|
|
I'm not usually one to complain, and this is not really a complaint per se, more of a question.
Where is this site going? If it is what it is then I'm going to have to leave, but if there are plans to improve/change the way this site works in the near future then I may be willing to stick around. Here's what I've observed so far...
Extremely high rejection rates
Extremely slow review times
Very few views
Not a single sale
Those things add up to a big waste of time as far as I'm concerned. If there are plans to change please let me know and I'll stick around. If not, I'm outa here.
|
|
|
This site is here to stay. That's for sure.We're experiencing quite the opposite of what you're describing. Traffic, sales and uploads are increasing with about 20 % month by month. This also explains the long approval time, a situation we regret. Action is taken to shorten the approval time. We're also increasing market efforts month by month. More detailed information about this will be published in the news section and in a news letter soon to come.
|
|
|
Yeah, that's what they all say. No offense, but gimmestock has been saying the very same things for over a year now and nothing has changed. I need some specifics. Are you planning on hiring new reviewers and when? Are you planning on running ads in magazines, which ones, and when? Are you going to start accepting more photos or will you continue rejecting perfectly good stock that is selling continuously on other sites?
Don't get me wrong, I want the site to do well and I want to stick around. But it's got to be worth my while.
|
|
|
I fully understand your concern, and do thank you for your interest and invested time in crestock.com.I ask for your understanding when I say that we prefer to launch these pretty big crestock news in a proper manner. Soon. I thank your for your patience, which will be rewarded. And, please don't compare us to gimmestock. ;)
|
|
|
Boss (8/3/2006)
And, please don't compare us to gimmestock. ;)
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
|
|
|
haha... my point exactly.
I'm done here. At least for now. I had some more good stock images rejected this week (after sitting in the que for weeks). Until this site changes it's strategy I'm not going to waste any more of my time on it. I'll pop back every now and then to see if anything has changed, but other than that...
|
|
|
At least give us an idea of what is on the drawing board. As with other photographers here, I see images of mine which are best sellers in other sites, simply rejected.. usually under the Not ok composition remark. or we see no need for it. So how come it sells great in other places. I have images in waiting for days on end and maybe a small bunch is cleared each time.
What are your plans?
|
|
|
keeweeboy (8/9/2006)
haha... my point exactly.
I'm done here. At least for now. I had some more good stock images rejected this week (after sitting in the que for weeks). Until this site changes it's strategy I'm not going to waste any more of my time on it. I'll pop back every now and then to see if anything has changed, but other than that... Just if you care to know and I am not an expert but you only have 60 images of the same subject. To compare to other site and know if this one is going somewhere you need at least 200 images on diverse subject. Just my 2 cents. fred
|
|
|
JulieGeiss (8/14/2006)
One way to help resolve the long wait for uploads, and just a thought, might be to have some of this sit's most experienced and successful photographers (success at submission acceptance rate, that is) help in the approval process. These photographer/approvers can receive some type of compensation for their approval activity, such as a small payment or increase in the percentage of sales proceeds, for each photograph that they review.
This is the same technique as was used at "Other Site", where I was a member/approver.
The administration here will need to keep an eye on member approver activity and ability to make the right call, but after reviewing photographs for awhile, it becomes fairly easy. And, if a member/approver is not certain, they could have the ability to leave a comment or their question on the photo, leave its status as unsure, and let another member/approver take a look.
At "other site", sometimes 3 or 4 approvers looked at a single photo before we reached a consensus.
But, all of the approvers at"other site"also strongly believed that member/approvers should be required to have training in the approval process and also be at a status of "trainee" before actually accepting/rejecting photos. Everyone needs to learn how to review for noise, chromatic abberation, interpolation, focus,focus,focus, over/under exposure, sensor spots, etc.
New approvers, for example, as part of training, could be allowed to only leave a comment on a photo, and then, by reviewing the actual approvals later, see how their comment or opinion compared to the actual approval or rejection and the reasons why. Approvers also could have their own forum to discuss approval or technical issues and also to provide approver training.
Lots of advantages of this method. Member/approvers become much more knowledgeable of what is acceptable, learn themselves,can help other members learn how to fix problems and things not to do, as well as help reduce the queue of photos waiting for approval.
Something to think about anyway.
As to photos being rejected here that are accepted elsewhere, well, it seems to me that each site has a quality assurance based on what they want their reputation to be and the pricing structure. What sells elsewhere for $1.00 may not be acceptable here where the prices are higher. I am not a site owner, but I have been a contributing member at many photography sites and standards are different at each site for various reasons. It is no different than anything else for sale or any other retailer. A Ugo car does not cost the same thing as a Mercedes because the quality is different; the technical aspects are different, the uniqueness is different, the quality is different.
I think that part of being a photographer/seller is to understand this and find the site(s) that are acceptable for each person's own photographs, in my humble opinion.
Just my thoughts. I am brand new here, just uploading my very first submissions yesterday.
Your thoughts are great! But to actually get such an idea going and worked into a site like this, would require half a year or so of programming, retesting, programming some more, pre-launching and so. No other stocksite in the world use top photographers as reviewers/inspectors, probably because the difference between one “top-notch” photographers quality standards compared to another “top-notch” differs quit a bit.
When Crestock has a solid base of customers and a good surplus economy, such issues might be executable!
Would be nice too have a photographers rating system saying “passed inspectors training” or “qualified inspector”.
[Last Modified: 8/16/2006 7:58:55 PM]
|
|
|
I have been in the photography business since the 1970's most my images are sold as rights managed, I started in RF last year after watching the market for a while. There are many sites selling micro-stock some good some downright awfull, Crestock seems to me to be starting on the right footing and will change as it grows.If they grow the way they want to then the processes of review will have to change, but their selection process will also change as they find out who their clients are and what their requirements are. We have to ready for that, I have only just registered and have submitted a few images to see what their standards are. They may get rejected, I can asure you that will not be the first time and it won't be the last, but you move on and learn from it. In any review process there is an element of subjectivity, if an image is technically good then we at least have done part of the reviewers job. The idea of using the pro stockers for reviews should be tried, it works on other sites (you still get rejections) so if its cost effective let the guys who want to do it start talking about sorting the issues with the review process and helping Crestock. I always like to give things a fair tryout before they are written off, Crestock would not invest so much time and effort if they do not think they have it right. The forums are where the discussions will take place that help shape Crestock, but we need to be carefull we don't portray too negative an image especially if the forums are seen by buyers. Personal view is I will stick with crestock and hopefully they will meet their targets and get the clients they want. It will not happen overnight though but keep submitting, learn from the rejections and watch people like Forgiss (superb portfolio and a great stocker) see what he is shooting and the techniques used and learn from him. Best of luck to all.
|
|
|
I've been in the RF market for over six months now. In this period I've seen sites appear and disappear (or at least fade into oblivion). I am no marketing professional, but I believe a new site has to have something special to succeed in this already very competitive market.
Given the announcements in the site's main page, Crestock has been working on the marketing side of this venture, but I have to agree that reviews are far too slow. Rejections are very high too, but I may be culprit in most of them, as I'm still learning stock-oriented photography (my photography background is landscape, nature and architecture). Some rejections are hard to understand, having the photos accepted in some very strict sites.
I agree strictness may be a differential - a designer finding here only the best of the best will probably return often - but let's not exagerate. On the other hand the slowness in reviews and sales (I know there have been some) are not attractive to photographers. To my understanding, at least, we are not to submit images and wait for buyers to come, each of us should market our images. If I don't grow a portfolio here, I can never use it with potential buyers, so all sales are dependant solely on Crestock's marketing.
The most succesful sites have a very participant community - of course this is not the only reason for success. But I understand Julie's point (we've known each other for a while) and indeed once you get contributors involved and the site listening to them, you start to see things moving.
Regards,
Adelaide
[Last Modified: 8/20/2006 8:05:39 PM]
|
|
|
I for one do not want the type of reviewing from that other site, I found that photo's were being over reviewed by under qualified reviewers.
Crestock I believe has a totally different idea of what they want to portray & sell. My impression is that they are looking for more edgey, creative, non main stream stock.
They do not seem to want holiday photo's, or camera club style competition entries. They appear to want the lastest style that is popular in fashion magazines, a more gritty urban approach to style and design. Then throw in a super high standard on the technical side.
Crestock is obviously trying to develop a unique look amogst Royalty Free sites, something that has not been done so far. The succesful Photographers will be the ones who recognise this trend and will be rewarded by a high level of image acceptance.
Now if you are questioning if this approach to RF will be successful in the long run...........who knows, it's a bold experiment. One that may leave the average stock contributor from the other sites out.
No I have not found the secret to acceptance here either, these are my observations from trying to get images accepted here, and reading the front page interviews.
Good luck.
|
|
|
Hi Julie! Nice to see you here.
Pichunter,
I understand your point about the site's style. Maybe it's that, although my few images approved here have nothing trendy or stylish, nor have my illustrations. I agree that the other site's approval system was not good, but I think it was a step forward. Contributors might well make a first screening for technical problems, so main reviewers would work on a smaller amount of submissions.
I find it impossible to judge if an image was marketable or not, with very few exceptions. I have two images that I never had much hope for, but that I took for a request elsewhere, and much to my surprise I managed to sell them in the few sites that approved it. And then there are image that I think are creative (and are not accepted here either) and they don't sell. It's part of the game.
Regards,
Adelaide
|
|
|
Hi to everyone
I've just joined this site and had only 17 of 99 images accepted. I'v e no objection to having images rejected but this seems completely random and all of the rejected images had exactly the same reason given 'composition'.
So the feedbackback on rejected images is completely worthless and every single image that I uploaded has been accepted and selling well on other sites.
There is no pattern and no useful feedback on what this site wants. How does the review process work here? Flipping a coin or something?
|
|
|
I guess we're all getting a lot of rejections, but what I'd really like to know is Crestock's overall rejection rate -- then we could judge whether we're each getting above- or below-average rejections.
I'm currently getting around 53 per cent rejections -- so how am I doing compared to the average?
|
|
|
Dear friendlydragon, if that can console you I am doing better than you: After a good number of accepted photos (say 50%) since a few months I get a 100% rejection guaranteed. I guess I am not very popular with the jury. Funny thing, with the new policy I am starting selling photos (the old ones though).
|
|
|
paxvobiscum (11/8/2006)
Dear friendlydragon, if that can console you I am doing better than you: After a good number of accepted photos (say 50%) since a few months I get a 100% rejection guaranteed. I guess I am not very popular with the jury. Funny thing, with the new policy I am starting selling photos (the old ones though). Hmm... doesn't sound good. I got my buddha rejected because they already have three pages of him :unsure:
|
|
|
Hmm... doesn't sound good. I got my buddha rejected because they already have three pages of him :unsure:
That's pretty harsh!
Firstly because most of the images in those three pages are not pictures of the Buddha, merely images that include 'buddha' as one of their keywords; and
secondly because you can never have too many Buddhas -- excellent karma!
|