. They become overly restrictive.

I think both the similar policy and the payment tiers work as upload deterrents. Why create new files that are just going to undercut your older files?

I also think that from a buyer's perspective having a few similars makes sense. Many times I have though "gee, I wish they would have just turned this way a little, or...". I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same, but having a few choices is a good thing. At the time the contributor uploads, they have no idea which is going to become the better seller, or which will never get any downloads.

Yes, totally agree. I have always been a believer that an agency should let the buyers decide what a good selling image is, not the reviewer. Then purge the database of images which don't sell after a few years time online.

Sadstock · « **Reply #28 on:** July 25, 2012, 13:44 »

I remember a year or two back somebody had shot a whole series of different types of fresh herbs and DT accepted the first submission and rejected the rest of the series as too similar.

stockastic · « **Reply #29 on:** July 25, 2012, 14:01 »

Quote from: Sadstock on July 25, 2012, 13:44

I remember a year or two back somebody had shot a whole series of different types of fresh herbs and DT accepted the first submission and rejected the rest of the series as too similar.

Pathetic.

We're steadily progressing to the point where only SS and Alamy continue to make sense. But SS has been dialing up the rejection knob, too. Like I said, this is all about reviewing costs and short term profits.

SS just went public and will be under pressure to deliver immediate 'growth' (meaning higher profits) to pump up the share price. So I predict SS will soon start to reject more photos without detailed inspection, maybe by announcing a jihad against 'similars'.

Wim · « **Reply #30 on:** July 25, 2012, 14:24 »

Good example ruxpriencdiam. to them a red and green apple is similar, it's an apple, hell even a banana is similar, it's fruit.
Some contributors, especially the ones with the so called niche ports, should get 100% rejections following the above rule, yet they pass reviews, makes one wonder.

leaf · « **Reply #31 on:** July 25, 2012, 15:59 »

Quote from: stockastic on July 25, 2012, 14:01

Quote from: Sadstock on July 25, 2012, 13:44
I remember a year or two back somebody had shot a whole series of different types of fresh herbs and DT accepted the first submission and rejected the rest of the series as too similar.

Pathetic.

We're steadily progressing to the point where only SS and Alamy continue to make sense. But SS has been dialing up the rejection knob, too. Like I said, this is all about reviewing costs and short term profits.

SS just went public and will be under pressure to deliver immediate 'growth' (meaning higher profits) to pump up the share price. So I predict SS will soon start to reject more photos without detailed inspection, maybe by announcing a jihad against 'similars'.

From what I know of reviewing, it isn't cheaper to reject an image compared to accepting it. The two sites where I knew how things worked, they paid the same amount to the reviewer whether the image was accepted or rejected.

leaf · « **Reply #32 on:** July 25, 2012, 16:07 »

Quote from: djpadavona on July 25, 2012, 12:00

Quote from: cclapper on July 25, 2012, 10:20
Quote from: cthoman on July 25, 2012, 10:05
I would assume that they want a diverse catalog, and want contributors to fill it with a new and different subject or topic with each file. Unfortunately for them, most professional contributors don't work like that. They work in sets and revisit popular topics, so these rules have the opposite effect. They become overly restrictive.

I think both the similar policy and the payment tiers work as upload deterrents. Why create new files that are just going to undercut your older files?

I also think that from a buyer's perspective having a few similars makes sense. Many times I have though "gee, I wish they would have just turned this way a little, or...". I totally understand curbing people from uploading 20 images that are almost exactly the same, but having a few choices is a good thing. At the time the contributor uploads, they have no idea which is going to become the better seller, or which will never get any downloads.

Yes, totally agree. I have always been a believer that an agency should let the buyers decide what a good selling image is, not the reviewer. Then purge the database of images which don't sell after a few years time online.

I agree with how you how the buyer should decide what is needed. Alamy and Shutterstock seem to be doing well with this. But I don't see what the need for removing images after X years is. The cost of keeping the image on the server is pretty minimal and covering all the 'long tails' should be worthwhile. There are still several niches areas where there are serious holes (0 or less than 100 images) and removing images will just create more holes. If an image doesn't ever sell a site can just put it at the back of the search and it won't clutter up the results... and when a buyer finally does need that image it will be there for them.
I feel the free file section is a big reason why Dreamstime is actively removing files from the site.. hoping that people will opt to give the photos away... and hoping that those free photos will lure in new customers.

Mactrunk · « **Reply #33 on:** July 25, 2012, 16:17 »

I don't have any problem with dreamstime. They do accept different images as long as they are realy different and not just someone looking left and another image looking right. They accepted these of the same subject:

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-job-creation-image21075374
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-jobless-will-work-food-image21075453
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-no-jobs-image21075395
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-will-work-food-image21075384

They are easy in accepting images and I think they are very easy to predict. If I am doubting an image they don't accept or I get lucky and they do accept. But for good images I set out to make with a plan I always know they will accept it. I am just starting with Shutterstock and must say I personaly think they are harder than Dreamstime in accepting images.

cathyslife · « **Reply #34 on:** July 25, 2012, 16:27 »

Quote from: Mactrunk on July 25, 2012, 16:17

I don't have any problem with dreamstime. They do accept different images as long as they are realy different and not just someone looking left and another image looking right. They accepted these of the same subject:

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-job-creation-image21075374
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-jobless-will-work-food-image21075453
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-no-jobs-image21075395
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-will-work-food-image21075384

They are easy in accepting images and I think they are very easy to predict. If I am doubting an image they don't accept or I get lucky and they do accept. But for good images I set out to make with a plan I always know they will accept it. I am just starting with Shutterstock and must say I personaly think they are harder than Dreamstime in accepting images.

And to me, that's totally where they should accept those two, and not reject as similars. Imagine you are a designer and your photo box is going on the right side of a magazine page on a right hand page, but the image you want to use is of a person facing right. You want to have your person facing into the center, and you can't flop the image because of some reason, like signs in the background that would read backwards, etc. Having another image facing the other way would be great.

Sometimes it's not so much that they are rejecting similars, it's that they are rejecting the wrong similars.

stockastic · « **Reply #35 on:** July 25, 2012, 17:12 »

Quote from: leaf on July 25, 2012, 15:59

Quote from: stockastic on July 25, 2012, 14:01
Quote from: Sadstock on July 25, 2012, 13:44
I remember a year or two back somebody had shot a whole series of different types of fresh herbs and DT accepted the first submission and rejected the rest of the series as too similar.

Pathetic.

We're steadily progressing to the point where only SS and Alamy continue to make sense. But SS has been dialing up the rejection knob, too. Like I said, this is all about reviewing costs and short term profits.

SS just went public and will be under pressure to deliver immediate 'growth' (meaning higher profits) to pump up the share price. So I predict SS will soon start to reject more photos without detailed inspection, maybe by announcing a jihad against 'similars'.

From what I know of reviewing, it isn't cheaper to reject an image compared to accepting it. The two sites where I knew how things worked, they paid the same amount to the reviewer whether the image was accepted or rejected.

They were paying completely per-image, and not by the hour?

Rejecting an image immediately - skipping the detailed quality inspection - obviously means a reviewer can process more images in less time. That means fewer reviewers. I would be surprised if inspectors were paid per image because the temptation to rush through inspections would be irresistable. There would have to be a second tier of inspectors spot-checking the work of the first.

leaf · « **Reply #36 on:** July 25, 2012, 17:18 »

Yeah, in the two cases where I knew for a fact how things worked, they both paid on a per image reviewed basis. I can't say if all agencies are run this way (probably not) and that info is 5-6 years old now so who knows if they are still run like that.

gostwyck · « **Reply #37 on:** July 25, 2012, 17:39 »

Quote from: stockastic on July 25, 2012, 17:12

They were paying completely per-image, and not by the hour?

Rejecting an image immediately - skipping the detailed quality inspection - obviously means a reviewer can process more images in less time. That means fewer reviewers. I would be surprised if inspectors were paid per image because the temptation to rush through inspections would be irresistable. There would have to be a second tier of inspectors spot-checking the work of the first.

That's the only way it could work otherwise the inspector's decisions could be based on how much they were being paid. The agencies themselves want a fixed price per image inspected so that costs can be projected accurately. The obvious monitor of the consistency of an individual inspector would be the approval/rejection rate compared to their peers.

click_click · « **Reply #38 on:** July 25, 2012, 18:29 »

Quote from: stockastic on July 25, 2012, 17:12

... They were paying completely per-image, and not by the hour?

Rejecting an image immediately - skipping the detailed quality inspection - obviously means a reviewer can process more images in less time. That means fewer reviewers. I would be surprised if inspectors were paid per image because the temptation to rush through inspections would be irresistable. There would have to be a second tier of inspectors spot-checking the work of the first.

When I was reviewing for one of the middle tier agencies four years ago I got paid on a per image basis. We were told how much time on average to spend per review.

Inconsistent reviews (due to many complaints by the uploaders/supervisor checks) e.g. rushing/favoritism etc. were punished quickly by getting warned, then fired.

I do not know how all other agencies handle it and I'm sure they have different compensation schemes in place but rushing is not "enforced". Often though, very low quality images are easily spotted and rejected.

stockastic · « **Reply #39 on:** July 25, 2012, 20:43 »

If reviewers are really still paid per image (and I have to be skeptical) then I wonder if someone is making a first cut of the images before sending them to the reviewers, and rejecting 'similars' at that point. If so, the agency starts to save money on reviews.

I just don't really believe DT's statements about 'similars' hurting contributor's sales. Too many obvious counter-examples have been posted here.

As these agencies take on new investors and new ownership (SS and IS obvious, I don't know about DT) the pressure to increase short-term profits inevitably increases. I have to believe that review time is a huge cost-reduction target. The new people will be asking the obvious question - we have 10 million images now, how many more new ones do we really need, versus the cost of reviewing them?

fujiko · « **Reply #40 on:** July 26, 2012, 03:50 »

They should reject even more images!
In a way all images are similar, all made of pixels, taken with cameras pointing at something. Everything is similar, they should reject all new images and remove old ones but one. This one will be the ONE, the unique image to which all others are similar. Then they will become the agency that has that precious unique image.

Wim · « **Reply #41 on:** July 26, 2012, 04:12 »

Quote from: fujiko on July 26, 2012, 03:50

They should reject even more images!
In a way all images are similar, all made of pixels, taken with cameras pointing at something. Everything is similar, they should reject all new images and remove old ones but one. This one will be the ONE, the unique image to which all others are similar. Then they will become the agency that has that precious unique image.

Well put

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #42 on:** July 26, 2012, 10:13 »

Here is more of their great rejections.

Quote

Please submit only those images from this series that fit the event better. We consider that 3-5 images per event can tell the full story, and by submitting less you will certainly focus on quality (this is always preferred) while covering up an event.

Now you go to an event of any kind and only take 3-5 images to cover the whole event

?? what is that all about?

??

Pffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I dont know about anyone else but you can sure take a lot more then 3-5 images of any Editorial Event you are covering!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reviewers at DT are just bending you over greasing you up and giving it to you right up the old dirt road and laughing about it while they ef you royally!

fujiko · « **Reply #43 on:** July 26, 2012, 12:18 »

3-5 images are more than enough to cover any event.

Just imagine the Olympics in THREE pictures!
The story to its fullest!

click_click · « **Reply #44 on:** July 26, 2012, 12:52 »

Quote from: fujiko on July 26, 2012, 12:18

3-5 images are more than enough to cover any event.

Just imagine the Olympics in THREE pictures!
The story to its fullest!

Well obviously: The first, second and third place. Done.

stockastic · « **Reply #45 on:** July 26, 2012, 13:09 »

Quote from: fujiko on July 26, 2012, 03:50

They should reject even more images!
In a way all images are similar, all made of pixels, taken with cameras pointing at something. Everything is similar, they should reject all new images and remove old ones but one. This one will be the ONE, the unique image to which all others are similar. Then they will become the agency that has that precious unique image.

The One Image to Rule Them All.

fujiko · « **Reply #46 on:** July 27, 2012, 03:09 »

Quote from: click_click on July 26, 2012, 12:52

Quote from: fujiko on July 26, 2012, 12:18
3-5 images are more than enough to cover any event.

Just imagine the Olympics in THREE pictures!
The story to its fullest!

Well obviously: The first, second and third place. Done.

Sure they would reject one of the three for being too similar.

cascoly · « **Reply #47 on:** July 27, 2012, 18:56 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on July 26, 2012, 10:13

Here is more of their great rejections.

Quote
Please submit only those images from this series that fit the event better. We consider that 3-5 images per event can tell the full story, and by submitting less you will certainly focus on quality (this is always preferred) while covering up an event.

Now you go to an event of any kind and only take 3-5 images to cover the whole event ?? what is that all about???

Pffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I dont know about anyone else but you can sure take a lot more then 3-5 images of any Editorial Event you are covering!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...

even if this were true, the randomness of actual reviewing means we HAVE to submit larger numbers of 'similars', since each reviewer would choose a different set of but they ignore the real world subjectivity of actual reviewing

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #48 on:** July 27, 2012, 20:41 »

They must be kidding. Sending an editor 3-5 images from ANY event would result in being totally ignored by that editor and any of his friends at other media outlets.
It is a ridiculous policy.

And, I see a response from DT on a thread supporting them but total silence on a subject that really needs a response.

sharpshot · « **Reply #49 on:** July 28, 2012, 03:23 »

People from DT look here, so they know that lots of us have almost given up on them, mostly because of the bad implementation of this policy. It's been going on for a long time now and they haven't changed a thing. So I think they couldn't care less about our opinion. They also don't seem to mind losing buyers to other sites that give them a bit more choice. That's what appears to be happening to me. As they've joined in with the istock and FT policy of cutting commissions, I'm not so concerned about buyers going to the other sites.

It's a shame that DT has gone like this but I really don't see what we can do about it. The only bargaining power we have is with our portfolios and there's too many people that will just carry on uploading regardless of the detrimental changes that have happened.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: DT's approval policy - your thoughts (Read 15418 times)

stockastic

ruxpriencdiam

djpadavona

Sadstock

stockastic

Wim

leaf

leaf

Mactrunk

cathyslife

stockastic

leaf

gostwyck

click_click

stockastic

fujiko

Wim

ruxpriencdiam

fujiko

click_click

stockastic

fujiko

cascoly

WarrenPrice

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors