MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How can the SS database grow so fast?  (Read 7846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2018, 15:30 »
+1
Looks like he does have other colors, 2,599 pages of near duplicate renders. I really should get back into 3D ... lol


« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2018, 18:45 »
+4
I already spent some time sending emails to the SS complaining about these portfolios with almost the same images. Do you know what they answered?

"If you do not like the images use the search filter."

Simple like that.
The SS is behind these portfolios.

This is ridiculous. A joke to be very honest.

« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2018, 23:38 »
+1
I already spent some time sending emails to the SS complaining about these portfolios with almost the same images. Do you know what they answered?

"If you do not like the images use the search filter."

Simple like that.
The SS is behind these portfolios.

This is ridiculous. A joke to be very honest.

Don't worry about it.

It'll come down to money. If/when other people start "copying" this guy, and then shutterstock has portfolios of poeple wioth "1 million" images each, with virtually identical content - and customers complain and threaten to go elsewhere - *then* they will do something about it. Not any time before.

If indeed for the time being they are letting it 'ride' - sounds like they just want bragging rights for being the biggest portfolio site on earth. Once they've gotten that, then they will clean things up.


« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2018, 00:47 »
+6
I have a theory which says Shutterstock themselves are producing these spam images and populating their search. I don't think any sane person will do these kind of stuff.

« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2018, 02:59 »
+4
I already spent some time sending emails to the SS complaining about these portfolios with almost the same images. Do you know what they answered?

"If you do not like the images use the search filter."

Simple like that.
The SS is behind these portfolios.

This is ridiculous. A joke to be very honest.
They won't do anything because they believe their search engine is so intelligent they no longer need QC as it does it for them....meanwhile we all know it doesn't. This is SSs biggest weakness in my view and really could start to drive customers elsewhere.

« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2018, 05:37 »
+2
I have a theory which says Shutterstock themselves are producing these spam images and populating their search. I don't think any sane person will do these kind of stuff.

Microstockers and insanity go hand in hand  :o ;D

« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2018, 06:10 »
0
I have a theory which says Shutterstock themselves are producing these spam images and populating their search. I don't think any sane person will do these kind of stuff.

Microstockers and insanity go hand in hand  :o ;D
Along with conspiracy theories

« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2018, 21:38 »
+3
I feel they are trying to become the next facebook or instagram or whatever I don't know. Its just a matter of time when they will drop the entire review process and reduce royalties like istock.

Matter of time? that has already happened a couple years ago. $1.50 video is the next step. First the photos, then illustrations, now video. Why can't anyone see the repeat cycle. Make money from your work, then too many files, too many people, only enough buyers for much less of your work. This is a dead end full of empty promises. Microstock is so over.

« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2018, 00:42 »
+2
Hahaha! my God!  worst example of a port I have ever seen, worse then the pot-smoking port! and all the weed!...shows you what ambitions SS house nowadays!...actually I find it rather disgusting and insulting.

OM

« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2018, 18:31 »
+1
261 pages = 26,100 images and not 261,000. Still POS is an excellent description.

« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2018, 01:35 »
+3
I have a theory which says Shutterstock themselves are producing these spam images and populating their search. I don't think any sane person will do these kind of stuff.

Microstockers and insanity go hand in hand  :o ;D
Along with conspiracy theories

No point in conspiracy theories anymore its got beyond that. Just a pityfull and embarrassing place nowadays and thats weather you earn good or bad. Just pathetic!

« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2018, 04:08 »
0
261 pages = 26,100 images and not 261,000. Still POS is an excellent description.

It's just a search. His gallery has 2597 pages at the moment

H2O

« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2018, 06:08 »
+8
Unbelievable that anyone can even consider uploading one version of this bookcase let alone 2,599 pages of duplicates.

I cannot understand what is going on, I have had files rejected recently for being similar and they are not anywhere near this crap.

It really makes me wonder if its worth carrying uploading to SS.

« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2018, 09:21 »
+2
Unbelievable that anyone can even consider uploading one version of this bookcase let alone 2,599 pages of duplicates.

I cannot understand what is going on, I have had files rejected recently for being similar and they are not anywhere near this crap.

It really makes me wonder if its worth carrying uploading to SS.

Well, it all depends on your numbers. I am definitely not sure this portfolio makes any profit, due to the low quality.

I often wonder if SS is worth it looking at the low quality of some stuff on it, and then I remember it's my highest microstock source of revenue, and the second RPI, so I continue...

« Reply #39 on: June 15, 2018, 09:16 »
+1
Looks like he does have other colors, 2,599 pages of near duplicate renders. I really should get back into 3D ... lol

I stopped at 20 pages of the book shelf. How, no why does SS accept these? If it's all about numbers, the plan seems terribly flawed. Opening a new curated site sounds like a good answer. Use BS and SS to bring in new customers and then sell them on the better quality for more from the new place. This guy isn't hurting my sales, nothing he has will take away one download, but it just make SS look terrible and trashy.

« Reply #40 on: June 18, 2018, 10:18 »
+3
I got out of SS long ago and couldn't care less what happens to that company.  But these crazy "portfolios" really have me curious - what's actually going on?  Obviously no one is sitting at a computer uploading thousands of nearly identical renderings, and SS isn't paying anyone to inspect them.  They're either produced internally, or by someone with an insider connection, and loaded directly into the system. 

Are there buyers who actually need something like this, to assemble a composite image for an ad?   Maybe they need a black shelf at a specific angle?


U11


« Reply #41 on: June 18, 2018, 15:37 »
+2
As many may know SS is working with IBM about using AI, so those crazy portfolios can be an AI test data, or AI produced "artwork"   


« Reply #42 on: June 18, 2018, 16:21 »
+1
As many may know SS is working with IBM about using AI, so those crazy portfolios can be an AI test data, or AI produced "artwork"

I'm sure companies like SS think they see big money in renderings generated by so-called "AI".  What would a fine microstock company like SS enjoy more than putting photographers and vector artists completely out of business?   Yes, these images could be something like that. 

« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2018, 11:38 »
0
There are apparently also photographers who upload truck loads of duplicates and near duplicates. Look at this portfolio, the duplicates start around page 3:

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/urs%20a%20flueeler

The quality of many of the photos is also shockingly low, with colour cast, tilts etc. It's as if most of the photos are jpegs straight out of the camera. Makes me wonder if there's any quality control at all at SS.

What the photographer achieves here is to fill up the first pages in any search, pushing those of us with one or two shots of each motive back to page one zillion. No wonder my sales are going down. If this is the new policy, I might as well give up, buy a few rolls of Tri-X and enjoy life in the slow lane. I'm not going to compete on this level.

« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2018, 12:12 »
0
As many may know SS is working with IBM about using AI, so those crazy portfolios can be an AI test data, or AI produced "artwork"

I'm sure companies like SS think they see big money in renderings generated by so-called "AI".  What would a fine microstock company like SS enjoy more than putting photographers and vector artists completely out of business?   Yes, these images could be something like that.
AGREE!!!

« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2018, 20:02 »
+1
As many may know SS is working with IBM about using AI, so those crazy portfolios can be an AI test data, or AI produced "artwork"

I'm sure companies like SS think they see big money in renderings generated by so-called "AI".  What would a fine microstock company like SS enjoy more than putting photographers and vector artists completely out of business?   Yes, these images could be something like that.
AGREE!!!

Most of the products shown in the Ikea catalogue are 3D renderings. No photographer needed    :'(

« Reply #46 on: July 01, 2018, 20:11 »
+1
Was looking on SS forum database going Back 3 years and found this Posted By a old friend.
 I would go for this in a heartbeat.
 Quote"I'm beginning to think that a limit on contributor accounts - 1,000 images and 1,000 clips - with each contributor forced to cull their own account if we wanted to upload new images, would be a better approach.  Say you've maxed out at 1,000 images and you have 20 you want to upload.  So find 20 images that have never sold, delete them, and upload new content.  The content would always be fresh, always changing, and it would limit the number of white 3D boxes, bowls of tapioca, thought bubbles, and word clouds (for example) someone could upload.  Or if someone only wanted a thousand similars in their port, they could corner the market on white 3D boxes. 

 

It would certainly level the playing field between individual contributors and image mills.  "

« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2018, 00:43 »
0
Was looking on SS forum database going Back 3 years and found this Posted By a old friend.
 I would go for this in a heartbeat.
 Quote"I'm beginning to think that a limit on contributor accounts - 1,000 images and 1,000 clips - with each contributor forced to cull their own account if we wanted to upload new images, would be a better approach.  Say you've maxed out at 1,000 images and you have 20 you want to upload.  So find 20 images that have never sold, delete them, and upload new content.  The content would always be fresh, always changing, and it would limit the number of white 3D boxes, bowls of tapioca, thought bubbles, and word clouds (for example) someone could upload.  Or if someone only wanted a thousand similars in their port, they could corner the market on white 3D boxes. 

 

It would certainly level the playing field between individual contributors and image mills.  "
I used to think at a certain point the agencies would cull non selling and dated images but it seems to be all about being able to boast amount a huge number of images...which supposedly increases choice....however the effectiveness of "intelligent" search engines is hugely overrated so it just increases more of the same in search returns.

« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2018, 04:22 »
0
Was looking on SS forum database going Back 3 years and found this Posted By a old friend.
 I would go for this in a heartbeat.
 Quote"I'm beginning to think that a limit on contributor accounts - 1,000 images and 1,000 clips - with each contributor forced to cull their own account if we wanted to upload new images, would be a better approach.  Say you've maxed out at 1,000 images and you have 20 you want to upload.  So find 20 images that have never sold, delete them, and upload new content.  The content would always be fresh, always changing, and it would limit the number of white 3D boxes, bowls of tapioca, thought bubbles, and word clouds (for example) someone could upload.  Or if someone only wanted a thousand similars in their port, they could corner the market on white 3D boxes. 


It would certainly level the playing field between individual contributors and image mills.  "

Not a good idea as it would also level the playing field between rubbish content and good content.

A combination of the last two posts would be good. So culling anything that hasn't sold for three to four years (needs to be a few years to give seasonal images a good chance) plus a limit based on sales or even better sale through rate. Sale through rate would be the percentage of your portfolio that actually sells in a given period (say in the last 12 months). Now that would make people clear up their portfolio.

Actually even simpler, your uploads freeze until your STR hits say 50%, then you can keep uploading as long as you stay above that. Easy peasy and solves all the problems in one step.

« Reply #49 on: July 02, 2018, 04:36 »
0
Was looking on SS forum database going Back 3 years and found this Posted By a old friend.
 I would go for this in a heartbeat.
 Quote"I'm beginning to think that a limit on contributor accounts - 1,000 images and 1,000 clips - with each contributor forced to cull their own account if we wanted to upload new images, would be a better approach.  Say you've maxed out at 1,000 images and you have 20 you want to upload.  So find 20 images that have never sold, delete them, and upload new content.  The content would always be fresh, always changing, and it would limit the number of white 3D boxes, bowls of tapioca, thought bubbles, and word clouds (for example) someone could upload.  Or if someone only wanted a thousand similars in their port, they could corner the market on white 3D boxes. 


It would certainly level the playing field between individual contributors and image mills.  "

Not a good idea as it would also level the playing field between rubbish content and good content.

A combination of the last two posts would be good. So culling anything that hasn't sold for three to four years (needs to be a few years to give seasonal images a good chance) plus a limit based on sales or even better sale through rate. Sale through rate would be the percentage of your portfolio that actually sells in a given period (say in the last 12 months). Now that would make people clear up their portfolio.

Actually even simpler, your uploads freeze until your STR hits say 50%, then you can keep uploading as long as you stay above that. Easy peasy and solves all the problems in one step.
I believe some sites do/did have an upload quota based on your success so would give everyone a chance to contribute still but the better your success rate  the more you can submit...not going to happen though ;-).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2573 Views
Last post July 25, 2006, 19:14
by nscotta
31 Replies
9171 Views
Last post October 28, 2009, 19:25
by yuliang11
10 Replies
3594 Views
Last post October 30, 2009, 15:21
by gostwyck
12 Replies
4459 Views
Last post March 17, 2010, 02:53
by hofhoek
1 Replies
496 Views
Last post September 23, 2018, 20:26
by helloitsme

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors