MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Image spam?  (Read 22233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 03, 2015, 01:35 »
0
Do a search for "luck sadly wink" (just to bring up examples). Does SS ever pull people up for spamming or is it just happy to be able to claim to have a massive collection even though a huge chunk is the same images spamming the search results?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2015, 03:21 »
+1
Find me a micro which doesn't allow gross spamming.

« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2015, 03:37 »
+5
Dreamstime is the most stringent, but I don't think any of the big sites would be as lax as SS on this, even IS with their new let (almost) anything in policy. Take a look at the examples in the results. There are literally hundreds of identical very simple two color icon sets with just the two colors changed. 

« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2015, 04:34 »
+3
Find me a micro which doesn't allow gross spamming.

I think, by image spam the OP means hundreds of similar images from the same contributor, not keyword spaming. Just check the above mentioned keywords.
As far as I know, no other micro allows this.

« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2015, 04:50 »
+1
Find me a micro which doesn't allow gross spamming.

I think, by image spam the OP means hundreds of similar images from the same contributor, not keyword spaming. Just check the above mentioned keywords.
As far as I know, no other micro allows this.
Sorry, yes thanks that's exactly what I mean. The keywords I used are just some I copied from one of the offending files to bring up a load of the examples.

« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2015, 05:44 »
+18

« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2015, 05:58 »
0

« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2015, 05:59 »
+8

« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2015, 07:24 »
+3
I wonder if this even equals $0.25 worth of sales in 5 years?

« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2015, 07:33 »
+13
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.

« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2015, 07:51 »
+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


Oh good grief. I thought the agencies had some kind of algorithm that sorted out these kinds of things? I used to get rejections when I would upload two images of the same thing, one horizontal and one vertical!

« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2015, 09:28 »
+7
Both those examples beggar belief.

In the case of the icon shop(71K+ items), there are so many issues.

One is the proliferation of non-sensical variations - identical vector icon sets with color variations.

Another is offering sets of hundreds of icons (617 medical icons is one, 660 medical service icons another) - a sort of arms race to see who can cram in more "stuff" per download to try for more sales.

Another is approving individual icons (which I assume are in lots of the sets) that are so simple - two lines - that they really should be in a set with a few others.

Perhaps SS wanted to up its vector count at some point and thought this sort of mass of crap could accomplish that?

The other portfolio (the weed-themed one) makes a joke of any pretense that commercial value is part of reviewing standards. I have to believe these portfolios were submitted in bulk and not reviewed at all.

50%

« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2015, 09:47 »
+3
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

That's Oringer's personal portfolio, he has enough money to get stoned every day :)

« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2015, 09:49 »
+9
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. 

« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2015, 10:40 »
+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.

« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2015, 11:06 »
+8
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.


50,000,000 images, and let's say an inspector spent 15 seconds looking at the keywords of an image - I came up with about 100 man-years.  Of course, they wouldn't have to look at every one - they could, say, check 5% of each contributor's shots.

Maybe they could actually improve things if they took a hard line - for example, closing the account of a contributor who'd spammed even one image - but I doubt they'd ever do that.   And the guy cited above, with his thousands of junk images, isn't going to be put off by a 'warning'. 

We should turn this around and ask how these spammers got their stuff on /board in the first place.  You can't tell me those hundreds of inane repetitious variations got through normal inspection.  These guys are fast-tracked somehow - they're being let in through a back door.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 11:18 by stockastic »

« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2015, 11:39 »
+6
I agree that a few full timers checking the first 10 pages or so of the most popular searches and then bringing the hammer down on the serial offenders could make a huge difference to the collection appearance in just a few months. The problem is that they have to be willing to do so - or even want to.


Rinderart

« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2015, 11:54 »
0
Both those examples beggar belief.

In the case of the icon shop(71K+ items), there are so many issues.

One is the proliferation of non-sensical variations - identical vector icon sets with color variations.

Another is offering sets of hundreds of icons (617 medical icons is one, 660 medical service icons another) - a sort of arms race to see who can cram in more "stuff" per download to try for more sales.

Another is approving individual icons (which I assume are in lots of the sets) that are so simple - two lines - that they really should be in a set with a few others.

Perhaps SS wanted to up its vector count at some point and thought this sort of mass of crap could accomplish that?

The other portfolio (the weed-themed one) makes a joke of any pretense that commercial value is part of reviewing standards. I have to believe these portfolios were submitted in bulk and not reviewed at all.


I love the weed guys screen Name...  I wrote to support about this Port and they said basically we see no issue and Mind you own business was the feeling I got. This is My business!!!! and BTW, Heres Jons Port. John Used to call me when this started and ask for advice on which camera to buy. LOL Guarantee the weed Port doesn't get reviewed.

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-ushutterstock.html

« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2015, 12:11 »
0
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.


50,000,000 images, and let's say an inspector spent 15 seconds looking at the keywords of an image - I came up with about 100 man-years.  Of course, they wouldn't have to look at every one - they could, say, check 5% of each contributor's shots.

Maybe they could actually improve things if they took a hard line - for example, closing the account of a contributor who'd spammed even one image - but I doubt they'd ever do that.   And the guy cited above, with his thousands of junk images, isn't going to be put off by a 'warning'. 

We should turn this around and ask how these spammers got their stuff on /board in the first place.  You can't tell me those hundreds of inane repetitious variations got through normal inspection.  These guys are fast-tracked somehow - they're being let in through a back door.
? This isn't to do with keywords

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2015, 12:16 »
+2
No, that was my mistake at the beginning.
The thread is specifically about image spamming, not keyword spamming.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 13:21 by ShadySue »

« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2015, 12:52 »
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?

« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2015, 14:59 »
+1
LOL at Sean's link ^^^

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


Don't you guys realize!?  Limited commercial value is reduced, when minor variations are produced times infinity.



Kids in Africa are starving over the amount of money it's costing for the bandwidth and server space to host all of these gems
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 15:03 by ArenaCreative »

« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2015, 15:01 »
+1
LOL at Sean's link ^^^

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


Don't you guys realize!?  Limited commercial value is reduced, when minor variations are produced times infinity.

BUSINESS
MARIJUANA
BUSINESS

 and

SODA

montages are running rampant... but what does this stuff mean!?>  Must be a lot of buyers for them, if they're making so many duplicates HAHAHAH

You could probably just make a script to put random words over all your pictures, automatically upload them, and double your portfolio every couple hours.  Sounds like a project for Sean...

« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2015, 17:57 »
+5
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?

Rinderart

« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2015, 16:58 »
+1


 

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
6460 Views
Last post September 23, 2013, 07:07
by Ron

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors