MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: fifty million stock images on Shutterstock 50 Million!  (Read 27666 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: April 24, 2018, 05:14 »
0
About the algorithm, the attitude of SS isn't completely stupid.

If we take the issue from their point of view, they need to give incentives to everybody. Buyers want good content, if possible various, in order not to look too ridiculous.

To satisfy this demand, SS will need suppliers: experimented ones whose pictures are solid values, that have been generating good revenues for a lot of time. But these photographers need incentives to publish new content, and new challengers need as well to get their chances, in order to motivate them to increase their supply.

Therefore, SS needs to constantly adjust two parameters, that we could call interestingness and freshness, that are very often contradictory. If you favour interestingness, new contents won't have their chance to generate revenue, as old pictures with proven records will take it all. If you favour freshness, you are not sure of the quality.

From what I have observed over the past months, SS has constantly played on this, and I'm not sure they will stop, as they constantly need to incentive both the old and new content.

I have to admit it's a pretty unpleasant feeling when I see my daily revenue decreasing by 60% in less than a week, but it's still a situation that is preferable to many other platforms. IS, in comparison, is overly focusing on interestingness. If you get lucky, one or two photos will get a few sales after their upload, and these few pictures, basically, will make most of the revenue. It's cool when it's working, but it's definitely less stable than SS.

ss need to clean database of poor shots and bad keyword. is not possible keep on like this.

Seen from SS point of view, I would bet it's mainly a question of Server costs. Apart from this, as long as their algorithm is able to find the best matching pictures, having too many pictures isn't such a big deal, given that they are additional potential supply for clients.

Then, from a contributor point of view, SS focusing on quality could be a good thing... only if two conditions are met:
-the royalties increase, because quality takes time, especially in editing, and therefore costs money to produce
-they hire competent, and well trained people, to reviez the work, to avoid having frivolous rejection reasons, like mistaking a bird as dust, or requesting a model release for a picture of an animal.

Will Shutterstock evolve in this direction? I heavily doubt...


« Reply #101 on: April 29, 2018, 20:14 »
0
I agree.

« Reply #102 on: June 02, 2018, 07:40 »
+1

198,594,376 images already, just a couple days to hit 200 million... TWO HUNDRED MILLION

« Reply #103 on: June 11, 2018, 21:20 »
0
Why your sales have capped, gone flat, no growth. What did you expect endless new sales, endless competition growing, new uploads way past the buyers needs.

200,436,643 royalty-free stock images now. That's the cap, the limit and the end.

« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2018, 00:07 »
+1
And, they could easily dump 100 million of crap. but that would be completely cost prohibitive.So. the fat lady has sung her song and here we are.I would pay to hear why they wanted to kill the site.

« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2018, 00:29 »
+1
And, they could easily dump 100 million of crap. but that would be completely cost prohibitive.So. the fat lady has sung her song and here we are.I would pay to hear why they wanted to kill the site.

Bleed it dry and cram the last drop of blood out of the business!  they have made their money and now its time to just take the lolly and run. Screw customers and some 50K members!
Hahaha!  glad this site only represent 15% of my income!

« Reply #106 on: June 13, 2018, 03:04 »
+1

198,594,376 images already, just a couple days to hit 200 million... TWO HUNDRED MILLION

Onwards to 300 million see you in 6 months  ;D

« Reply #107 on: June 15, 2018, 09:02 »
0
And, they could easily dump 100 million of crap. but that would be completely cost prohibitive.So. the fat lady has sung her song and here we are.I would pay to hear why they wanted to kill the site.

Best you have posted in years. Why would SS intentionally kill a good site by lowering standards?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
6986 Views
Last post October 25, 2006, 19:32
by StockManiac
16 Replies
6334 Views
Last post July 04, 2008, 12:25
by hobart
7 Replies
3108 Views
Last post February 03, 2012, 20:07
by mtilghma
12 Replies
3187 Views
Last post April 12, 2013, 14:31
by Sadstock
1 Replies
2138 Views
Last post January 16, 2015, 04:03
by Sean Locke Photography

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors