| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2004 03:15:03 PM · #326 |
General is right on this one we need to give them some time to work out all the kinks before we go for our pitchforks and torches ;)
Overall I have been very impressed with the progress shutterstock has made hope it continues. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:18:45 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I try to remember that we are all essentially beta-testers for this site -- it's being built-up as we go along. I find it remarkable how quickly many user-initiated suggestions get implemented.
I think it would be helpful if more of the comments were at least phrased more dispassionately and with less of a defensive tone ... this new "rating" system is obviously in its earliest testing phase. Like "Helpful Comments" at DPC it may turn out to be helpful or meaningless in the long run.
Remember too that the new photo reviewer (Andrea) has only been on the job a week, and it's going to take some time to get more consistent evaluations. |
Maybe they should just hire you, too. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:24:22 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I try to remember that we are all essentially beta-testers for this site -- it's being built-up as we go along. I find it remarkable how quickly many user-initiated suggestions get implemented.
I think it would be helpful if more of the comments were at least phrased more dispassionately and with less of a defensive tone ... this new "rating" system is obviously in its earliest testing phase. Like "Helpful Comments" at DPC it may turn out to be helpful or meaningless in the long run.
Remember too that the new photo reviewer (Andrea) has only been on the job a week, and it's going to take some time to get more consistent evaluations. |
Maybe they should just hire you, too. |
I'd have to telecommute : )
I wouldn't be very good as a photo reviewer though, I'm better at coming up with ideas for things other people can do ... |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:26:10 PM · #329 |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:31:46 PM · #330 |
I suspect part of the motivation is that -- with the recent overwhelming number of submissions -- they want us to be pretty confident that we are uploading a suitable photo, and not just sending huge gobs of photos on the chance a few of them will be accepted. That is, we should exercise a certain amount of self-restraint and critical self-evaluation, in the interest of improving overall site function.
I expect the quality ratio statistic to be tweaked along the way. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:36:44 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I suspect part of the motivation is that -- with the recent overwhelming number of submissions -- they want us to be pretty confident that we are uploading a suitable photo, and not just sending huge gobs of photos on the chance a few of them will be accepted. That is, we should exercise a certain amount of self-restraint and critical self-evaluation, in the interest of improving overall site function.
I expect the quality ratio statistic to be tweaked along the way. |
Which would be fine if they were evaluating it on something we could determine ourselves. But in many cases, there is no way of knowing. If there's lack of consistency with what get approves, how should we adminster these self-critiques?
Overall, I don't really care. It makes no difference to me if my photos are uploaded in one hour or tomorrow or next year. I simply uploaded some photos to give it a shot. I have no intentions of making a profession of stock photography. I am just pointing out what I feel to be a flaw in the evaluation system. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:02:33 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by mk:
... I am just pointing out what I feel to be a flaw in the evaluation system. |
I agree; that's one reason I expect some tweaking of the system. I think it's only been in effect for a day or two. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:36:31 PM · #333 |
I don't really think it is anything to get worked up about. the photos get approved EITHER WAY..... it is probably still faster than ther other sites.. even if you have a lower rating....
it just discourages people from uploading their whole family picture album in hopes of making a buck.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:49:43 PM · #334 |
here is a statistics update from me:
in the last 11 days of october i had 36 downloads with 200 pictures..
in the first 9 days of november so far i have had 78 downlaods with 400 pictures...
in 20 days so far with referral bonusses i have made 40 bucks... the more you upload the more you make..
i love this website.. it took me 4 months to come to a point where i was making 2 bucks a day at istock and they terminated my account.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 06:36:22 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by theodor38:
here is a statistics update from me:
in the last 11 days of october i had 36 downloads with 200 pictures..
in the first 9 days of november so far i have had 78 downlaods with 400 pictures...
in 20 days so far with referral bonusses i have made 40 bucks... the more you upload the more you make..
i love this website.. it took me 4 months to come to a point where i was making 2 bucks a day at istock and they terminated my account. |
Man Mahmet! Why would they do that!! Your shots are awsome!!
Personally, I think that at the end or this month I'll beat my $$$ that I have on IStock. And that's just in 1 month!!
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 06:48:35 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by theodor38:
here is a statistics update from me:
in the last 11 days of october i had 36 downloads with 200 pictures..
in the first 9 days of november so far i have had 78 downlaods with 400 pictures...
in 20 days so far with referral bonusses i have made 40 bucks... the more you upload the more you make..
i love this website.. it took me 4 months to come to a point where i was making 2 bucks a day at istock and they terminated my account. |
theodor38, why did they terminate your account? |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 06:57:01 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by melking23:
My ratio is only 8.50 |
And you're upset about that? Mine is 4 (8 good and 2 rejects). I submitted two cloud photos but were rejected because there are too many of them. I'm sure they looked fine but can't argue with sheer numbers. As a new user, I should be around 5 and I am, sorta. I just need more photos to upload, plain and simple.
I also have two downloads! Go me! :D
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 07:12:45 PM · #338 |
Wow. I have a 16.33
About rejections. I think in the forum over there they posted that they wouldn't give you a "real" reason for the rejection. But what I feel happens is if the picture doesn't have a strong visual theme it will be rejected. For instance, I uploaded a maple leaf that was beautifully colored, but the background wasn't interesting. It was rejected. I uploaded another one that was yellow on a wet red background and it was accepted. Both the same object, but very different presentations. They want their pictures to sell, so I'm glad they are more strict right from the start. That just tells me they are serious about their business.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 07:34:36 PM · #339 |
| they terminated my account at istock without any warning whatsoever because i site mailed 2 people i knew about shutterstock.. 2 only |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 07:36:02 PM · #340 |
Mine have all been approved. all 17 photos that i sent were all approved.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 07:58:53 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by theodor38:
they terminated my account at istock without any warning whatsoever because i site mailed 2 people i knew about shutterstock.. 2 only |
Thats a real shame.... :-( I hope they at least sent you a cheque for what you had made!!!
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 07:59:35 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
Originally posted by melking23:
My ratio is only 8.50 |
And you're upset about that? Mine is 4 (8 good and 2 rejects). I submitted two cloud photos but were rejected because there are too many of them. I'm sure they looked fine but can't argue with sheer numbers. As a new user, I should be around 5 and I am, sorta. I just need more photos to upload, plain and simple.
I also have two downloads! Go me! :D |
Mine is fairly low too. Its unfortunate since most of my rejects are due to hiccups when I was uploading so the image either didn't open so I could see it during the description phase (making it impossible to describe) or I'd get a bad upload, have to go upload again and lo and behold some of the previous upload would still be there and I'd have duplicates. In those cases I'd note them as such and ask them to delete/reject the extra, so its counting against me.
I have 40 approved uploads and 6 rejected. Only 2 of them were for poor quality, the rest were for reasons explained above. Now I'm not complaining because I'm worried about how quickly I get approved/reviewed, not really a complaint at all.. just showing my examples of how the current system could be a detriment when the photographer isn't exactly at fault.
Regardless I'll continue to upload (problems and all) since I'm having a higher degree of success on shutterstock than the others I've uploaded to, though nothing comparable to many of you. :)
What I like best about the site though isn't my sales or the ease in navigation/upload but the communication between the business and the photographers. Best I've seen so far.
- Sia |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 08:34:12 PM · #343 |
They accepted this one
but rejected a variation with a blank page (too many on site), despite my explanation in the comments that I had submitted both to give the user a choice whether they wanted the self-portrait or not. Both iStock and dreamstime have accepted both versions and there have been customers for both.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:23:03 PM · #344 |
I have a rating of 32 right now (32 approved, one rejected), but I think that's mostly due to staying mainly with people rather than objects. There's something inherently unique to a person in a photograph compared to a thing. An apple is an apple no matter how well you light it, but a face is individual (at least to all us self-centered homo sapiens).
Alric |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 08:45:58 AM · #345 |
heya... With the QR, We were just trying to get people to stop uploading 400 photos of their mom without a model release.
The only people getting delayed reviews of their photos have QR's below .1 (thats 10 rejected for every 1 accepted).. which is too low.
Other sites have upload limits - we need something.. You can upload 1000 pictures if you want to ShutterStock! All we ask is that you make sure at least 3/4 are worthy of submission..
anybody > .1 is OK... and will be reveiewed within 24 hours. (at least we're trying!)
The idea is that if you at least think about what you're submitting, then you won't be in the queue with people who just couldn't care less about what their submitting!
It's to help you guys - not hurt. The people with really low QRs consistently spamdex, upload photos without model releases, abuse the categories (put 'People' when its a frog), have timestamps on their photos, copyrights, etc...
I'm trying to help you guys get reviewed faster..
Jon |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 09:24:45 AM · #346 |
Jon - I reposted my question in the "official" thread.
I have a QR of 8.5 or something. I'm not upset about that.
But!
wickedpete, mk, thatcloudthere, dartomkins, ginarothfels have ALL posted the same thing as I'm posting now (again). What is up with the "too many like it?" Corbis has 5000 wedding shots at LEAST. This is my area. If I submit 50, 48 will be rejected. I don't know what to do about that. I want to upload, but I've stopped until this question is addressed.
M
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 09:39:44 AM · #347 |
Originally posted by shutterstock:
heya... With the QR, We were just trying to get people to stop uploading 400 photos of their mom without a model release.
The only people getting delayed reviews of their photos have QR's below .1 (thats 10 rejected for every 1 accepted).. which is too low.
Other sites have upload limits - we need something.. You can upload 1000 pictures if you want to ShutterStock! All we ask is that you make sure at least 3/4 are worthy of submission..
anybody > .1 is OK... and will be reveiewed within 24 hours. (at least we're trying!)
The idea is that if you at least think about what you're submitting, then you won't be in the queue with people who just couldn't care less about what their submitting!
It's to help you guys - not hurt. The people with really low QRs consistently spamdex, upload photos without model releases, abuse the categories (put 'People' when its a frog), have timestamps on their photos, copyrights, etc...
I'm trying to help you guys get reviewed faster..
Jon |
Hi,
That is all well and good and completely understandable; however, my rating is very low because my photos keep getting rejected because there are too many on the site like them. No quality problems, not uploading hundreds of photos of my mother, etc. I will be glad to submit whatever you are looking for on the site, but I can see no rhyme or reason to my rejections.
So two points here:
First:
Please try to take a moment to review the shots that are being rejected to see if you can explain what is going on so that we may submit what you are looking for, or find out if there is some problem in the way these shots are being rejected. The photos that I have submitted seem like perfect stock photo shots to me, so I really don't know where to go from here without some guidence.
Second: If a shot is rejected because too many are on the sight, it says nothing about the quality of the shot; therefore, these rejections should not be included in the "Quality" Ratio.
Thanks for your time. |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 11:35:38 AM · #348 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I took some pictures yesterday at full size and when I got done editing them they were less then 2 mb. Anyone else have this problem? Oh, I saved it at the best quality as possible. |
Sonja,
It's not the Mb's (megabytes) that you have to worry about. It's the Mp's (megapixels) Megabytes are the amount of info in your photo. Mega Pixels are the amount of width pixels x the amount of height pixels. Lets say you loaded a photo into a challange that was 640x640 pixels. That would be 640 times 640 = 409,600 Megapixels, not enough for Shutterstock. So for a photo to be approved it has to be at least 1,400 x 1,500 = 2,100,000 or 2.1 megapixels (not megabytes). If you shot at full size with your Rebel then the photos are definatley big enough as long as you didn't crop them.
Message edited by author 2004-11-10 15:38:56. |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:49:11 PM · #349 |
Wohoo! I submitted 60 something photos, and they are cleared in under 24 hours.
11 rejections, and the rejection comments are extremely helpfull.
Comments like
Washed out.
Too dark.
Have too many of the same
Not sure of the name (I had a boat where the name was cery prominent)
Unclear
Possibly a brand name (It GSM not a brand but a standard)
But all the comments were fair and helpfull.
Jon, thank Andrea for the extra effort she is doing. I can imagine it is a lot more work for her, but a great help for the photographers!! |
|
|
|
11/10/2004 04:57:54 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by aKiwi:
Wohoo! I submitted 60 something photos, and they are cleared in under 24 hours.
11 rejections, and the rejection comments are extremely helpfull.
Comments like
Washed out.
Too dark.
Have too many of the same
Not sure of the name (I had a boat where the name was cery prominent)
Unclear
Possibly a brand name (It GSM not a brand but a standard)
But all the comments were fair and helpfull.
Jon, thank Andrea for the extra effort she is doing. I can imagine it is a lot more work for her, but a great help for the photographers!! |
That sounds like much more useful. In addition, I just had a couple of photos I took at work this morning(!) clear the queue already -- seems whatever system you've worked out over there is really starting to hum right along.
Thanks! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/07/2025 12:04:00 PM EDT.
