Author Topic: SS worst Spammed Portfolios (Read 19334 times)

Uncle Pete · « **on:** October 15, 2018, 20:29 »

You can PM me if it's wrong for the forum.

I'm looking for the bookshelf guy, the shoes, the marijuana, and wasn't there one that was all clouds, identical? These are for an investor who says, Shutterstock has added far more new photos than Adobe. I was pointing out that if thousands of duplicates or spam images are what makes them growing faster, don't be fooled by artificial growth.

If it's allowed by Leaf, links to the most spammed portfolios, anywhere, but specifically SS.

derek · « **Reply #1 on:** October 16, 2018, 02:00 »

I'm sure I know which one it is! and it proves beyond doubt that SS is just collecting, accepting for the sake of it and not giving a * about the content, similars not even identicals. One of the reasons they can brag and boost about the quantity of OUR assets!.

The place is really in a mess!

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #2 on:** October 16, 2018, 04:36 »

If only they also started reporting downloads per image to their investors. It would give people some idea of how much customers have to wade through to find an image to buy.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 16, 2018, 06:00 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 16, 2018, 04:36

If only they also started reporting downloads per image to their investors. It would give people some idea of how much customers have to wade through to find an image to buy.

I think its there in the quarterly reports but they don't boast about it for some reason ;-).

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #4 on:** October 16, 2018, 07:16 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 16, 2018, 04:36

If only they also started reporting downloads per image to their investors. It would give people some idea of how much customers have to wade through to find an image to buy.

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2361252

45.2 million paid downloads.

204.2 million images. 10.9 million videos.

0.21 downloads per image/video per quarter.

0.84 downloads per image/video per year.

---

New numbers for July/August/September coming October 30.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2018, 07:35 »

This is one of the marijuana guys, but he seems to have branched out a bit:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/BestStockPhotos1?page=50&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/BestStockPhotos1?page=71&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (scroll down)

This, however, is the original marijuana man: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/JeremyNathan

Pauws99 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 16, 2018, 11:13 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 16, 2018, 07:35

This is one of the marijuana guys, but he seems to have branched out a bit:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/BestStockPhotos1?page=50&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/BestStockPhotos1?page=71&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (scroll down)

This, however, is the original marijuana man: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/JeremyNathan

There's more than one? The world has gone completely crazy. No doubt he will be complaining to SS that someone has stolen his idea(s)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #7 on:** October 16, 2018, 13:29 »

I'd love to know what return they get from those inflated portfolios.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 16, 2018, 14:26 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 16, 2018, 13:29

I'd love to know what return they get from those inflated portfolios.

Yes or any kind of explanation of how it makes any possible business sense.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #9 on:** October 17, 2018, 10:40 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 16, 2018, 14:26

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 16, 2018, 13:29
I'd love to know what return they get from those inflated portfolios.
Yes or any kind of explanation of how it makes any possible business sense.

I think they think download per number of pictures. I bet they make very little because they have 1 photo hundreds of times, how many get needed. That makes SS look dumb for accepting. Not as bad as others but 100 of most the same. https://www.shutterstock.com/g/NataliiaKrasnenko?searchterm=store%20shelf

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #10 on:** October 17, 2018, 10:44 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 16, 2018, 07:35

This is one of the marijuana guys, but he seems to have branched out a bit:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/BestStockPhotos1?page=50&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/BestStockPhotos1?page=71&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (scroll down)

This, however, is the original marijuana man: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/JeremyNathan

He's branched out into clouds and palm trees.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #11 on:** October 18, 2018, 16:57 »

Thanks all especially the PMs. I found a guy who does eyes, another who has yellow woods in Siberia, the hundreds of titanium gears, marijuana guy (a few of them, but never found the 3d bookshelf account. Not important for specifics, the point has been verified, there are many more totally spammed accounts, with hundreds if not thousands of similar or repeating images. More than I imagined. Oh yeah, clouds and the Moon, it's sad.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** October 18, 2018, 17:41 »

from previous msg threads:
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=Black+Blank+Empty+POS+POI&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=newest&measurement=px&safe=true

I clicked on the link in the post below, but got this message "Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.":
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/how-can-the-ss-database-grow-so-fast/msg513044/#msg513044

philopenshaw · « **Reply #13 on:** October 18, 2018, 18:09 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 18, 2018, 17:41

from previous msg threads:
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=Black+Blank+Empty+POS+POI&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=newest&measurement=px&safe=true

I clicked on the link in the post below, but got this message "Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.":
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/how-can-the-ss-database-grow-so-fast/msg513044/#msg513044

i can still see 3 pages of blank empty POS if i click on that link.... are they new ones already?

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** October 18, 2018, 18:18 »

Quote from: philopenshaw on October 18, 2018, 18:09

Quote from: ShadySue on October 18, 2018, 17:41
from previous msg threads:
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=Black+Blank+Empty+POS+POI&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=newest&measurement=px&safe=true

I clicked on the link in the post below, but got this message "Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.":
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/how-can-the-ss-database-grow-so-fast/msg513044/#msg513044

i can still see 3 pages of blank empty POS if i click on that link.... are they new ones already?

Strange, I'm still getting the same error message - in two browsers, one of which has all history/cache/cookies deleted after every use.
Ho-hum.

PZF · « **Reply #15 on:** October 19, 2018, 01:30 »

Can't pm you

Dumc · « **Reply #16 on:** October 19, 2018, 13:20 »

This is, what SS is accepting now.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rain-forest-jungle-bird-1204931440?src=GomG4yeTKt6FO95KyezbsQ-1-67

I wouldn't keep that kind of blurred photo not even on my CPU.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** October 19, 2018, 13:22 »

Quote from: Dumc on October 19, 2018, 13:20

This is, what SS is accepting now.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rain-forest-jungle-bird-1204931440?src=GomG4yeTKt6FO95KyezbsQ-1-67

I wouldn't keep that kind of blurred photo not even on my CPU.

. Still, as the species isn't named, few buyers will ever see it, so it's just padding.

lostintimeline · « **Reply #18 on:** October 19, 2018, 17:45 »

Quote from: Dumc on October 19, 2018, 13:20

This is, what SS is accepting now.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rain-forest-jungle-bird-1204931440?src=GomG4yeTKt6FO95KyezbsQ-1-67

I wouldn't keep that kind of blurred photo not even on my CPU.

lol funny thing is i shot some images with my telefoto lens but days earlier it fell down on the floor really hard so it coused the lack of sharpness and the images looked like this one.so i didnt realize at that time couse it was still working and when i send a picture to dreamstime it was rejected for that reason.so maybe i dont need to throw my lens couse ss will accept it?

?

DallasP · « **Reply #19 on:** October 19, 2018, 23:21 »

Quote from: Dumc on October 19, 2018, 13:20

This is, what SS is accepting now.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rain-forest-jungle-bird-1204931440?src=GomG4yeTKt6FO95KyezbsQ-1-67

I wouldn't keep that kind of blurred photo not even on my CPU.

How are you storing things on your CPU?

Dumc · « **Reply #20 on:** October 20, 2018, 13:01 »

I'm guessing you're the smartass in your family.

nobody · « **Reply #21 on:** October 20, 2018, 13:56 »

Quote from: DallasP on October 19, 2018, 23:21

Quote from: Dumc on October 19, 2018, 13:20
This is, what SS is accepting now.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rain-forest-jungle-bird-1204931440?src=GomG4yeTKt6FO95KyezbsQ-1-67

I wouldn't keep that kind of blurred photo not even on my CPU.

How are you storing things on your CPU?

CPU don't store things--- physical memory (System and Video) and disk drives store...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #22 on:** October 21, 2018, 02:45 »

Quote from: Dumc on October 19, 2018, 13:20

This is, what SS is accepting now.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rain-forest-jungle-bird-1204931440?src=GomG4yeTKt6FO95KyezbsQ-1-67

SS have deleted whatever it was. It would be nice if they would just reject rubbish rather than waiting for old-timers to point it out before they delete it.

Dumc · « **Reply #23 on:** October 21, 2018, 07:14 »

Quote from: nobody on October 20, 2018, 13:56

Quote from: DallasP on October 19, 2018, 23:21
Quote from: Dumc on October 19, 2018, 13:20
This is, what SS is accepting now.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rain-forest-jungle-bird-1204931440?src=GomG4yeTKt6FO95KyezbsQ-1-67

I wouldn't keep that kind of blurred photo not even on my CPU.

How are you storing things on your CPU?

CPU don't store things--- physical memory (System and Video) and disk drives store...

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I used CPU as short for computer not central processing unit. I thought people will understand, what I meant. Mistake.

OM · « **Reply #24 on:** October 30, 2018, 07:15 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 18, 2018, 17:41

from previous msg threads:
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=Black+Blank+Empty+POS+POI&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=newest&measurement=px&safe=true

I clicked on the link in the post below, but got this message "Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.":
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/how-can-the-ss-database-grow-so-fast/msg513044/#msg513044

Ha, ha. When I saw 'POS' in the link, I'd forgotten it stands for 'Point of Sale' too!

rene · « **Reply #25 on:** November 12, 2018, 07:14 »

King of Out of focus:
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/g/atibodyphoto?searchterm=Traffic&search_source=base_gallery&language=fr&sort=popular&measurement=px&safe=true

davidbautista · « **Reply #26 on:** November 12, 2018, 17:20 »

Quote from: rene on November 12, 2018, 07:14

King of Out of focus:
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/g/atibodyphoto?searchterm=Traffic&search_source=base_gallery&language=fr&sort=popular&measurement=px&safe=true

Whaaaat

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk

msg2018 · « **Reply #27 on:** November 12, 2018, 17:36 »

I tried a handful of those out of focus background back when almost everything sold, and never sold once. It took me a couple of days to realise that it wasn't a good idea. He/she may be spamming but not selling. But his/her newest 5 photos are at least partly in focus, there's still hope.

Yay Images Billionaire · « **Reply #28 on:** November 13, 2018, 02:12 »

Wow, those similars look like he uploaded every single photos from a time lapse.

Artist · « **Reply #29 on:** November 13, 2018, 02:35 »

Quote from: imagesbykenny on November 13, 2018, 02:12

Wow, those similars look like he uploaded every single photos from a time lapse.

pure spam.. having 1-2 versions is ok but this is nothing but spam

dpimborough · « **Reply #30 on:** November 13, 2018, 04:39 »

Quote from: imagesbykenny on November 13, 2018, 02:12

Wow, those similars look like he uploaded every single photos from a time lapse.

Takes a special kind of dedication to upload 20,000 of that kind of image.

They have to be making money though otherwise they'd have to be a real moron to do it and not make money

Pauws99 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 13, 2018, 04:45 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on November 13, 2018, 04:39

Quote from: imagesbykenny on November 13, 2018, 02:12
Wow, those similars look like he uploaded every single photos from a time lapse.

Takes a special kind of dedication to upload 20,000 of that kind of image.

They have to be making money though otherwise they'd have to be a real moron to do it and not make money

How they do is what baffles me

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #32 on:** November 13, 2018, 08:29 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on November 13, 2018, 04:39

Quote from: imagesbykenny on November 13, 2018, 02:12
Wow, those similars look like he uploaded every single photos from a time lapse.

Takes a special kind of dedication to upload 20,000 of that kind of image.

They have to be making money though otherwise they'd have to be a real moron to do it and not make money

Actually I'd vote for real moron.

When one of these spammers uploads, lets be moderate, 200 of the same series, inch by inch, time-lapse, video frame capture... whatever, they are only going to sell a few of them. Just like people who would complain "I have 2,000 photos and only make 3 downloads a day", if they are duplicates or images that no one wants, they will only make 3 downloads a day. It's not how many. (is there an echo in here?)

We shouldn't assume that 200 pages of this spam is making money, just because someone uploads it. There could be potentially useful photos there someplace, but what buyer is going to wade through 200 pages of similar crapstock, just to find a good one?

PrincessFerf · « **Reply #33 on:** December 12, 2018, 19:31 »

Do you wonder if SS is more lenient with photos taken outside of the USA or those themed "non-Western"? We all know if we submitted anything like these they would be rejected in a heartbeat.

stockastic · « **Reply #34 on:** December 13, 2018, 09:30 »

No one is loading 20,000 by hand and getting them inspected. This stuff is coming in through a back door with inside help.

Chichikov · « **Reply #35 on:** December 13, 2018, 13:59 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 13, 2018, 09:30

No one is loading 20,000 by hand and getting them inspected. This stuff is coming in through a back door with inside help.

I am also convinced, there must be a fail in the system that allows to upload in a portfolio without going through the inspection.

Not Today · « **Reply #36 on:** December 13, 2018, 16:03 »

LOL, anything in relation to the description of 'hand drive wheel' car for this one? And there's a whole bunch of these. Sad, very sad.

Picture blurred for background abstract and can be illustration to article of hand drive wheel car - Image
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/picture-blurred-background-abstract-can-be-628691948

Not Today · « **Reply #37 on:** December 13, 2018, 16:07 »

Quote from: Not Today on December 13, 2018, 16:03

LOL, anything in relation to the description of 'hand drive wheel' car for this one? And there's a whole bunch of these. Sad, very sad.

Picture blurred for background abstract and can be illustration to article of hand drive wheel car - Image
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/picture-blurred-background-abstract-can-be-628691948

And this led to 'similar images' from another contributor with a very similar portfolio:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Aperture75

steheap · « **Reply #38 on:** December 13, 2018, 21:04 »

They are not really all the same - there are two darker green ones that slipped in there. These are all 9500 pixel files so they must just be created in photoshop I guess.

Steve

steheap · « **Reply #39 on:** December 13, 2018, 21:05 »

And only 6 pages (at 100 a page) before they move on to pink. Wow.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #40 on:** December 13, 2018, 21:12 »

"1,693,154 new stock images added this week"

1 million of which are probably similars.

JAFO · « **Reply #41 on:** December 13, 2018, 23:07 »

Quote from: Chichikov on December 13, 2018, 13:59

Quote from: stockastic on December 13, 2018, 09:30
No one is loading 20,000 by hand and getting them inspected. This stuff is coming in through a back door with inside help.

I am also convinced, there must be a fail in the system that allows to upload in a portfolio without going through the inspection.

You both think SS doesn't know what's going on, but we do, they don't know what the fuck is being uploaded without inspection. We report this crap, do you think they don't know or can't remove this? They know they approve they allow. Back door uploads what .. I'm convinced you haven't any brain.

noodle · « **Reply #42 on:** December 14, 2018, 05:44 »

Easy money for reviews to accept all, even if they’re a few pennies each.

Ss is broken, and no one seems to care as long as revenues keep on increasing

Fairplay · « **Reply #43 on:** December 14, 2018, 06:24 »

Quote from: noodle on December 14, 2018, 05:44

Easy money for reviews to accept all, even if they’re a few pennies each.

Ss is broken, and no one seems to care as long as revenues keep on increasing

But I guess they are paid the same money if they reject the files.
I believe these files are reviewed by AI which obviously is far away from perfect.

noodle · « **Reply #44 on:** December 14, 2018, 06:31 »

I believe they are paid per image a fee
But accept all or reject all is easy peasy and quick

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #45 on:** December 14, 2018, 06:51 »

Reminds me of a documentary I watch about Vietnam. There was no easy way for the US to measure who was winning or losing except by death toll on each side, so they used that as the main metric. You can guess the result.

Once SS started reporting library size growth to shareholders as the main measure of "health" of the collection/ contributor satisfaction there could only be one result.

If shareholders had any idea they would start also demanding a breakdown of DLs per image or views (on the results page) vs downloads.

topol · « **Reply #46 on:** December 14, 2018, 07:56 »

Quote from: Fairplay on December 14, 2018, 06:24

Quote from: noodle on December 14, 2018, 05:44
Easy money for reviews to accept all, even if they’re a few pennies each.

Ss is broken, and no one seems to care as long as revenues keep on increasing
But I guess they are paid the same money if they reject the files.
I believe these files are reviewed by AI which obviously is far away from perfect.

It shouldn't matter how lame their AI or human review is, they could throw out pics by the tens of thousands with a couple of clicks if they wanted to. The only way this could make sense to me:
- They want boast about the numbers in their ads, I find this unlikely at this point, after reaching numbers like 100 million there is no point to this.
- They want to split up the collection again similar to select/offset to justify having a go at raising prices, but probably not as high as offest etc...

JAFO · « **Reply #47 on:** December 14, 2018, 08:32 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 14, 2018, 06:51

Reminds me of a documentary I watch about Vietnam. There was no easy way for the US to measure who was winning or losing except by death toll on each side, so they used that as the main metric. You can guess the result.

Once SS started reporting library size growth to shareholders as the main measure of "health" of the collection/ contributor satisfaction there could only be one result.

If shareholders had any idea they would start also demanding a breakdown of DLs per image or views (on the results page) vs downloads.

Library size is the answer but AI or stupid shareholders is not. Has anybody who makes these absurd claims ever read the quarterly reports? Number of photos is not important, profit is. Shareholders read debt, investment, income, growth, profit and things, not how big the number of photos. Shareholders don't care about us, views, DLs per image. I hate the spam and the junk that's accepted but friend paid reviewer conspiracy, back door sneak or secret plot of some sort is stupid. SS is doing this on purpose and that's worse and more stupid.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #48 on:** December 30, 2018, 11:37 »

Because of the new year I wanted to add some humor to the topic. https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012339 support article that explains similar and rule for this.

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** December 30, 2018, 11:54 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 30, 2018, 11:37

Because of the new year I wanted to add some humor to the topic. https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012339 support article that explains similar and rule for this.

LOL!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #50 on:** December 30, 2018, 19:00 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 30, 2018, 11:37

Because of the new year I wanted to add some humor to the topic. https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012339 support article that explains similar and rule for this.

As noted on the forum, many times, it's obvious that they don't observe their own rules. I loved the one about, Images where the only change is a filter, and look above in this thread where this is common, or Virtually identical variations of common designs (such as national flags) and time after time there are major pages and pages of not change except the flags?

angelawaye · « **Reply #51 on:** December 30, 2018, 22:44 »

Thanks for a good laugh

PZF · « **Reply #52 on:** December 31, 2018, 12:11 »

This guy's pretty good too....why do one pic when you can do 4 or 5 or 25?

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/maksimenko2017

stockastic · « **Reply #53 on:** December 31, 2018, 20:00 »

It would be so interesting to know what's really happening inside that company.

I get the impression that there's been so much turnover and organizational 'churn' that things are chaotic and some 'games' are being run by insiders. These thousands of repetitious junk images didn't get in by being submitted and inspected through normal channels; something else is going on.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #54 on:** January 01, 2019, 03:20 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 31, 2018, 20:00

It would be so interesting to know what's really happening inside that company.

I get the impression that there's been so much turnover and organizational 'churn' that things are chaotic and some 'games' are being run by insiders. These thousands of repetitious junk images didn't get in by being submitted and inspected through normal channels; something else is going on.

The competition have given them an easy ride for too long allowing all kinds of slackness. While doom mongers have been expecting them to collapse for years I think the days of their dominance may come to an end in 2019.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #55 on:** January 02, 2019, 15:50 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 01, 2019, 03:20

Quote from: stockastic on December 31, 2018, 20:00
It would be so interesting to know what's really happening inside that company.

I get the impression that there's been so much turnover and organizational 'churn' that things are chaotic and some 'games' are being run by insiders. These thousands of repetitious junk images didn't get in by being submitted and inspected through normal channels; something else is going on.
The competition have given them an easy ride for too long allowing all kinds of slackness. While doom mongers have been expecting them to collapse for years I think the days of their dominance may come to an end in 2019.

Everything doesn't change fast or as we'd predict, because we're closer than the buyers. Many years ago I was at a Photoshop class and the instructor just talked about iStock, I don't even know if she had heard of Shutterstock. They also ran a design firm. We all know what changed there. When Adobe moved into the market, there were all kinds of professional and financial observations, how that was going to make for serious competition for SS. While those points are true, Adobe has been making steady changes, carefully observing and adjusting.

While it might take longer than this year, 2020 is not far off at the rate everything is going:

1) Which is the only top agency that increased our commissions in 2018? (small but it was an increase)
2) Which major agency has been promoting their cloud access, advertising, gave us software for our effort?
3) Which major agency has been increasing earnings in the MSG poll, all year?
4) Which agency upholds quality standards for new content, not allowing spam portfolios or substandard quality.

2020 I can see clearly now.