MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Image spam?  (Read 25203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2015, 16:58 »
0
No, that was my mistake at the beginning.
The theead is abour image spamming,  not keyword spamming.

Similar issue though.  How are these guys getting approved in the first place? And what would it cost to clean this up?

Why would they bother looking at all 50,000,000 images? There's only, what, 60,000 contributors give or take? A couple of editors can get through that, as stated, in a couple of months. How long would it take to find problem contributors when you look at a portfolio and see an entire page of nearly identical shots?

I agree although my comment was actually about keyword spam.  If SS was willing to take a hard line, and drop a contributor on the first instance of image spam they identified, they could really clean house.  I note however that some contributors have many thousands of images, which would take a while to flip through. 

It will never happen, though.  There is obviously no one at SS whose job it is to care about this problem.  They probably don't even see it as a 'problem'. 
« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 20:44 by stockastic »


« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2015, 16:59 »
+2
Don't forget this guy.  He's added even more!
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest


Just added 400 new ones since 2 days ago.


So how is this happening? Has he paid off someone in SS to load this stuff in?  Are we supposed to  believe all this junk passed inspection?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 17:02 by stockastic »

« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2015, 18:04 »
+4
We're seeing the final stage of 'crowdsourcing'.  This is where it ultimately leads.   And with 50 million images already accepted, there's no possibility of cleaning up the inventory.
I think cleaning up the collection would be quite easy actually, a couple of full time employees dedicated to the task could get it under control in a few months. I mean just the icon example I pointed out, that's tens of thousands of images right there, and you issue a serious warning that stops them uploading the same garbage again, that's thousands less images out of the queue every week. So maybe $80000 a year, which is a total drop in the ocean for SS.

But lets face it, it's the opposite of what SS wants to do, they want to inflate the number of images in the collection so they can sell it to share holders. For the same reason Facebook spams up my inbox telling me I have "notifications" when I don't, just to get my login so they can claim a billion people use the site every day or whatever.

Nah, I dare to say It's even simpler, no employees, no developers needed... there are already thousands of people sorting out the images: the customers. They just need to drop the super-unpopular images that nobody even looked at for years. I bet the collection would go down well below 20 mill in a blink...

Rinderart

« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2015, 12:00 »
0
Agree.

« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2015, 19:37 »
+4
Don't forget this guy.  He's added even more!
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest


Just added 400 new ones since 2 days ago.


So how is this happening? Has he paid off someone in SS to load this stuff in?  Are we supposed to  believe all this junk passed inspection?


This guy has to either be tight with someone at SS or works there.  I can't imagine they would otherwise let people do this. It's stupid as hell.  Maybe I can try a test, create 400 text images and see what my reject rate is.

« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2015, 23:42 »
+3
Maybe I am thick, but what does CAR have to do with a picture of pot on a table to begin with?  I know, DRIVE and DEATH are also a stretch.  Never knew anyone to die from smoking or eating pot.  But seriously - CAR???

« Reply #31 on: September 06, 2015, 02:57 »
+2
Maybe he is flogging dope to all the reviewers?  when they go for lunch he is down there getting them all at it and when they come back to office they're so high on the hubbly-bubbly they pass and accept anything and everything ;D

« Reply #32 on: September 06, 2015, 05:27 »
+3

« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2015, 07:17 »
+4
Interesting thread, I said the same things about out of control spamming over on the iStock forums and posted these search results for certain keywords,

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19999283/iStock-spam.jpg

These are actual best match keyword searches, not taken from ports or from date ordered searches. Each batch can run several pages followed by another batch of spam from another contributor.
Being exclusive on iStock I don't usually look at what's going on at SS but having just had a quick browse I'd say standards have indeed dropped dramatically since I last looked a few months ago but I don't think the spamming is any where near as bad as on iStock, yet, at least for illustrations, haven't compared photos.

It seems the whole industry is shooting itself in the foot in the race to the bottom, which is not just about being cheapest but being able to boast about the largest collection. Any algorithm which is supposed to promote better images to the front of searches based on performance is fighting a losing battle, the cream can't rise to the top when it's buried under so much spam.

« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2015, 07:59 »
0
not about keywords

« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2015, 09:01 »
+2
^^^
I didn't say it was about keyword spamming, but that these are the kind image spamming search results that you get, lets say for certain topics, rather than keywords, if it will make you happier.
If you type in a couple of keywords and get 3 pages of very basic similar images from one contributor, how would you describe it?

« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2015, 09:42 »
+3
This pot-text guy just got another boatload of images approved from last night. I am speechless.

« Reply #37 on: September 06, 2015, 11:42 »
+2
The plan at SS - to the extent there ever was a 'plan' - was to use crowdsourcing to get unlimited inventory at minimal cost, then do the heavy lifting in what we call the 'search algorithm', which I'm guessing is by this time a fairly complicated piece of software.  They believed if they hired a bunch of hot-shot young developers, drinking Jolt and acting very Disruptive, that search algorithm would get better and better until somehow it was able to cut through all the spam and junk, and show the buyers exactly what they wanted.  In other words, typical dot-com hype about "AI", and wishful thinking by investors, resulting in many millions of dollars being sunk into a business concept which is ultimately self-limiting and destined to hit a wall at some point.   

In particular, I think they underestimated how much they'd end up being 'played' by technically knowledgeable spammers and, maybe, by good old fashioned corruption. 
« Last Edit: September 06, 2015, 21:48 by stockastic »

« Reply #38 on: September 06, 2015, 14:51 »
+9
This pot-text guy just got another boatload of images approved from last night. I am speechless.

LOL!   In a strange way, maybe this guy is doing us a favour.  Anyone carrying the idea there is still any reason or logic to this game only need to look at this portfolio to see it is become pointless.

« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2015, 08:36 »
+2

« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2015, 09:38 »
+2

OM

« Reply #41 on: September 22, 2015, 07:16 »
0
Don't forget this guy.  He's added even more!
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest


He was obviously stoned when he came up with the idea...


I guess the reviewer might have been also..

Or, he is a reviewer himself.


Then he/she can determine their own earnings from reviewing.....real easy money! Must be difficult to find enough hours in the day to produce the quantity needed to make you a millionaire reviewer though. But I'm sure that completely automated processes could achieve that.  ;D


« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2015, 07:28 »
+3
49000 Icon Why?
newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=243877&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest [nonactive]

104 000 Icon.
newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=802546&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest [nonactive]

They are have 100-200 Icon just change the background, and making 100 000 vector. You are kidding me :). I make 100 icon and i put in 4 pictures. 25 - 25 - 25 - 25 icons. And stop it, no more variations, but the spammer never give up :D

The pictures on shutterstock 80% crap or poor, not quality. Shutterstock must change the business strategy, while the professional contributors give up. The buyers not find easy the quality pictures => not buy pictures, and we have poor earning.
I HATE THE SPAMMERS! WE HATE SPAMMERS!

« Reply #43 on: September 23, 2015, 08:30 »
+2
49000 Icon Why?
newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=243877&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest [nonactive]

104 000 Icon.
newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=802546&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest [nonactive]

They are have 100-200 Icon just change the background, and making 100 000 vector. You are kidding me :). I make 100 icon and i put in 4 pictures. 25 - 25 - 25 - 25 icons. And stop it, no more variations, but the spammer never give up :D

The pictures on shutterstock 80% crap or poor, not quality. Shutterstock must change the business strategy, while the professional contributors give up. The buyers not find easy the quality pictures => not buy pictures, and we have poor earning.
I HATE THE SPAMMERS! WE HATE SPAMMERS!

Oh man awesome. You have to admire the nerve of switching out the backgrounds and reuploading the same simple icons again and again. I wouldn't have the front to do it. Or at least be able to look at myself in the mirror afterwards.


« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2015, 09:30 »
+12
...You have to admire the nerve of switching out the backgrounds and reuploading the same simple icons again and again...

In addition to the perception of unfairness in how different groups of contributors are treated - one group seemingly getting a free pass to upload anything they like and the rest of us getting wrong white balance or out of focus rejections - why would SS allow its collection to be trashed like this?

It had gone from a site that didn't really have the best quality (back in 2004-5-6) to a site with a really good, large collection, great search and visually appealing presentation of results.

Now it's just padding the numbers with this rubbish. Really sad to see.

« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2015, 10:02 »
+3
They allow it to be thrashed because they are complacent. Majority have already made their money an they are sort of just riding with the tide.
I am doing very well at SS but that won't last long if things are not changing.

Itsa a crying shame but the minute they went public, the minute the suits moved in its become just another subs site. They just happen to flaunt more junk then anybody else.
Above examples is just a horrible reminder of what photography shouldn't be and if they were to cull their own files getting rid of embarrassing old junk, they wouldn't be left with more then ten mil images.

« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2015, 10:16 »
0
Why not deleting this crap portfolios, and leave space for professional contributors?  If I were the owner, i fired out these lame contributors. In 1000 new accepted (vectors), 50 is the good work, it is unacceptable.

« Reply #48 on: September 23, 2015, 10:18 »
+3
This pot-text guy just got another boatload of images approved from last night. I am speechless.

I can't decide whether he's making a point or just gone insane surely he can't be generating any significant income....can he. If he does then I guess we've all got it wrong!

« Reply #49 on: September 23, 2015, 11:02 »
+5
We should consider the possibility that this stuff isn't even being submitted, inspected and approved - but that SS has people generating it internally, just to pump up their numbers.  There is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing this.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
31 Replies
6217 Views
Last post July 29, 2009, 16:08
by puravida
11 Replies
3144 Views
Last post January 30, 2011, 11:18
by jbarber873
12 Replies
2445 Views
Last post July 12, 2013, 03:28
by Leo Blanchette
11 Replies
1328 Views
Last post July 30, 2013, 05:28
by plrang
57 Replies
7055 Views
Last post September 23, 2013, 07:07
by Ron

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors