Aug. 16, 2017 (5 months, 1 week ago)
Hello to all.
Unfortunately, I did not get a substantive answer from Jay and I have to use the forum. I apologize in advance for my English.
So. My vector #49689842 "Vintage 4-door sedan" was rejected for reason that it is too similar to other content that CanStockPhoto already have online.
Without false modesty I can say that I creates high quality vector illustration. Just check my portfolio and you make sure that there are not few illustrations similar to mine — http://www.canstockphoto.com/busja/.
The same thing I said to support and asked to show an example of similar high quality vector illustration. Jay's answer: "We have over 2000 images of vintage sedans. I'm sure not all of them are vector files. Of course if you strongly believe a rejection is in error, you can feel free to re-submit".
Am I shure that a rejection is in error? Yes, I am. And why should I to waste my time and re-submit my file if the inspector does not cope with his work? I'm also interested is there a control of the inspectors work? What criteria do they use — the number of results for the keywords?
On request by "vintage sedan" finds 2,332 images: http://www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/vintage-sedan.html
Ok, I keep silent about that how many images are similar to mine by quality and level of detail. But first of all, how many sedans do you see? It is not difficult to determine that at least a third of the found files are not images of the sedan. It's pretty strange to find images of sports cars and unidentified icons if to use a specific term "sedan".
Next. If the policy of excluding similar images is really so important, how is it possible to accepted so many identical images?
And many others. This is only for one request. Only 2,332 files of 34,912,830 from CanStockPhoto's base.
Or such a huge and absurd portfolio — http://www.canstockphoto.com/stock-image-portfolio/eatcute/ — how did approve it? I do not want to be incorrect, but there are certain frames of common sense. Realy it is necessary to pay to buyers if they find what they need.
Dear administration, I realy like CanStockPhoto, but the current policy is a way to nowhere. You depreciate content of your site and eventually will lose the customers. The authors lose the sense of creating high-quality content because no one will find it in heap of rubbish and spam. Please take action before it's too late.
Edited: Aug. 23, 2017 @ 7:32 a.m.