I've got an interesting feedback one of my customer, that she is hardly find suitable conceptions at stock agencies, due to tons of overhelming same conceptions, or same images in various crops, filters etc.
For example on Shutterstock ID: 433880728, 436619266, 437470180, 447365770, etc. 

Second thing is worst. From this style (examples above) are tons of photographers (or maybe stawmans?) with different countries of upload, who copy this style - sometimes with international faces - on local professional market I dont know personaly anyone of them, but those models acting professionaly, not just first shooters - the pictures are hardly filtered, fake flared etc. as at main uploaders.

Why agencies allowing this ?

Provide a link.

Well I've just learn't something you can search SS using image Id :-). I don't know what the problem is with the image? Too many similars or copied?

I've got an interesting feedback one of my customer, that she is hardly find suitable conceptions at stock agencies, due to tons of overhelming same conceptions, or same images in various crops, filters etc.
For example on Shutterstock ID: 433880728, 436619266, 437470180, 447365770, etc. 

Second thing is worst. From this style (examples above) are tons of photographers (or maybe stawmans?) with different countries of upload, who copy this style - sometimes with international faces - on local professional market I dont know personaly anyone of them, but those models acting professionaly, not just first shooters - the pictures are hardly filtered, fake flared etc. as at main uploaders.

Why agencies allowing this ?

Wow. And from such a big supplier. I'd definitely report this to shutterstock.

That's nothing. Click "next page" at the bottom to see more than 400 of the same icon with slightly different color backgrounds. All uploaded and approved at the same time.

https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=World%20health%20day&sort=newest&image_type=all&search_source=base_landing_page&language=en&page=2

Just ridiculous I find it hard to believe its worth doing......

I would love to hear how many sales they get from this kind of image spamming. There must be some reason to continue uploading similars?

Wasn't there some website that showed sell through rates of this portfolios and it was something less than 1%

All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.

Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.

I don't buy it. There are too many of these portfolios.  My guess would be that there must be some kind of sanction for this in particular cases. It can't be under the radar with this volume of work.

All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.

Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.

Why do you assume that all reviewers are human?

Have you seen a starling swarm? They're fascinating and there's a good reason why some birds fly in swarms.

Now, if successful contributors decided to flood the agencies with similars, there must be a reason behind it.
And I think this is the final stage of microstock.

The "old school" approach was that submitting too many similars dilutes your sales, because you compete with yourself, and your files cannot advance in the most popular ranking. Now, it looks like flooding the search results with a swarm of images yields better results than producing high quality images.

By flooding, some images will earn crumbs, but at least you're getting something. If you produce unique, high quality images there is a high chance that they will sink and you won't earn anything. 0. If you take into account production costs, you make a loss.

It's sad, but if it has come to this, there is no future in microstock. You may penalize some contributors for doing that, but it doesn't matter. You can't change the overall climate.

I don't think that the flooding strategy is the real problem. It is a diagnosis.

I don't care anymore. I don't invest in MS anymore. I am moving on to something else.

Those "Happy Runny Nose Day" on facet backgrounds are bad enough, but how about nearly 2700 gradients - no text no nothing!

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true

Based on the image numbers, this rubbish was uploaded late January/early February. This is current policy or practice - I'd love to know if they intend this or if they're just asleep at the wheel.

Those "Happy Runny Nose Day" on facet backgrounds are bad enough, but how about nearly 2700 gradients - no text no nothing!

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true

Based on the image numbers, this rubbish was uploaded late January/early February. This is current policy or practice - I'd love to know if they intend this or if they're just asleep at the wheel.

There are over 2000 files of "colorful abstract gradient" all just a simple two color gradient. Fascinating!! I would go over the edge just producing them.

SS has to be losing respect from buyers and contributers with stuff like this

Once upon a time it was the model micro agency
Now every week seems to be a notch down for one reason or another, esp after going public

I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.".  So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed.

I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.".  So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed.

Meanwhile at Shutterstock: 1.269.450 new stock images added this week   

When I started, I think it was around 50K/week.

I doubt anything will get done. They are too focused on numbers (not quality). I wonder if anyone is brave enough to submit a blank white or black photo and see if it gets accepted ...

I sure as heck would never be able to get anything like that accepted. I think its like jsnover said. They have to have an "in" with the reviewing process.

I've just had a crazy idea. Probably wouldn't be possible with today's technology, but all the elements of it are currently possible... so might work in the future.

At present, if you want an image of a lady, with blonde hair, sat at a table drinking a cup of coffee... you either have to draw/paint it, photograph it, or use computer graphics. What if you could have a program that will automatically generate a high resolution image with completely random colors for every single pixel. That would result in billions of quintillions of images or something, so not very feasible. 99.99999999999999% of those images would be completely unusable, but if you had every possible combination of colors in every possible combination of pixels... somewhere in there would be a pixel perfect picture of Bruce Willis riding a blue whale, Mars crashing into the Earth, and a blonde lady sat at a table drinking a cup of coffee.

So Google can recognise items, and faces and all that kind of jazz... so what if you had an element to the program that would automatically eliminate the results that don't contain recognisable objects or that don't contain a lady with blonde hair and coffee?

So the storage power, the processing power and the object recognition software aren't there yet, but say in 25, 50, 100 years It's not outside the realms of possibility that I could go into Photoshop CC 2067, go to 'file', 'generate new image' and enter the terms, "lady, blonde, table, coffee", and I'm presented with hundreds of photo-realistic images to choose from. You could then click on the green dress to say you like it, alt-click on her bag to say you don't like it... and you're presented with a a different bunch of hundreds of images to choose from.

Maybe a basic version of that is what these guys are doing with their gradient backgrounds. Maybe this is an old idea and I'm late to the party. Maybe everyone has had this thought at some point. Anyway, I should name the concept anyway, just in case, for my legacy and all that. Something classy, understated, elegant. How about "Robo-Image 3000XL Max"? Or Photorealistic Image Generation Software (PIGS).

SS or any other agency takes microstock as a business and we photographers/designer take it as a art...

Speak for yourself!

I've just had a crazy idea. Probably wouldn't be possible with today's technology, but all the elements of it are currently possible... so might work in the future.

At present, if you want an image of a lady, with blonde hair, sat at a table drinking a cup of coffee... you either have to draw/paint it, photograph it, or use computer graphics. What if you could have a program that will automatically generate a high resolution image with completely random colors for every single pixel. That would result in billions of quintillions of images or something, so not very feasible. 99.99999999999999% of those images would be completely unusable, but if you had every possible combination of colors in every possible combination of pixels... somewhere in there would be a pixel perfect picture of Bruce Willis riding a blue whale, Mars crashing into the Earth, and a blonde lady sat at a table drinking a cup of coffee.

So Google can recognise items, and faces and all that kind of jazz... so what if you had an element to the program that would automatically eliminate the results that don't contain recognisable objects or that don't contain a lady with blonde hair and coffee?

So the storage power, the processing power and the object recognition software aren't there yet, but say in 25, 50, 100 years It's not outside the realms of possibility that I could go into Photoshop CC 2067, go to 'file', 'generate new image' and enter the terms, "lady, blonde, table, coffee", and I'm presented with hundreds of photo-realistic images to choose from. You could then click on the green dress to say you like it, alt-click on her bag to say you don't like it... and you're presented with a a different bunch of hundreds of images to choose from.

Maybe a basic version of that is what these guys are doing with their gradient backgrounds. Maybe this is an old idea and I'm late to the party. Maybe everyone has had this thought at some point. Anyway, I should name the concept anyway, just in case, for my legacy and all that. Something classy, understated, elegant. How about "Robo-Image 3000XL Max"? Or Photorealistic Image Generation Software (PIGS).

Neural networks can already (sort of) do this, and that's a much more efficient approach than generating all possible combinations. But that's besides the point. It's a (imho) good idea, these are just implementation details.

(for example, in you implementation, image recognition might not be able to detect artifacts etc.)

black is the new colorful

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401?src=03_bhvnrwEYlmQ9YihrgHg-1-14

haha

and then the similar images, all the same black gradient, unbelievable that this gets through without help on the inside, or it has to be a machine

which reviewer lets through a black image with the title colorful ?

I think this one is quite good:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401

But then again his earlier work has more flair, like this piece:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569488585

....that is lacking in this phase of his career:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572018122

And then of course there's this series from the middle period:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569763580

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572012527

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569755954

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-571998538

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572011675

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569757397

Which was reworked in his 2016 exhibition "Into the Void":

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569740909

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572016430

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-571994116

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572019715

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569858347

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569740873

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569875261

https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569763526

I guess it's time for another "here's what our customers are asking for", "submit only your best images", email campaign.

Justanotherphotographer, thanks for the wonderful analysis of his work! I'm laughing and crying at the same time ...

Won't this approach backfire for SS?  Buyers arent going to wade thru this dreck when they can go to Adobe, DT, etc. and save time looking at a leaner, more curated collection.  Presumably?

black is the new colorful

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401?src=03_bhvnrwEYlmQ9YihrgHg-1-14

haha

and then the similar images, all the same black gradient, unbelievable that this gets through without help on the inside, or it has to be a machine

which reviewer lets through a black image with the title colorful ?

I never thought I'd say this, but it makes you nostalgic for iStock's old "We're sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock" rejection

black is the new colorful

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401?src=03_bhvnrwEYlmQ9YihrgHg-1-14

haha

and then the similar images, all the same black gradient, unbelievable that this gets through without help on the inside, or it has to be a machine

which reviewer lets through a black image with the title colorful ?

Remarkable that all the similar images appear almost identical and from the same contributor. They only started serious uploading around the end of 2016 (image numbers from 52........ onward) and they already have 35K images in portfolio. As far as I can see, their technique is now find a 'celebration day' and add that to 100+ standard backgrounds that have different colours.

All aside, what is the point of bothering to upload a hundred black gradients when not a single one is ever going to sell?