MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Good Images not making it in SS Popular Page  (Read 2194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bad Company

« on: August 28, 2017, 18:43 »
0
Feel free to blast me if I am off base here. 

Why is it that some of my best new images are kicking butt on Adobe stock/FT and iStock but they are not even making it on the first 10 pages of SS? Yeah, I know that millions of images are flooding SS monthly but I have to believe that is also happening on Adobe Stock/FT and iStock.  Something major is wrong at SS at least in my eyes on new images being submit. A few years back folks told me that if an image was good (technical and keywords) it will rise to the top. I don't buy that anymore...


angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2017, 18:54 »
+3
I like Adobe/FT because new images have a chance there. It is very refreshing but they are still a low earner.

I have no idea what is going on with the SS search engine. People on the forum will tell you that you need to make better images but I don't believe it. Something is very wrong with the algorithm.

« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2017, 18:59 »
+2
There has always been an element of timing and luck in an image making it in this business. Perhaps SS has the search skewed against newer images right now or maybe you just haven't gotten lucky. There are 1.2 million lottery tickets submitted every week, so it isn't a guaranteed thing. It sure is frustrating though. It was a lot more motivating to upload a batch and get sales of many of them the day they were accepted.

Bad Company

« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2017, 19:06 »
0
I've seen a fair share of the images produced by the folks on this site- they are real good! So quality of the image isn't a factor with SS.  Maybe the lotto theory is right. If so, that is horrible for both the buyers and sellers.

« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2017, 19:40 »
+2
Less than a few weeks ago, I was really surprised to find that I had two photos selling on SS just several days after I uploaded them. Actually, I think one of them had been on SS less than several days. I think I was just lucky. Most of the content I sell is a fair bit older. Regardless, sales have almost come to a stop now.

« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2017, 00:09 »
+2
Feel free to blast me if I am off base here. 

Why is it that some of my best new images are kicking butt on Adobe stock/FT and iStock but they are not even making it on the first 10 pages of SS? Yeah, I know that millions of images are flooding SS monthly but I have to believe that is also happening on Adobe Stock/FT and iStock.  Something major is wrong at SS at least in my eyes on new images being submit. A few years back folks told me that if an image was good (technical and keywords) it will rise to the top. I don't buy that anymore...

You really think that SS or FT cares if good or bad images???  they just want uploads, uploads and more uploads. I doubt very much their reviewers are capable of spotting good images nowadays?
Uploads means assets and thats what its all about!

« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2017, 04:15 »
0
Why is it that some of my best new images are kicking butt on Adobe stock/FT and iStock but they are not even making it on the first 10 pages of SS?

Well, most searches will yield around 50-100% more results on Shutterstock compared to Fotolia. That is one good reason.

« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2017, 04:45 »
+3
Feel free to blast me if I am off base here. 

Why is it that some of my best new images are kicking butt on Adobe stock/FT and iStock but they are not even making it on the first 10 pages of SS? Yeah, I know that millions of images are flooding SS monthly but I have to believe that is also happening on Adobe Stock/FT and iStock.  Something major is wrong at SS at least in my eyes on new images being submit. A few years back folks told me that if an image was good (technical and keywords) it will rise to the top. I don't buy that anymore...

You really think that SS or FT cares if good or bad images???  they just want uploads, uploads and more uploads. I doubt very much their reviewers are capable of spotting good images nowadays?
Uploads means assets and thats what its all about!
Its funny how these supposedly super modern industries make basic old fashioned errors....I remember countless years back talking to auditors and one of their biggest issues was companies supposedly having $$$$ in assets which in fact were warehouses of obsolete stuff that was virtually worthless. Like millions of images that will probably never sell (and in fact SS don't even own them ;-) )

« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2017, 05:50 »
+1
Feel free to blast me if I am off base here. 

Why is it that some of my best new images are kicking butt on Adobe stock/FT and iStock but they are not even making it on the first 10 pages of SS? Yeah, I know that millions of images are flooding SS monthly but I have to believe that is also happening on Adobe Stock/FT and iStock.  Something major is wrong at SS at least in my eyes on new images being submit. A few years back folks told me that if an image was good (technical and keywords) it will rise to the top. I don't buy that anymore...

You really think that SS or FT cares if good or bad images???  they just want uploads, uploads and more uploads. I doubt very much their reviewers are capable of spotting good images nowadays?
Uploads means assets and thats what its all about!
Its funny how these supposedly super modern industries make basic old fashioned errors....I remember countless years back talking to auditors and one of their biggest issues was companies supposedly having $$$$ in assets which in fact were warehouses of obsolete stuff that was virtually worthless. Like millions of images that will probably never sell (and in fact SS don't even own them ;-) )
I've always presumed that the millions of images that will never sell must be very beneficial with Google.  Or perhaps the bigger collection entices more buyers?  Otherwise, why are the sites with the most images so much more popular than those that were more selective?  Can't think of any other reason to host all those images, as it must get expensive.

« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2017, 05:57 »
0
@sharpshot, it's more about SEO. Bigger sites have more food for search engines if optimized right.

« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2017, 05:58 »
0
Feel free to blast me if I am off base here. 

Why is it that some of my best new images are kicking butt on Adobe stock/FT and iStock but they are not even making it on the first 10 pages of SS? Yeah, I know that millions of images are flooding SS monthly but I have to believe that is also happening on Adobe Stock/FT and iStock.  Something major is wrong at SS at least in my eyes on new images being submit. A few years back folks told me that if an image was good (technical and keywords) it will rise to the top. I don't buy that anymore...

You really think that SS or FT cares if good or bad images???  they just want uploads, uploads and more uploads. I doubt very much their reviewers are capable of spotting good images nowadays?
Uploads means assets and thats what its all about!
Its funny how these supposedly super modern industries make basic old fashioned errors....I remember countless years back talking to auditors and one of their biggest issues was companies supposedly having $$$$ in assets which in fact were warehouses of obsolete stuff that was virtually worthless. Like millions of images that will probably never sell (and in fact SS don't even own them ;-) )
I've always presumed that the millions of images that will never sell must be very beneficial with Google.  Or perhaps the bigger collection entices more buyers?  Otherwise, why are the sites with the most images so much more popular than those that were more selective?  Can't think of any other reason to host all those images, as it must get expensive.
I think its a good "headline" to say you have the most images to choose from and it maybe impresses investors but now sales do seem to be flatlining at SS I think people might start to look more closely. I doubt with modern tech it costs much but I think they really need to up their search engine quality to deliver a good buyer experience.

« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2017, 06:16 »
0
Feel free to blast me if I am off base here. 

Why is it that some of my best new images are kicking butt on Adobe stock/FT and iStock but they are not even making it on the first 10 pages of SS? Yeah, I know that millions of images are flooding SS monthly but I have to believe that is also happening on Adobe Stock/FT and iStock.  Something major is wrong at SS at least in my eyes on new images being submit. A few years back folks told me that if an image was good (technical and keywords) it will rise to the top. I don't buy that anymore...

You really think that SS or FT cares if good or bad images???  they just want uploads, uploads and more uploads. I doubt very much their reviewers are capable of spotting good images nowadays?
Uploads means assets and thats what its all about!
Its funny how these supposedly super modern industries make basic old fashioned errors....I remember countless years back talking to auditors and one of their biggest issues was companies supposedly having $$$$ in assets which in fact were warehouses of obsolete stuff that was virtually worthless. Like millions of images that will probably never sell (and in fact SS don't even own them ;-)

Spot on!!  its our assets but they dont seem to think at all in those lines! ;D

Bad Company

« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2017, 08:43 »
+2
Be interesting to see if Shutter decides to remove a lot of the images that have never sold. The 'House Cleaning' should happen soon...

« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2017, 08:48 »
+1
Be interesting to see if Shutter decides to remove a lot of the images that have never sold. The 'House Cleaning' should happen soon...
The only site I'm aware of that does this is DT who give you the option of donating free files after 4 years....of course everyone moans about it ;-). I think it actually makes sense, of course except for my files which are undiscovered masterpieces.

« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2017, 08:50 »
+1
Be interesting to see if Shutter decides to remove a lot of the images that have never sold. The 'House Cleaning' should happen soon...
Why would you think that?  They obviously want more images, hence almost no QC standards and an easy contributors entry test compared to previous years.  I can't see them accepting almost everything, then removing most of it.

Bad Company

« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2017, 09:16 »
0
Be interesting to see if Shutter decides to remove a lot of the images that have never sold. The 'House Cleaning' should happen soon...
Why would you think that?  They obviously want more images, hence almost no QC standards and an easy contributors entry test compared to previous years.  I can't see them accepting almost everything, then removing most of it.

Once their balance sheet starts going south they will question their business model. It has to be slipping already compared to a year or two ago.  Most businesses will do a major re-org to included their inventory and personnel.

« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2017, 12:16 »
0
Be interesting to see if Shutter decides to remove a lot of the images that have never sold. The 'House Cleaning' should happen soon...
Why would you think that?  They obviously want more images, hence almost no QC standards and an easy contributors entry test compared to previous years.  I can't see them accepting almost everything, then removing most of it.

Once their balance sheet starts going south they will question their business model. It has to be slipping already compared to a year or two ago.  Most businesses will do a major re-org to included their inventory and personnel.
Yep I think if their next quarterly report disappoints serious questions will be asked.


angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2017, 13:42 »
0
Well I sure hope the next quarterly report will "disappoint" so questions will be asked! I'm sure they will fluff it up somehow though.

« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2017, 14:01 »
0
Didn't the last one blame reduce profits on increased Royalty Payments??? You couldn't make it up. Except they did.  :(  Expect them now to work on 'reducing Royalty Payments' to redress this supposed issue....!

« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2017, 14:10 »
0
Didn't the last one blame reduce profits on increased Royalty Payments??? You couldn't make it up. Except they did.  :(  Expect them now to work on 'reducing Royalty Payments' to redress this supposed issue....!
I didnt really understand much of the last two phone conferences complete management talk fog. What they cant hide is share price down from 59 to 31.5 in a year

« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2017, 14:11 »
+1
Well I sure hope the next quarterly report will "disappoint" so questions will be asked! I'm sure they will fluff it up somehow though.
They've pulled that trick twice third time will be tricky! Didn't work too well last time when you look at the stock price.

« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2017, 20:55 »
+1
Be interesting to see if Shutter decides to remove a lot of the images that have never sold. The 'House Cleaning' should happen soon...
Why would you think that?  They obviously want more images, hence almost no QC standards and an easy contributors entry test compared to previous years.  I can't see them accepting almost everything, then removing most of it.

Yes.

Above, you also said, "Or perhaps the bigger collection entices more buyers?  Otherwise, why are the sites with the most images so much more popular than those that were more selective?"

I think that it is one thing that observant old timers should have realized from watching this business over the years: Curated collections don't do as well. One underlying rule of microstock: Let the buyers decide what they want. They know better than the curators do.

« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2017, 00:09 »
0
Be interesting to see if Shutter decides to remove a lot of the images that have never sold. The 'House Cleaning' should happen soon...
Why would you think that?  They obviously want more images, hence almost no QC standards and an easy contributors entry test compared to previous years.  I can't see them accepting almost everything, then removing most of it.

Once their balance sheet starts going south they will question their business model. It has to be slipping already compared to a year or two ago.  Most businesses will do a major re-org to included their inventory and personnel.
Yep I think if their next quarterly report disappoints serious questions will be asked.

Maybe not a good idea to base anything on these QR's anymore! Seems you cant trust anything anymore so why should one trust a Quarterly?? look here at the MSG, fair enough we are just a small bunch but there should be one just ONE saying " I dont experience a drop I dont experience bad times) but there isnt and if there is one its somebody with a small port of 500 shots??  nah I dont trust these reports anymore.

« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2017, 00:36 »
0
Be interesting to see if Shutter decides to remove a lot of the images that have never sold. The 'House Cleaning' should happen soon...
Why would you think that?  They obviously want more images, hence almost no QC standards and an easy contributors entry test compared to previous years.  I can't see them accepting almost everything, then removing most of it.

Once their balance sheet starts going south they will question their business model. It has to be slipping already compared to a year or two ago.  Most businesses will do a major re-org to included their inventory and personnel.
Yep I think if their next quarterly report disappoints serious questions will be asked.

Maybe not a good idea to base anything on these QR's anymore! Seems you cant trust anything anymore so why should one trust a Quarterly?? look here at the MSG, fair enough we are just a small bunch but there should be one just ONE saying " I dont experience a drop I dont experience bad times) but there isnt and if there is one its somebody with a small port of 500 shots??  nah I dont trust these reports anymore.
The reports are regulated by the financial  authorities I personally doubt Oringer is risking imprisonment by reporting false poor figures.

« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2017, 01:45 »
0
I always had one image that would take of if I submitted a batch. That hasn't happened in a long time. Or if they do now,they have a very short shelf life.



 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
6019 Views
Last post June 16, 2008, 13:12
by Mormegil
10 Replies
3008 Views
Last post July 16, 2008, 11:56
by tan510jomast
5 Replies
2249 Views
Last post May 08, 2009, 12:59
by melastmohican
6 Replies
737 Views
Last post August 06, 2013, 16:14
by Anita Potter
6 Replies
1364 Views
Last post December 03, 2013, 04:29
by leaf

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors