|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
fncdigital
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 2159
Location: If there are any questions, direct them to that brick wall over there.
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 10:14 am
|  |
The admin in general are not trying to discourage people from editing their keywords so to speak, they are trying to encourage people to get their keywords correct the first time. It will save the users and the review team a lot of time and effort on both sides.
However, the problem at hand is why something that got rejected with keyword edits after it was accepted.
Chances are the audit team would have gotten to these whether the keywords would have been edited or not. The review process is a human process and images that should have never been accepted get through and the audit's go on to pick up the slack in areas.
regardless of whether the image is "generating sales" they arent generating sales for shutterstock so to speak, they are getting *some* downloads which is creating a sale for the photog. But, if there is a noise issue (I don't know, havent seen the image nore did I re-review it) it needs to be resloved so the buyer is getting the best quality.
Standards have been raise dramaticly since the opening of the site, and have raised even more with the onset of StocktoGo where people have the potential of buying a single Image just to hang on their wal with a print. Printing at 100% with noise will not produce a repeat customer.
I suggest, if you are debating the noise, post the images at 100% in the critique form and lets see them, or correct the noise resubmit with a note to the review team on what happened with these images.
If they are rejected again...move on.
Bottom line, when you edit your keywords, it goes back into the Que and the audit team/review team will look at it a second time and they may say "How the hell did I let this slip by??!!" and they will remove it, regardless of whether it was accepted before or not.
Don't feel bad, some of my images from eariler were ate by the audit team. It's never anything personal and it shouldn't be taken as such.
Life goes on. :) |
|
fncdigital
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 2159
Location: If there are any questions, direct them to that brick wall over there.
|
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 10:17 am
| |
| riffmax wrote: | There definitely needs to be a policy on this - like I said, looking at it from the customer's point of view (which is, afterall, where we all make our money), I'd be pretty disappointed to invest in a photo and then be unable to access it in the future.
Come on SS - where are you on this one? |
if they downloaded it once, then they have it for the future. ;)
It's their responsibility to save it and back it up if they love it so much, ya know? |
|
periwinkle
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 40
Location: West Haven, CT
|
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 10:31 am
| |
Hmmm - from a designer's point of view, though, I think that there are legimate reasons that a secondary purchase based on the original purchase might occur. An example of this might be if a client of a web designer wishes to purchase a copy of an image so that their marketing staff can repeat the image in their advertising colateral.
| fncdigital wrote: | | riffmax wrote: | There definitely needs to be a policy on this - like I said, looking at it from the customer's point of view (which is, afterall, where we all make our money), I'd be pretty disappointed to invest in a photo and then be unable to access it in the future.
Come on SS - where are you on this one? |
if they downloaded it once, then they have it for the future. ;)
It's their responsibility to save it and back it up if they love it so much, ya know? |
|
|
riffmax
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 3102
Location: Florida, USA
|
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 10:38 am
| |
Thanks for the input, SS. Might not agree with the opinion of the reviewer - maybe I would - I don't have the photo. But the bottom line (for me, at least) is that I had no idea that a photo could arbitrarily be removed from your gallery once it was accepted. If that's in the terms and conditions, I certainly overlooked it. I am glad to know that now.
I also don't necessarily agree with the policy once a photo has been downloaded. But I don't make the rules and I am grateful that this issue has been made abundantly clear in this thread. |
|
fncdigital
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 2159
Location: If there are any questions, direct them to that brick wall over there.
|
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 10:44 am
| |
Glad to help....see below. :)
We reserve the right to remove a photo for any reason whatsoever. This includes, but is not limited to, photos that we decide are not appropriate to ShutterStock, photos that we believe aren't properly released, and content that we decide isn't suitable for ShutterStock.
Third bullet from top
and
We reserve the right to remove or reject any photo at any time for any reason from the ShutterStock library.
4th bullet from bottom.
"from the Shutterstock library" clearly means that its an accepted photo. It woudln't be in the library if it wasn't accepted.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/tostos.mhtml |
|
reviewer
Admin
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 1627
|
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 11:02 am
| |
| essa667 wrote: | I just edited my keywords on my most popular seeling photo, and upon re-review, SS has deemed it "rejected".
After further review... 3 of my top 10 sellers are now rejected.
How is this possible? Is SS changing the rules of what's acceptable? Isn't there a way for SS to know this photo was already approved and just keywords added?
Please put my best selling pictures back to my gallery. |
Just to let you know, we are in the process of training a bunch of new reviewers, so once in a while, something like this will happen. However, if your re-keyworded images are noisey, or of poor quality, your gallery may be flagged for further review.
Are we changing the rules on what is acceptable? Yes! Slowly. We have had complaints from clients saying that some images have too much noise. We want to give them the highest quality product so they return to us.
As far as re-activating them....you can try to reload them...but they will be reviewed with a fresh eye.
Hope this explains. |
|
RosaMystica7
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 267
Location: New York
|
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 11:53 am
| |
Thanks for the answers, though I certainly don't agree with them. If adding more applicable keywords to my photos to try to get them downloaded will flag my gallery so I may have MORE of my pictures removed than just one, why on earth would I do that? That's getting punished for doing something good.
I now do keyword as best I can upon submission, but I didn't know that when I first joined. I wish I had, so I wouldn't be looking at those pictures with the keyword ideas flying through my head wishing I could add them without the worry of losing the picture alltogether. |
|
Erin
Admin
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 431
|
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:09 pm
| |
I think you may be missing the point a little.. I repeat what FNC said
Chances are the audit team would have gotten to these whether the keywords would have been edited or not. The review process is a human process and images that should have never been accepted get through and the audit's go on to pick up the slack in areas.
| Quote: | | If adding more applicable keywords to my photos to try to get them downloaded will flag my gallery so I may have MORE of my pictures removed than just one, why on earth would I do that? That's getting punished for doing something good. |
We will only flag your gallery if we find images that are not up to our quality standards. If such images exist in your gallery, then they will be removed eventually whether or not you edit keywords. We're not punishing you .. we want you to take lots of awesome pictures and keep our designers happy =) |
|
reviewer
Admin
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 1627
|
|
| |
|
  |
Page 3 of 3
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
