pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Image spam?  (Read 22242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« Reply #125 on: November 04, 2015, 19:21 »
0
How many keywords does he have? 5 million? Thought the limit was 50?

Edited to add: It must be the translation. It looks like my images also have 5 million spanish keywords.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2015, 19:35 by Shelma1 »



OM

« Reply #127 on: November 16, 2015, 06:09 »
+1
Apparently "Doug Shutter" is a real person named Nathan.

Here's the Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/stock.potography

This is in the FB "About" section:

"Hi. I'm Nathan.

 I'm in love with imagery, storytelling & admittedly...Marijuana. I want to learn all about this plant and the meaning(s) attached to it.
 I will travel across the country researching and photographing the topic of American Marijuana.
 My initial goal is to build a facebook community. To learn and plan. I love your images and stories! Anything 'American Marijuana.' Please keep sharing.

 Thank you all so much.
 Nathan"

No doubt Nathan and SS see the future of weed becoming huge; see themselves as getting 'in' on the ground floor....maybe they even met one another at the University of Oaksterdam.  ;D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/business-is-booming-at-the-harvard-of-pot-in-california/2015/11/15/e1fd0cb8-78fb-11e5-bc80-9091021aeb69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_oaksterdam930p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
« Last Edit: November 16, 2015, 06:17 by OM »

« Reply #128 on: November 16, 2015, 10:51 »
+7
The guy has no short-term memory left, so he gets up every day and does 100 more photos of the same bag of pot he's been shooting for 6 months, not realizing he already has 10,000 on line. 

« Reply #129 on: November 16, 2015, 11:14 »
0
The guy has no short-term memory left, so he gets up every day and does 100 more photos of the same bag of pot he's been shooting for 6 months, not realizing he already has 10,000 on line.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D   a day in the life of a contributor/reviewer/shareholder of ss
story continues...
he stumbles into the ss office, opens his laptop and see all these new 100 photos
and approves all of it.
his boss comes slithers in the ss office , and applauds the 10,000 new images today
not realising many of it are marijuana photos
... and he invites his buddy for another joint-meeting

« Reply #130 on: December 03, 2015, 11:04 »
0

« Reply #131 on: December 03, 2015, 13:38 »
0
Spammers coming from mostly 2015-2014. Its a new wave from third World.
Vector spammers making mostly black ugly clipart icons.
Here is some new spammer:

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html
This is the most intresting:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?

Now this is 420 000 Spam Pictures from mostly 2015 - 2014, from 13 vector "artist". How many spammer are in total?
My soul crying.
it would be best to fire them all.


This is a serious issue i was worried about when an agency has no incentive to police their library for misuse. The numbers of files they have in their library is more important than the integrity of the library itself. What else do you expect from a company whose own founder took thousands of garbage snap shots himself to start this library the first year.

« Reply #132 on: December 03, 2015, 13:51 »
0
Spammers coming from mostly 2015-2014. Its a new wave from third World.
Vector spammers making mostly black ugly clipart icons.
Here is some new spammer:

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html
This is the most intresting:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?

Now this is 420 000 Spam Pictures from mostly 2015 - 2014, from 13 vector "artist". How many spammer are in total?
My soul crying.
it would be best to fire them all.


This is a serious issue i was worried about when an agency has no incentive to police their library for misuse. The numbers of files they have in their library is more important than the integrity of the library itself. What else do you expect from a company whose own founder took thousands of garbage snap shots himself to start this library the first year.


I think that this is not a big deal, unless you upload icons, so you have big competition with this kind of spammers.

Most of profiles just stop upload (are inactive now), so they think that upload a huge number of icons was a good idea but then they see that images can only be founded in last pages searches so there is not good earining with all of this.

« Reply #133 on: December 03, 2015, 14:03 »
0
Shutterstock is a awful awful company! I have not uploaded anything new in ages. After Shutterstocks newest agreement update they are by far the most evil stock company on the planet!

« Reply #134 on: December 03, 2015, 14:40 »
+1
...

This is a serious issue i was worried about when an agency has no incentive to police their library for misuse. The numbers of files they have in their library is more important than the integrity of the library itself. What else do you expect from a company whose own founder took thousands of garbage snap shots himself to start this library the first year.

I think that this is not a big deal, unless you upload icons, so you have big competition with this kind of spammers.

Most of profiles just stop upload (are inactive now), so they think that upload a huge number of icons was a good idea but then they see that images can only be founded in last pages searches so there is not good earining with all of this.

Lets say this is happening. Then others start to think ok, this person is doing it. I'm gonna start doing it in order to compete so we are both abusing. Then lots of others are abusing the system. Then so much junk gets in that any viable new files get so buried in the new rubbish uploads they never even have a chance to compete in the first place. I feel like thats whats been happening recently in shutterstock so i have stopped uploading here as i know my files are very commercial yet some of them don't get seen.

« Reply #135 on: December 03, 2015, 14:50 »
0
...

This is a serious issue i was worried about when an agency has no incentive to police their library for misuse. The numbers of files they have in their library is more important than the integrity of the library itself. What else do you expect from a company whose own founder took thousands of garbage snap shots himself to start this library the first year.

I think that this is not a big deal, unless you upload icons, so you have big competition with this kind of spammers.

Most of profiles just stop upload (are inactive now), so they think that upload a huge number of icons was a good idea but then they see that images can only be founded in last pages searches so there is not good earining with all of this.

Lets say this is happening. Then others start to think ok, this person is doing it. I'm gonna start doing it in order to compete so we are both abusing. Then lots of others are abusing the system. Then so much junk gets in that any viable new files get so buried in the new rubbish uploads they never even have a chance to compete in the first place. I feel like thats whats been happening recently in shutterstock so i have stopped uploading here as i know my files are very commercial yet some of them don't get seen.

Well, im agree with that

« Reply #136 on: December 03, 2015, 15:16 »
+1
Shutterstock is a awful awful company! I have not uploaded anything new in ages. After Shutterstocks newest agreement update they are by far the most evil stock company on the planet!
What were the issues with the  latest agreement? I have short memory!

« Reply #137 on: December 28, 2015, 11:10 »
0
I don't think I've ever seen a portfoio this large:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=aarden

edit: never mind.  looks like a gallery of some sort.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2015, 11:13 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #138 on: December 28, 2015, 14:17 »
0
Google translate tells me that aarden is Dutch for earthen, so I think it's just a search for earth, not a gallery. If I type in "fenetre", for example, I get a results page of over a million windows, even though my language is set to English

« Reply #139 on: December 28, 2015, 14:20 »
0
Ah.  Good call.

Micro4

« Reply #140 on: December 28, 2015, 14:33 »
+1
SS can not be doing this to 'pump their numbers'.

If they wanted to pump the numbers we would not be getting so many 'Out Of Focus' rejections even when the photo is tac sharp.

There must be another reason so much crap is being accepted.

« Reply #141 on: December 28, 2015, 15:55 »
+1
SS can not be doing this to 'pump their numbers'.

If they wanted to pump the numbers we would not be getting so many 'Out Of Focus' rejections even when the photo is tac sharp.

There must be another reason so much crap is being accepted.

yes it sure looks fishy why regular contributors get a whole batch rejected with
no matter what , there is a problem with your photo.
according to the ss thread of complaints, these are coming from ppl who know how to process
photos for years... but suddenly
it is mostly OOF. if not, it is poor lighting , even if shadows are transparent. if all is perfect,
it is composition. so no matter what , the rejection still stand for these regular contributor
who suddenly forgot how to focus, WB, composition and contract some shaky hand disability.

but marijuana dude walks in with thousands without being curated.
who can solve this million dollar, i mean million image mystery???


« Reply #142 on: December 28, 2015, 16:10 »
0

oh also, i forgot to mention this... 
anyone noticed your approved images are being edited to remove category and most of the keywords even if relevant. eg. for a safari outdoor zoo park
i had most of my keywords removed to leave only  zoo and animal
and my category of  animal / outdoor park was deleted to leave only outdoor park

not sure if it's a glitch because my other batches are not edited like that.
can it be the same reviewer rejector who if you're lucky to get approved, your photos won't sell
anyway because the keywords and other cateogry are removed???

i found it by accident because i wanted to use the same description and keywords.

« Reply #143 on: December 29, 2015, 00:23 »
+2
Probably SS just need more marijuana stuff, but does not need
more Zoo pics. Less people have access to marijuana than
To the Zoo. IMHO ???

« Reply #144 on: December 29, 2015, 11:20 »
+2
I'm sorry but the guy with the 35000 weed images still wins !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #145 on: January 04, 2016, 08:25 »
0


Lets say this is happening. Then others start to think ok, this person is doing it. I'm gonna start doing it in order to compete so we are both abusing. Then lots of others are abusing the system. Then so much junk gets in that any viable new files get so buried in the new rubbish uploads they never even have a chance to compete in the first place. I feel like thats whats been happening recently in shutterstock so i have stopped uploading here as i know my files are very commercial yet some of them don't get seen.
Exactly my thoughts.
I'm exclusive on IS, mostly icon sets, and this is exactly what is happening over there. I was thinking of giving up exclusivity and uploading to SS instead as everything over there is now dominated by a few spammers but if it's just as bad on SS then there's no point.
I guess it's a case of either join in the spamming or become a photo contributor instead.
Are there any sites left which puts quality over quantity?

BTW, there is a contributor on IS called crispyicon but that's not me. 
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 10:40 by crispy »

« Reply #146 on: January 04, 2016, 08:40 »
+1
I'm sorry but the guy with the 35000 weed images still wins !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably SS just need more marijuana stuff, but does not need
more Zoo pics. Less people have access to marijuana than
To the Zoo. IMHO ???

exactamento...
as i said in another thread. it's very easy to get 100% approval/rejection

approval (levels and focus must be spot on) (your black , grey, white must be that)
rejection (bottom of screen has anything chopped off or out of focus)(sky is not blue)

exception, where for sure 100% approval - (subject is smoking weed or someone is offering the reviewer a kilo of weed, tomato, apple... best to add a note to the reviewer on this)
 8) 8) 8)

btw, there is no human reviewer, it is a robot, that is why when you log in,
it wants to be sure YOU ARE NOT A ROBOT...
because they do not want you to sense that they too are robots at ss

 ;) ;) ;)


« Reply #147 on: January 05, 2016, 07:22 »
+1
This is really really annoying.
Anyway, from a portofolio of 60k+ images it's impossible not to generate a minimum of 50-60+ sales/day.
I think it's simple math.
That still counts for 600$+/month on Shutterstock.
I don't think any of these portofolio makes less than 600$/month.
I used to sell a lot of crap (not repetitive crap) but... crap when I had a poor technical level.
So, my guess would be that it's relevant for them to spam with this s**t if they earn a little living from it.


« Reply #149 on: January 09, 2016, 13:13 »
+1
Amusingly, this user's name is popular.vector! There are 64,723 items in their portfolio and it's about 100 or so objects presented in endless variations of box color & shape, background color & shape. It's mind-numblngly boring repetition of super-simple objects, each one to a file. Does that mean the trend on SS of ever-increasing collections of icons in one file is pass?

http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=2939971&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

About the only good thing I can think of is that the keywords are pretty close (so there are a few misplaced words like computer on an icon of an eye dropper, but they're mostly OK)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
31 Replies
5931 Views
Last post July 29, 2009, 16:08
by puravida
11 Replies
3030 Views
Last post January 30, 2011, 11:18
by jbarber873
12 Replies
2304 Views
Last post July 12, 2013, 03:28
by Leo Blanchette
11 Replies
1136 Views
Last post July 30, 2013, 05:28
by plrang
57 Replies
6461 Views
Last post September 23, 2013, 07:07
by Ron

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors