pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime is going nuts?  (Read 24775 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

velocicarpo

« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2011, 13:02 »
0

Simply wrong. As said in other threads I buy arround 100 - 150 images each month. It takes me 2 sec to overlook a page of results and many times I have to download various "similars" to find the right ones. Dreamstime just doesn`t understand designers needs.


You should contact them and let them know.  These types of comments will mean more coming from a designer than from a rank-and-file contributor. 

I did this already month ago. But (un?)fortunately I am a Contributor too, so I guess my voice wasn`t heard :-/


« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2011, 13:08 »
0

I did this already month ago. But (un?)fortunately I am a Contributor too, so I guess my voice wasn`t heard :-/

Too bad.  Doesn't Istock have the same issue?  I don't understand that attitude. 

You can be a pro designer, but if you ever submitted a picture your opinion is suspect??!

velocicarpo

« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2011, 13:10 »
0

I did this already month ago. But (un?)fortunately I am a Contributor too, so I guess my voice wasn`t heard :-/

Too bad.  Doesn't Istock have the same issue?  I don't understand that attitude. 

You can be a pro designer, but if you ever submitted a picture your opinion is suspect??!

They didn`t rejected my request. I jsut got an generic mail with some blabla and thats it :-)

WarrenPrice

« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2011, 13:48 »
0
On the bright side, seems Shutterstock is taking advantage of Dreamstime's tendency to step on their "whatchamacallit."   Get rejected at Dreamstime; sell it as OD at Shutterstock.   ::)

« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2011, 14:23 »
0
Well. to people that say it's a good thing, here is an example.
This one they kept:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-young-woman-cleaning-kitchen-image17802489
This one they marked for deletion as similar:
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_573/1294910263pwP7UQ.jpg

If it's not obvious, I can assure you these 2 images convey different moods, have different copy space and both of them can be used in the same project.

This is one of my more recent series, so the bozos saw that the second one didn't have downloads yet and decided to get rid of it. It has been online since 01/25/2011 - less that 3 months!!!.
I know I should be really mad about this, but somehow it's so ridiculous I can't even be angry. I don't know if this is what Serban has intended - if he did, he is killing his business with his own hands, if he didn't and it's an incompetent employee he is still killing his business with his own hands by letting them do that... Either way, you can always come buy all of my images directly from my site ;-)

« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2011, 14:43 »
0
Both of those images would be very useful in a project. Different body angle, one she's looking down the other she's looking up with that beautiful smile ...... I wouldn't have thought they were too similar either. 

« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2011, 14:49 »
0
I agree with you Elena. Mind you IMHO DT are not going nuts, they've actually been nuts for years. This is not really that different from having images rejected on submission for 'too many' which in my case is often just ... er ... two (such as a horizontal and vertical variation).

I'd imagine this is probably a customer complaint driven issue as searches do bring up rows of similars or images from the same artists. Unfortunately DT are addressing an effect rather than the cause of the problem. They really need to change their search engine results to promote individual images rather than millions from the same contributors, as appears the case now.

The customers get lousy search results because DT have a lousy search algorithm, not because of too many 'similars'. For example SS have even larger series of similar images but the search engine and the customers' buying habits are able to sort the wheat from the chaff quite easily.

grp_photo

« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2011, 14:52 »
0
To get a clearer picture of this it would be nice if contributors could post percentage figures instead 3,46 or 500 files have been removed. 5% or 10% of my portfolio has been removed would be more meaningful IMHO.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2011, 15:02 »
0
Well. to people that say it's a good thing, here is an example.
This one they kept:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-young-woman-cleaning-kitchen-image17802489
This one they marked for deletion as similar:
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_573/1294910263pwP7UQ.jpg

If it's not obvious, I can assure you these 2 images convey different moods, have different copy space and both of them can be used in the same project.

This is one of my more recent series, so the bozos saw that the second one didn't have downloads yet and decided to get rid of it. It has been online since 01/25/2011 - less that 3 months!!!.
I know I should be really mad about this, but somehow it's so ridiculous I can't even be angry. I don't know if this is what Serban has intended - if he did, he is killing his business with his own hands, if he didn't and it's an incompetent employee he is still killing his business with his own hands by letting them do that... Either way, you can always come buy all of my images directly from my site ;-)


I personally don't see a vast difference in the moods of these two images and knowing Dreamstime's policy on "similars", you had to have known that one would be rejected.  I suspect you did know which is why one was uploaded October 15, 2010 and the rejected one on January 25, 2011.  Both images are nice but I can see why the first one was accepted and the second one wasn't.  I'm not saying the second one isn't good enough because it's a nice image too, but knowing Dreamstime's policy, which has been around for quite some time, the rejection of the second image shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.  I've had similars rejected when they were two totally different concepts... one was about career and family and the other was buying and leasing.  

« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2011, 15:09 »
0
The customers get lousy search results because Dreamstime have a lousy search algorithm, not because of too many 'similars'. For example Shutterstock have even larger series of similar images but the search engine and the customers' buying habits are able to sort the wheat from the chaff quite easily.

Exactly!...
Well... some of them make it, some of them don't. I know good people who tried to talk sense into them, to no avail. People that make them most of their money. They are spending all this time and effort manually * images out of library which cost money and is error-prone instead of investing the same time and money into improving search algorithm or at least implementing grouping "similar" images together. One can only shrug....

« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2011, 15:24 »
0
I personally don't see a vast difference in the moods of these two images and knowing Dreamstime's policy on "similars", you had to have known that one would be rejected.  I suspect you did know which is why one was uploaded October 15, 2010 and the rejected one on January 25, 2011.  Both images are nice but I can see why the first one was accepted and the second one wasn't.  I'm not saying the second one isn't good enough because it's a nice image too, but knowing Dreamstime's policy, which has been around for quite some time, the rejection of the second image shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.  I've had similars rejected when they were two totally different concepts... one was about career and family and the other was buying and leasing.  

Watcha talking about dude... both images went online on the same day, Jan 25, 2011. They still show near each other on my portfolio (you can't click on deleted one though, it shows you DT's "oops we have a problem thingy:)). Next time you wanna get me, do your homework better ;-)

« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2011, 15:35 »
0
I am saying it's a good thing, and here is the context to which I am speaking:

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-tomato-image3537031
and
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-tomato-image3537053

and thats after a search for pizza.

Here's one more:

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-bread-cheese-and-jam-image1187948

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-cheese-sandwich-image1188010
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-sandwich-closeup-image1188043

Two of those are almost identical. These are the types of similars that I think definitely need to be weeded out.

And this is just a quick and dirty search I just did in ten minutes. I have come across similar instances where the whole page was filled with images that had such minute differences, it was difficult to tell whether they were accidentally uploaded twice or they actually were different images.

In your particular example above, Elena, those are, in my opinion, two different images. The woman is facing different directions, and it is immediately clear that those are two different images. Those are NOT the kind of similars that I am talking about that should be deleted. Just to be perfectly clear.

« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2011, 16:00 »
0
For me it's a sign that company is struggling to survive. They do not make enough to pay for a storage of millions of images they ingested. It is a quick fix to cut down the cost. Maybe they try to fix balance sheets to look better for selling company.

« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2011, 16:15 »
0
For me it's a sign that company is struggling to survive. They do not make enough to pay for a storage of millions of images they ingested. It is a quick fix to cut down the cost. Maybe they try to fix balance sheets to look better for selling company.

I respectfully disagree that they are struggling to survive. I see it as a way to clean up their site and do something positive for buyers. Some of the similars on there should never have been accepted in the first place. Unfortunately, looks like they still don't have experienced enough people making the right decisions to chop, as in Elena's case.

« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2011, 16:23 »
0
Big difference between the pics pointed out by Cathy and the ones pointed out by Elena.  The ones Cathy linked to are way too similar.  Not to mention they are low interest subjects and pretty bad photos in general.

Elena's pics are very different from each other.  One image she's looking at the camera and clearly interacting with it.  In the other, she's looking down and seems unaware of the camera.  Sends a completely different message.  Can't see how anybody could think those two are redundant.   :-\

« Reply #40 on: April 18, 2011, 16:24 »
0
For me it's a sign that company is struggling to survive. They do not make enough to pay for a storage of millions of images they ingested. It is a quick fix to cut down the cost. Maybe they try to fix balance sheets to look better for selling company.

I respectfully disagree that they are struggling to survive. I see it as a way to clean up their site and do something positive for buyers. Some of the similars on there should never have been accepted in the first place. Unfortunately, looks like they still don't have experienced enough people making the right decisions to chop, as in Elena's case.

I'm not so sure.  Their cutting upload limits to the bone feels more like a way of reducing costs by reducing reviewers than any legitimate effort to improve their offering to buyers.  Dreamstime's definition of similars has always struck me as unreasonable; many shots of the same model are a good thing for buyers, since they allow the selection of just the right pose and expression for the project.  If Dreamstime's search engine displays too many from one session, surely that's a problem with the search engine and the way it presents results, not with having many different (if only subtly) images of the same subject.  But fixing their search and presentation would take effort and money, while cutting back on new images takes neither.

« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2011, 16:27 »
0
For me it's a sign that company is struggling to survive. They do not make enough to pay for a storage of millions of images they ingested. It is a quick fix to cut down the cost. Maybe they try to fix balance sheets to look better for selling company.

I respectfully disagree that they are struggling to survive. I see it as a way to clean up their site and do something positive for buyers. Some of the similars on there should never have been accepted in the first place. Unfortunately, looks like they still don't have experienced enough people making the right decisions to chop, as in Elena's case.

I'm not so sure.  Their cutting upload limits to the bone feels more like a way of reducing costs by reducing reviewers than any legitimate effort to improve their offering to buyers.  Dreamstime's definition of similars has always struck me as unreasonable; many shots of the same model are a good thing for buyers, since they allow the selection of just the right pose and expression for the project.  If Dreamstime's search engine displays too many from one session, surely that's a problem with the search engine and the way it presents results, not with having many different (if only subtly) images of the same subject.  But fixing their search and presentation would take effort and money, while cutting back on new images takes neither.

I was going to reply something similar. If they wont improve experience for buyers they would invest, expand not cut.

« Reply #42 on: April 18, 2011, 16:38 »
0
It's a shame because there are all those people out there who really love aardvarks.  ;D


« Reply #43 on: April 18, 2011, 17:22 »
0
Have any of your aardvarks been cut?


Quote
I'm not so sure.  Their cutting upload limits to the bone feels more like a way of reducing costs by reducing reviewers than any legitimate effort to improve their offering to buyers.  Dreamstime's definition of similars has always struck me as unreasonable; many shots of the same model are a good thing for buyers, since they allow the selection of just the right pose and expression for the project.  If Dreamstime's search engine displays too many from one session, surely that's a problem with the search engine and the way it presents results, not with having many different (if only subtly) images of the same subject.  But fixing their search and presentation would take effort and money, while cutting back on new images takes neither.

I was going to reply something similar. If they wont improve experience for buyers they would invest, expand not cut

So you two are saying that virtually identical images are ok and should be approved? Wow. I have a totally different buying experience than you guys do. I think it's an annoyance to have virtually identical pictures. I don't want to be wasting my time trying to figure out what the subtle difference is. Why would you want to clog up server space with virtually identical images?

If they spend money to improve their search engine, by adding a function whereby similar images come up as a lightbox, let's say, who do you think is going to pay for that? Yeah...the contributors. Rather than have my commissions cut so they can "improve" their search engine, ala istock, I'd rather they do exactly what they are doing. But that's just me.  :)

And let's suppose for a minute that they actually did make it so that one or two of a series came up in a search with a link to similars. Do you still think virtually identical images should be accepted? If so, I just see that as a way for contributors to bloat their upload numbers. In fact, you would be cannibalizing and diluting your own portfolio. But then we've had that discussion before too and some folks think that's ok, they'd rather do it to themselves than have someone else do it to them. To me it just seems like someone trying to game the system.

« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2011, 17:34 »
0
Have any of your aardvarks been cut?


Quote
I'm not so sure.  Their cutting upload limits to the bone feels more like a way of reducing costs by reducing reviewers than any legitimate effort to improve their offering to buyers.  Dreamstime's definition of similars has always struck me as unreasonable; many shots of the same model are a good thing for buyers, since they allow the selection of just the right pose and expression for the project.  If Dreamstime's search engine displays too many from one session, surely that's a problem with the search engine and the way it presents results, not with having many different (if only subtly) images of the same subject.  But fixing their search and presentation would take effort and money, while cutting back on new images takes neither.

I was going to reply something similar. If they wont improve experience for buyers they would invest, expand not cut

So you two are saying that virtually identical images are ok and should be approved? Wow. I have a totally different buying experience than you guys do. I think it's an annoyance to have virtually identical pictures. I don't want to be wasting my time trying to figure out what the subtle difference is. Why would you want to clog up server space with virtually identical images?

If they spend money to improve their search engine, by adding a function whereby similar images come up as a lightbox, let's say, who do you think is going to pay for that? Yeah...the contributors. Rather than have my commissions cut so they can "improve" their search engine, ala istock, I'd rather they do exactly what they are doing. But that's just me.  :)

And let's suppose for a minute that they actually did make it so that one or two of a series came up in a search with a link to similars. Do you still think virtually identical images should be accepted? If so, I just see that as a way for contributors to bloat their upload numbers. In fact, you would be cannibalizing and diluting your own portfolio. But then we've had that discussion before too and some folks think that's ok, they'd rather do it to themselves than have someone else do it to them. To me it just seems like someone trying to game the system.

I do not say I like excessive similar but so far I have seen more examples of unjustifiable cuts than real issues. I would rather trust algorithm than human to make judgment cause they prove every day how easy is to make mistake. If they got search engine right and cull old images instead virtually stopping a flow of new images and and arbitrary cherry pick what reviewers like. Instead they try to "hibernate" until better times come.

« Reply #45 on: April 18, 2011, 17:38 »
0
I do not say I like excessive similar but so far I have seen more examples of unjustifiable cuts than real issues. I would rather trust algorithm than human to make judgment cause they prove every day how easy is to make mistake. If they got search engine right and cull old images instead virtually stopping a flow of new images and and arbitrary cherry pick what reviewers like. Instead they try to "hibernate" until better times come.

I understand what you mean and I agree.  :)

« Reply #46 on: April 18, 2011, 17:49 »
0

So you two are saying that virtually identical images are ok and should be approved?

I never said that.  You use the phrase "virtually identical" where I used the word "similar".  Dreamstime has declared war on "similars", which they use against multiple appearances of the same model in the same situation.  The images are not virtually identical, and a buyer would have no problem distinguishing among them.  My question is whether the buyer might have a preference for one pose over another, and whether an agency should offer that choice.  My answer is that they should, and their mechanism for presenting images should support both a broad selection of different content and the ability to drill down to a set of similar and related but not identical images.  Dreamstime doesn't support that kind of two stage view, nor do they seem inclined to do so.

« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2011, 17:51 »
0
It appears to me that they are treating the symptoms and not the problem.  If the root of the problem is the search engine or the limits of storage, shouldn't they fix those problems?  It's like chopping off your hand because you can't stop picking your nose.  It solves the problem, but your hand may still be useful in other situations, don't you think?

« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2011, 17:53 »
0

So you two are saying that virtually identical images are ok and should be approved?

I never said that.  You use the phrase "virtually identical" where I used the word "similar".  Dreamstime has declared war on "similars", which they use against multiple appearances of the same model in the same situation.  The images are not virtually identical, and a buyer would have no problem distinguishing among them.  My question is whether the buyer might have a preference for one pose over another, and whether an agency should offer that choice.  My answer is that they should, and their mechanism for presenting images should support both a broad selection of different content and the ability to drill down to a set of similar and related but not identical images.  Dreamstime doesn't support that kind of two stage view, nor do they seem inclined to do so.

I agree.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2011, 18:06 »
0
I wonder if Serban and Yuri ever settled their differences?  Wasn't there a near boycott at one time?  
There must be some exceptions?

ed:  I know that I'm glad I didn't buy Serban's pitch on going exclusive. 
Oh Happy Days.   ;D
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 18:07 by WarrenPrice »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
42 Replies
16196 Views
Last post August 26, 2007, 15:12
by ianhlnd
22 Replies
7938 Views
Last post August 29, 2008, 09:51
by Bateleur
123RF is NUTS!!

Started by luissantos84 « 1 2  All » 123RF

25 Replies
10667 Views
Last post July 16, 2010, 21:09
by luissantos84
8 Replies
6207 Views
Last post April 14, 2011, 04:07
by ShadySue
15 Replies
10399 Views
Last post May 13, 2014, 09:20
by Nasima

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle