MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Image spam?  (Read 23811 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 23, 2015, 11:18 »
+2
Apart from being taken to the cleaners by the Stock Exchange regulators who would no doubt consider this fraud. They could easily bump up their figures by accepting MY crap.


« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2015, 11:45 »
+5
Apart from being taken to the cleaners by the Stock Exchange regulators who would no doubt consider this fraud. They could easily bump up their figures by accepting MY crap.

Not seeing how that would amount to fraud of any sort.  They're a retailer,  they can sell their own private label products. They can waive inspection for selected contributors.  They can even hire photographers, designers and CAD people and  I don't think it would violate our contributor agreements.   We were never guaranteed a level playing field.  Crowdsourcing was how they got started; now, they're an established seller of imagery and they can source it any way they want.

   
« Last Edit: September 23, 2015, 11:48 by stockastic »

« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2015, 12:09 »
0
If every agency were to cull their collections, removing copies, identicals,  I guess the total images in micro-stock wouldn't even amount to 20 million originals.

If they delete all the copies of the ideas, then not more than 10...images

« Reply #53 on: September 23, 2015, 12:13 »
+2
I believe in their various reports they talk about submissions rather than images. Perhaps it would be one for the lawyers but I think it would be misleading if they included their own content. Anyway I don't believe for a nanosecond they are doing it as they reject plenty of images as this site discusses. Why spend money creating crap images - if they were doing it I think they could come up with something better but they don't want to take on the risk which is borne by us contributors.

« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2015, 12:22 »
+4
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.

For all we know you might be right? nothing surprises me anymore in this business. There is little doubt that SS sales are declining and quite rapidly so. The only reason they keep telling the world about their 60 million images is to impress share-holders not buyers. Contributors are not worth anything they are expendables and can be replaced tomorrow.

The new management don't care about spam, don't care about relations, bugs glitxhes or anything. They will milk the place dry, drain every ounce out of it while they can. Afterwards you couldn't even sell it for a song.

« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2015, 14:10 »
+4
Actually there is lots of doubt that sales are falling, its not what they are reporting to shareholders now that WOULD be fraud. Sales are going up but not as fast as uploads hence a decline for some sellers.

Conspiracy theories are wearing after a time there is lots to complain about the way shutterstock is going without coming up with various bizarre plots that would benefit no one especially shutterstock.

« Reply #56 on: September 23, 2015, 15:02 »
+4
Actually there is lots of doubt that sales are falling, its not what they are reporting to shareholders now that WOULD be fraud. Sales are going up but not as fast as uploads hence a decline for some sellers.

Conspiracy theories are wearing after a time there is lots to complain about the way shutterstock is going without coming up with various bizarre plots that would benefit no one especially shutterstock.

The thing is, it's hard to come up with an explanation for this 'image spam' stuff that doesn't involve someone gaming the system at some level.

« Reply #57 on: September 23, 2015, 15:24 »
+2
I prefer the incompetence over conspiracy approach though I have to agree the review process does seem severely broken. Inspectors who also contribute may be an issue as well as poor quality supervision. I find it strange that SS have so little confidence in their process they ask people to try again if they get rejections - surely they should be stressing the robustness of their system and the unlikelihood that they got it wrong.

« Reply #58 on: September 26, 2015, 07:57 »
+1
Another Icon warrior :)

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html

62000 image from 2014. Full of crap :)

« Reply #59 on: September 26, 2015, 08:00 »
+2
Another Icon warrior :)

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html

62000 image from 2014. Full of crap :)


Not to my taste or hard to do but look like the kind of thing people might use - don't confuse stock with art or technical wizardry

« Reply #60 on: September 26, 2015, 08:27 »
+1
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.

Maybe and maybe not, but one thing appears certain, there is another submission door that the mere mortals cannot use. It is beyond me to grasp how SS would let in such junk in such volume. I can see a few sneaking through but that many is on purpose and submitted most likely in a way that we would never see, whether they know an inspector, are affiliated with SS, is the cousin of Jon, the husband of the front desk associate, the janitor, whatever.

« Reply #61 on: September 26, 2015, 09:14 »
0
62K images in one year?????
that' guy keeps busy with his uploads... how he managed to upload and keyword that much in one year, that's impressive.

Another Icon warrior :)

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html

62000 image from 2014. Full of crap :)

« Reply #62 on: October 05, 2015, 07:35 »
+1
We not sell the new pictures (vectors), while the new vectors 90% is crap, crap icons. Nobody search the vectors in new category, while the news its so crap. I go 10 page to found 1 new good illustration. This ratio is sucks. Nobody search in new category.
Shutterstock have 5 million icon why accepting more this crap?
The best: Spammers whit funny artist name :) Idesign, bestvector, popular vector. Im so angry.

« Reply #63 on: October 05, 2015, 12:29 »
+1
Another Icon warrior :)

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html

62000 image from 2014. Full of crap :)


Not to my taste or hard to do but look like the kind of thing people might use - don't confuse stock with art or technical wizardry


I don't think it's the simplicity that's the issue - repetition with too few changes is the problem. I searched for lamp within this contributor's portfolio and there were over 2,500 items. Endless minor variations on the theme with the same objects - probably 50 submissions would cover everything

http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?searchterm=lamp&submitter=2677336


« Reply #64 on: October 05, 2015, 13:44 »
0
there were over 2,500 items

Yep. Twenty-six pages dedicated to lamp icons. Just your ordinary, garden-variety portfolio!

I'm wondering if any of these have ever showed up on other stock sites. Anybody seen them before? If not, does it mean this dude produced tons of these in one fell swoop just for submission to SS, starting in 2014?

Really strange.

Shelma1

« Reply #65 on: October 05, 2015, 13:53 »
+5
I don't get it, because it's such a waste of time...for the contributor and the reviewers. Is this person happy getting no sales from 64,000 images?

« Reply #66 on: October 06, 2015, 19:20 »
+3
I don't get it, because it's such a waste of time...for the contributor and the reviewers. Is this person happy getting no sales from 64,000 images?

Waste of time and waste of buyers time with all the similar and spam. This is why RPI is not a good way to value income. Somebody who uploads 10 of a subject vs 50 vs this spam. RPI will be different but real earnings might be close.

I'm with Mantis on this. How do all these get past review. Something wrong.


« Reply #67 on: October 06, 2015, 20:46 »
+5
Nobody seemed to like my theory - but I'm saying, these were never reviewed.  SS is having this stuff done internally, or commissioning someone, and loading it directly.  No one is spending time uploading 10s of thousands of things like this, and SS wouldn't pay reviewers to look at it.  Maybe they just want to pad their numbers and reach some new milestone of collection size. Or, maybe they want to show some subset of customers what a vast collection of icons and similar stuff they have.

Of course, I could be wrong.  One way to prove me wrong would be to find the same material on another microstock.

« Reply #68 on: October 07, 2015, 00:38 »
+1
I "image searched" on google with photo of one of this icons, and it only shows shutterstock results.

I also coppied first 20 keywords and put them in the fotolia and istock search and there were no results.

« Reply #69 on: October 07, 2015, 01:05 »
0
Nobody seemed to like my theory - but I'm saying, these were never reviewed.  SS is having this stuff done internally, or commissioning someone, and loading it directly.  No one is spending time uploading 10s of thousands of things like this, and SS wouldn't pay reviewers to look at it.  Maybe they just want to pad their numbers and reach some new milestone of collection size. Or, maybe they want to show some subset of customers what a vast collection of icons and similar stuff they have.

Of course, I could be wrong.  One way to prove me wrong would be to find the same material on another microstock.

I can't buy this theory - they could do what Istock do and accept nearly everything cheapest way to boost numbers.

« Reply #70 on: October 07, 2015, 03:20 »
0
62K images in one year?????
that' guy keeps busy with his uploads... how he managed to upload and keyword that much in one year, that's impressive.



they have a large portfolio and it is keyworded over the years and then they send a harddrive  to shutter who just add the protfolio to the database. . or they are a factory, with a few people uploading 177 images per day. not that difficult


50%

« Reply #72 on: October 15, 2015, 08:27 »
0
You can produce easy illustration backgrounds you don't even need software on your computer, there are enough online apps/sites which can create this stuff. It's extremely easy to produce and extremely easy to keyword because the keywords are always the same. Shutterstock happily accept this stuff (I tested by myself but with only 10Illustration I'm not an image spammer) but carefully crafted, edited and keyworded photos gets rejected on a daily basis for obscure reasons, it's just crazy. And yes I sold one of this cheap illustrations so far.
If you produce quality stuff Shutterstock might not for you!


Rinderart

« Reply #74 on: October 15, 2015, 16:04 »
0
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.

Bingo


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
31 Replies
6078 Views
Last post July 29, 2009, 16:08
by puravida
11 Replies
3095 Views
Last post January 30, 2011, 11:18
by jbarber873
12 Replies
2377 Views
Last post July 12, 2013, 03:28
by Leo Blanchette
11 Replies
1222 Views
Last post July 30, 2013, 05:28
by plrang
57 Replies
6740 Views
Last post September 23, 2013, 07:07
by Ron

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors