very frustrated with some of the reviewers who appear to just do an auto "100%" rejection because they are too lazy to do their job.

seems some of the reviewers shutterstock employs have figured out how to game the system, so are doing zero work, to get paid. (to be clear, not all of them - some do their job - I like those reviewers - it's the ones that don't do their jobs that I don't like).

seems the game is for those ones is - they wait as long as possible to review the items (i.e., say a week) - so it gives the "appearance" of being reviewed to the (semi-automated) metrics shutterstock uses - so they can paid for doing nothing. I'm all for reviewing & approving 'good quality' images & videos, and rejecting poor quality. But when you happen to land one of these reviewers who just wants money for nothing, so autorejects 100%, it's very frustrating.

Would be a great time now shutterstock to either weed out these poor quality reviewers - OR - a different company to do a better job than shutterstock.

Apologies not contributing there,
but in other threads I read for sub sales and peanuts.

Why bother submitting to SS?

The once so premiere agency have totally derailed and the future journey can only go downhill!

In the past I have had video rejections, when I pushed it to the limit with tricks like speed change etc.
In the last reviews that are also taking long time for me, I got rejections for noise.
That was for home shots in low ISO (up to 400 in my case is like zero noise for Sony A cameras), using a tripod and LED lights for still studio like shots.
I had even taken care to denoise with Neat Video any hint of noise in the background, just to be sure.
I have been a Broadcast TV editor for over 25 years.
I say that because many times I had the responsibility of doing (not spot but full-time view) quality control at a finished video, prior of sending it to the master control to play on air. That is a big responsibility if you are paid for it and needs to be spot on.
I mean to explain I follow all broadcast safe levels and details as many other contributors here do and I am certain there is no problem in at least these rejected videos of mine.
The ironic approach would be to say they want to protect us from low earnings so they just do not accept them!
But as many contributors say, we get more rejections that do not seem to be just.
True, I am not using broadcast equipment for stock, just a Sony A camera, but all the work years at TV help me know, see and decide If I am wrong or not.
That is why I find it hard to accept these rejections, if someone and not AI sees our videos at a tablet or mobile phone while we spend time on a calibrated 4K monitor, checking vector scopes and all details.

So, your title mentions videos and images, but you are only talking about videos...

Regarding photos, however, I totally don't share your analysis, based on my experience.

 I just counted over the past two weeks. On the first submission, I usually get 20% rejection for these stupid noise and focus reasons. It's definitely more than before. However, after resizing the files, the final ratio is much closer to 1 or 2%, which has not changed a lot over the past few years. Even better, I have the feeling that the initial rejection rate is falling a bit.

So, in a nutshell, I have more the impression that SS is trying to limit the amount of files being put for sale using bogus reasons. If you insist, however, they end up accepting your photos, because, in the end, they don't want to lose opportunities. That being said, it looks like video submissions are a bit more problematic, indeed...

Any evidence to support any of this... other than you having all your videos rejected?

No not many rejects I am talking money! all that is important!

Lots of threads about rejections on SS these days but I also don't share that experience, all seems normal. The only time I get rejection is when I miss some logo and that's totally valid and my mistake.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 22, 2020, 07:32

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 22, 2020, 02:47

Any evidence to support any of this... other than you having all your videos rejected?

yes.

But you're deciding not to share it?

hi, sent you a PM. thanks.

Maybe you should take a look at your own videos and see why they are being rejected instead of putting the blame on the 3rd world. I have a 90 percent approval rate in the last 2 weeks and it doesn't seem to be an issue for many other contributors either. As for reviews taking time, of course they are. Don't you know what's going on in the world?

As for speaking English, some of us who live in the 3rd world can speak and write better English than some of you can. So maybe, just maybe, keep your racist diatribe to yourself?

Maybe you should take a look at your own videos and see why they are being rejected instead of putting the blame on the 3rd world. I have a 90 percent approval rate in the last 2 weeks and it doesn't seem to be an issue for many other contributors either. As for reviews taking time, of course they are. Don't you know what's going on in the world?

As for speaking English, some of us who live in the 3rd world can speak and write better English than some of you can. So maybe, just maybe, keep your racist diatribe to yourself?

as for 'racist', no, its not in fact you are being quite racist by labeling someone as racist simply because you disagree with them.

if you are not a native english speaker, then yes - you do speak very well & congratulations, not an easy feat!

No, currently on less than half what I'd normally make in a month from Shutterstock. The reason I'm questioning what you're saying is that "shutterstock has CLOSED acceptance of new videos/images..." is a big thing. Like massive... headline news. But unless you can provide some kind of evidence that they have, then it's just not true. Please tell me you're not basing such a claim just on the fact that you're having all your content rejected?! That would be like me submitting five videos, having five videos accepted and then starting a thread saying that "Shutterstock are now accepting 100% of all content submitted".

No, I'm not basing it on that. I did not consider the title could be interpreted that way - so have re-titled it. Thank-you.

In the past I have had video rejections, when I pushed it to the limit with tricks like speed change etc.
In the last reviews that are also taking long time for me, I got rejections for noise.
That was for home shots in low ISO (up to 400 in my case is like zero noise for Sony A cameras), using a tripod and LED lights for still studio like shots.
I had even taken care to denoise with Neat Video any hint of noise in the background, just to be sure.
I have been a Broadcast TV editor for over 25 years.
I say that because many times I had the responsibility of doing (not spot but full-time view) quality control at a finished video, prior of sending it to the master control to play on air. That is a big responsibility if you are paid for it and needs to be spot on.
I mean to explain I follow all broadcast safe levels and details as many other contributors here do and I am certain there is no problem in at least these rejected videos of mine.
The ironic approach would be to say they want to protect us from low earnings so they just do not accept them!
But as many contributors say, we get more rejections that do not seem to be just.
True, I am not using broadcast equipment for stock, just a Sony A camera, but all the work years at TV help me know, see and decide If I am wrong or not.
That is why I find it hard to accept these rejections, if someone and not AI sees our videos at a tablet or mobile phone while we spend time on a calibrated 4K monitor, checking vector scopes and all details.

Yes, I 100% agree with you. I've done broadcasting too, among other things - so am familiar with the process of quality control/review/etc - so take time to make sure I use the right equipment, right lighting, right settings, etc - and even inspect frame by frame video to ensure their are no artifacts, etc especially at 4K levels. So it is frustrating when you get a beautiful picture/video that is rejected using an obvious non reason for rejection, such as  'low light' or 'noise' or something along those lines...

My favorite rejections are the arbitrary "invalid model release" where they don't tell you what is "invalid" about the release...they're just too busy to be helpful I guess.