I agree that it is rude. I deleted my portfolio and left Stocxpert because of their "please upload better quality images" - rejections. I didn't like that site. For me they were more picky than Istock, and the images I had there didn't sell much.

Inger

As StockXpert occassionally sell an 8mp photo for $2.50 and there upload system is fairly painless I still upload but I tend not to check what they accepted/rejected and don't bother categorizing the photos as they have been driving me insane.

A slightly out of date list of sites and number of images I have

123rf 1,964
FP     1,630 *
FT     1,622
BigStock   1,513
SPM   1,438 #
CanStockPhoto    1,409 *
SS      1,401

DT     1,099
StockXpert    1,071
IS         392

* some images not uploaded
# haven't submitted for a month or two

So as you see StockXpert 2nd to last IS actually have a higher acceptance rate currently 50% but the 20/week limit is killing me. I often see StockXpert reject an entire batch I sometimes wonder do they just look the first couple of images and make their decision on that.

I suppose reviewers are paid on number of images "reviewed" not accepted if they got a small percentage of what images they accepted earned they might make more of an effort. I am sure the recognized big selling contributors actually have a proper review.

Don't get me started on DT "too many on site" which sometimes is an artefact of keyword spamming.

I always chuckle at 123 minimal commercial value when the picture has been DLed a few times at SS by the time 123 review it.

Yes, their rejection system sucks, but I agree with Fantastique. Easy to upload, I don't categorize. I log the reject/acccepts, but no longer look at the reasons as best case, they are useless. The high averages on sales helps a lot though. I may not stick with them for the long run,but for now, they are a steady but slow earner -

Overall I have a good concept on StockXpert (especially the fast reviews!) and often the rejections come with a reasonable explanation that can make me improve it.  Sometimes the "we're not looking for this kind of image" looks strange to me, as before and afterwards an image of the same subject, though different, may be accepted.

Regards,
Adelaide

Last couple of weeks with StockXpert has not been bad with me. I did get off to a rough start, even got nailed for 'keyword spamming'   ( which I don't feel was correct - use the same keywords everywhere).  None-the-less, even in that rejection, I just 'cleaned up' the keywords and resubmitted and the pix were accepted.  I do like the turn-around time.  I've uploaded and gone back in an hour and the pix were approved!  I have been able to work with the reviewers there.  Couple of pix were rejected for "improve cropping".  I did, uploaded again, and within hours, the pix were on the board! I generally upload there in sessions of 10 pix at a time. Lately, I've been hitting 100% acceptance.  I guess we all have ups and downs with all the sites. Right now, I'm on an 'up' with StockXpert.

StockXpert....  what a waste of my time tonight.   I haven't uploaded to StockXpert in some time and tonight I figured to put up about 50 images. At 20, I flipped over to the image page so that I could pick up the ID numbers attached to each pic and log them into the data base I use to track my sites.
    Low and behold, I find that the pix are being reviewed as I submit them, 16 are ALREADY DONE!!  However,  8 of the 16 are rejected.  {interestingly, ALL  the images that I was uploading are already on SS and most have already sold there and on DT, } ....  of course many were rejected for the  "not looking for such images".  Okay, that's fine, I can dig that, you know your buyers better than I do. 
    But a couple were rejected for  "photo too dark"  ?!?!?   Weren't too dark for  SS, DT, BigStock, LO and more....  where they're selling.  Okay, okay, that's fine, I'll accept that too.  You don't want them. No problemo.

However, this is the topper, this is the one that killed me.

     "Photo rejected - image is too blurry"   

Here's my problem one.    This photo,  I accidentally RE-LOADED tonight.  I had ALREADY  loaded it a month or so ago and it was ACCEPTED.   SO, tell me, how's that work?  It was a great photo last month, they took it.  Tonight it's too blurry.   Incidentally, this photo has detail at 200%.
   
I don't mind rejection.  I understand rejection.  I understand an outfit declining a shot, thinking they can't market it..... that's cool, that's fine.
     But, when you already have the shot and are selling it,  how did it suddenly become a lousy pic a month later?   How about some consistency in reviews?  Seems like too often it's not really if your shot is good or bad,  it's   ...which way is the wind blowing...

      Needless to say,  I stopped uploading the rest of the 50 shots. What a waste of time.    Okay, thanks for letting me rant.      peace-tom

I've also had pretty good luck with StockXpert. Thier review time is really fast and I have gotten very few rejections.

I have to admit that most of the times when they have said "image is too dark"..... they were right...and I corrected it an resubmitted and it was accepted. They have always accepted my resubmitts after I have corrected them. StockXpert is really moving up my favorite list on sites and sales are continuing to increase... I just love the $2.50 sales...and suprisingly get quite a few of them. The one feature that I also love is the replace file option. I don't know about everybody else....but when I look at some of my older files I realize that I could have improved the lighting or made a better isolation.... I have gone back and improved many of the photos and then simply replaced the file on StockXpert....sweet.  I wish the other sites had this option.

It's interesting to listen to people on the sites that they feel are the toughest and easiest to get photos accepted on. For me......strangley enough I have had more rejections on 123RF, then on any other site.....including IS. (not counting Crestock....which I have given up on...) 123RF is also one of my lowest payback sites....I'm not sure if it's really worth it....but it is simple to upload and I'm currently making about $20-30 a month on the site....so I guess I'll stay.  IS is a pain to upload to and with the new keywording rejections or should I say(rekeywork, resubmit and wait 5 more days)....can be really frustrating....however they are defenitly worth downloading to....I now make the most per uploaded photo on IS....but only have 250 images there so far.  SS is my biggest $ maker but I also have 730 images there.

I generally agree with StockXpert when they reject an image as "photo too dark", quite often a few adjustments make it look better and they approve the edited version.  This is why normally I upload first to StockXpert and wait for their evaluation before uploading to the others.

However lately they have been a bit difficult to satisfy. I had many images rejected, I edited them (although for some I didn't agree with the "too dark"), they rejected them for another reason. 

Regards,
Adelaide

At this time StockXpert is my least favorite site because of their rejection system.  They have gotten more difficult to please and when you try to make adjustments to the reject reason given another reason for rejection usually is given. I've even stopped trying to fix the files to fit their standards because the end results would lessen the quality of the photo in my opinion. I have a few accepted photos I feel strong about but others are of mundane subjects that fit the bill of stock.  I've also gotten reasons for rejections for vector files for open paths which are actually stroked lines that aren't to be closed and don't affect the usability of the file.  StockXpert seems to think the file would be problematic and gave me their reasons but I gave them the benefit of the doubt and tested their theories to realize that I new what I was talking about.  I create and work with these files for a living as a graphic artist!

My style and subjects don't seem to fit this site so I've given them a rest and will just keep what I have over there because of the possible payouts.

We all have different experiences.  Although I've been seeing a trend to be more restrictive in the acceptance, it is in general ok.  They are not as liberal as other sites (FT, BigStock and CanStockPhoto accept almost everything I submit), but as I said, most of the times I think they are right, at least partially. 

In one case I had two images rejected for "too dark" and one indeed I agreed that could be improved, but I edited both and resubmitted, they rejected for another similar reason.  But the other day they rejected an image for chromatic aberration, and they were right.  It took me some effort buy I improved it, then downsized it a bit, it looked indeed nearly perfect in that aspect.  They accepted it.  So generally I take their advice and try to edit the image.  It may look better, it may not. 

And given the easy upload and the good earnings, I like StockXpert.

Regards,
Adelaide

Until a couple of days ago, I used to like StockXpert a lot, but this is no fun. I've uploaded photos within all kinds of categories the last few days, and they all (with some very rare exceptions) get rejected, either with "underexposed" (do StockXpert customers have darker monitors than others?) or "we are not looking for this kind of photo".

If I had been a total newbie or had high rejection rates elsewhere, I wouldn't really care (and most of the times, I don't when I get the occasional rejection), but they reject correctly exposed photos with a proven potential.

To me, this looks more and more like Crestock. If that's the kind of success they want, be my guest, but then I'm out. I'm still on Crestock, but I don't want another agency like that.

Definitely agree with that. Too many reviews for too dark that aren't. And of course if the subject matter is dark, forget it. I think they also don't have enough (1?) reviewers and their mission is speed. Just looked at last two batches. First all rejected for 'thanks but we are not looking for such images now' and second all rejected for 'please improve lighting. Could I improve lighting? Maybe. But 60% of these were accepted at SS and the ones that were rejeced weren't because of lighting.

It would be nice if, like some of the other sites, this owner would show up in one of the forums and give us a clue as to whtat they are looking for and their review philosophy.