"Our maximum keyword limit has changed to 35 keywords per image.
Excess keywords will be automatically removed during image processing."

what are sites like this thinking? like anyone is going to take the time to keyword specifically for Crestock when the industry standard is 50.
I guess they think maybe people will be more selective and careful with their keywording? in reality they are just going to get  a random 35 keywords when 15 of the 50 are stripped out automatically.

I'd have to agree here.  I see their point, wanting more specific keywords but like you say, no one is going to keyword specifically for Crestock.  I have 5000+ images there and I make almost 2x more every month on Shuttersock than i have made in my lifetime on Crestock (6 years).

Pretty much the same as me in terms of where my earnings are there compared to other sites.
Such a low earner would have to have something else going for it in a big way to justify anything other than a fire (/ftp) and forget attitude from contributors.

I never frontload important keywords, so it is likely I will have most important keywords stripped.. This makes submitting to crestock pointless..

I won't be submitting to crestock anymore, unless they change this policy.. The only way this is a great idea is if every single agency decides to do it..

With one policy change, crestock has guaranteed it's demise....

I don't currently contribute because I have not yet had the time for a low earner like this but this will ensure I won't.  My keywords are alphabetic, so I'd have to manually edit thousands of images.  Not going to happen for 3.2% of shutterstock.

Gave up on them long ago. Horrible reviews, terrible sales. Really struggle to believe they should even make it into the Poll Results to be honest.

Keyword things must be solved at search engine levels. Any agency that diverts from the standard number of keywords is creating more work for contributors.
If an agency is sure that keywords are an issue then they must keyword themselves.

Ditto from me too.

This isn't the first time I've been amazed at the pulling power low-earning sites think they have.  I imagine they believe in their own hype, whilst we believe in our own results.

If I had a port there, I'd be pulling it now.

0,25$ per subs...
Ouch!

crestock keeps proving they are all but business thinkers.

i've contacted them several moths ago with a proposal to upload approx. 30.000 of my new images via ftp. they had a special meeting in their office, discussed it and dicided they sill can't override 200 images per week limit they have. ;]

now this.

circus.

Ill do it. If I have  shall we say... 35 dls pr image.

The era of microstock might be coming to an end.

Did they listen to the advice and changed it back?

No, but because of their move. It suggests something.
To limit keywords to 35 has to do with limiting information entropy.
During the microstock bloom, the agencies have obtained a huge database of pictures. A commercial good made of zeroes and ones in the form of virtual images, stored on disks. Found and sold via searches through keywords.

When there are enough pictures, the pile becomes tall, and amounts of potential pictures are burried and never found, just because of the sheer amount of pictures.
Add to that, keyword spamming, and you have a pile of usless chaos.
Not to mention biased search engines.

The customer cannot find anything relevant is one thing.
The producer, is randomly awarded, that is worse.
There is no reason to produce fine images, if they are burried in chaos.

I think we are now entering the age of chaos in microstock: Pictures and  keywords get more and more chaotic, same with distribution, we dont even know if a picture is licenced legally or stolen.
Too much chaos, to much inpredictability, and continously falling commissions.
Seen from the contributers side... if you think you can get better sales by working harder , produce more or improve your image quality, you will continue.

If you are not rewarded, and if it is random if you are successful, there is a point where it becomes meaningless to deliver.
And we hear that all the time, people begin to bail out of the small agencies, where this mechanism is most obvious.
The "bail out limit" is individual, dependant on your potential. But it is there for everyone.

There is only one way to fight against it, and that is to limit the number of contributors.
Which is not in the agencies interest, since a part of ther earnings comes from accelerating number of contributors.
Thats the business model.
And it wont last.
Microstock will die in chaos, and diminishing returns.
The turnover rate of contributors will accelerate.