suggestions to avoid too long pending review

I would like to suggest a solution of the eccessive long waiting for clips review.
It should be applied a sort of rating, such that contributors with 100% approval ratio would pass the review with a priority and at a faster speed. Eventually could be added another criteria, to add also the ratio of sales of the contributor, combining the two.

If this idea is not practical, then I would suggest that at least Pond5 should start to forbid to people to submit thousands of similar clips with slight variations in text or colors, because the delay in review for many, as I read in other threads, is not because of more contributors joining, is because of the clogging caused by these contributors that aren't able to exercise the slightest self-editing before submitting.
I would add that there should be a limit on similars, if producers aren't able to do them themselves, you should set a limit.

Is time to consider this, I believe.

We've been asking for this for a long time. P5 used to be the fastest review in the west. Now sadly only IS takes longer and I don't send them anything anymore because of that. It's not good when newer artists start complaining already.
It has been suggested that artists with more than $10,000 sales get automatic approval and then as P5 has time they go over the footage approved to double check. This is a good vetting of knowing the P5 approval process and what P5 is looking for. Problem is annotating footage that needs to be editorial.
Many here agree that similars are slowing the system down for everyone. What can ya do without offending them?

Is not a matter of offending somebody, is to understand that is at no benefit for themselves too (lots and lots of too similars, make the portfolio look uninteresting and boring).
I am aware the thing has been already discussed and probably I didn't read all of them. Wanted just to add my 'naive' (beginner I am. in video :-) voice to something that is undoubtedly a growing problem.
Mind you, I am overall very satisfied at Pond5 and the great community here and the growing sales.
I still hope that pond5 will start to look at some kind of solution.

I agree, and think veteran artists should have access to a fast lane approval. I honestly don't think quality would be adversely affected since most artists wouldnt be as successful unless they were doing the right things anyway.

This fast lane approach would free up more time for approval of newer artists (my self included). This would also help new artists move into the fast lane as well. I'll admit its discouraging when artists are experimenting with new ideas but don't know if its viable since there's no approval feedback. This tends to stifle the creative process a tad.

As I'm relatively new here I can say that P5 has been orders of magnitude better than other sites in a number of areas... sadly approval time isn't one of them.

Does anyone know how P5 handles large clip input quantities. If artists uploads thousands of clips at once (or via hard drive), do all of them go into curator que in sequence or are they split up and integrated with other artists clips? I can imagine uploading of such large quantities would grind the system to a halt for everyone else. Anyone know how this is handled?

With the proliferation of face recognition technology, is it possible for P5 to automate the screening process to ensure footage gets annotated properly as editorial. This might speed up review time. Just a thought

@jdennis If you think review times are slow now that's nothing compared to how long it will take for a hard drive to be reviewed. Once P5 receives a drive it will take around a month before it is loaded into the write info queue for tagging. Once tagged you'll wait another two to three weeks for approval. So you're better off just uploading.

Looking at the 'date uploaded' it is apparent that people need education in slightly varied video. There is no point in uploading the same clip with very slight variations 1000 times, and you can see that it is happening very frequently. Not sure there is a solution though, because asking P5 to screen for this may just slow the process down more. I do appreciate that date uploaded appears to effect the Default priority as most of the very low quality stuff rapidly progresses towards forgotten.

Not sure I would agree with the priority approval, because it would not be fair for new people like me that do try to screen the quality/quantity of uploads. It would make the likelihood of my ever being able to catch up with big sellers even more slim.

Physics, I am also not one of 'senior' contributor, but a solution MUST be found. Sooner or later they will have, as they had to do in microstock photo agencies.
If they start sooner the better for them.
Slowing down the reviewing is not possible. More than this? :-))

Example: I am a reviewer now. Contributor X submit, say 100 clips. They are all the same subject. This I can verify with a quick glance at the preview. So this raise at once a red flag. This set of clips goes to a bin called 'special attention' to be really reviewed carefully (and necessarily slowly...) if are worth to be all added to the collection. Eventually some of these will be rejected for good measure, explaning the reason.

I move on to another contributor, that sent in 10 clips, all different or with a limited number of similars. These I review at once. Then move on to another. and so on... the clips of the 100 similars you ask me? Oh, yes, obviously I will forget about it, and will do at the end of the day! ;-))

You see that from this simple example, it could be implemented a sort of 'carrot and stick' system to deter people to bombard Pond5 with eccessive number of clips with no significant variations, or... THEY will have to accept to wait for a more careful inspection of their clips. Not me, you or many others that play fair.

Hey, I don't pretend to have any perfect solution. This is just my contribution to ideas, let's hear other creative and innovative solutions then!
Maybe Pond5 will listen more carefully in front of concrete suggestions.

Might it be possible for Pond5 to automatically detect excessive shake/vibration or any other anomaly that would warrant rejection. Trying to put myself in shoes of reviewers.... what a horrendously tedious task. I'd want to have as many automated tools as possible. Maybe Pond5 can speak to this in terms of tools they use or the details of their review process, how they handle influx, hard drive offloads, spreadsheet entries, etc.......

Does any of the contributors have precise knowledge of how the reviews are handled on Pond5? 'Cause what I see is a lot of guessing alongside suggestions for elite status versus commoner treatments.