Author Topic: Dreamstime is going nuts? (Read 35933 times)

cthoman · « **Reply #50 on:** April 18, 2011, 18:15 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 18, 2011, 17:22

Have any of your aardvarks been cut?

Nope, they haven't gone on the endangered species list yet. I guess Dreamstime has a right to run their business as they see fit and that may not jive with how I want to run mine. I do think it's odd that they seem to have more and more subs and small credit buyers everyday and those are exactly the same buyers that buy multiple images in a series. It seems a strange cannibalization.

fritz · « **Reply #51 on:** April 18, 2011, 18:48 »

The only good thing with DT is their pricing system.
EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS

Suljo · « **Reply #52 on:** April 18, 2011, 19:41 »

They also misleading us to make new images with new cameras with same concepts, and after that this is what is happening.
Maybe they are just earning more with 3-5 level images from old 4-6 mpix noisy cameras then with new 18-24 mpix at level 1.

Phil · « **Reply #53 on:** April 18, 2011, 19:46 »

in cases of like the tomatoes are great example of what needs cleaning, but they really dont need to go crazy with it.

to me the bigger issue is the keywords, isolated tomatoes with keywords 'pizza'.
Unfortunately keyword spamming is so rife, and there are some very big sellers doing it.
try a search for cities

http://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_rf=y&s_ed=y&srh_field=cities&firstvalue=cities&lastsearchvalue=null&s_sm=all&s_st=new&memso=y&s_cf=1&s_catid=&s_cliid=356522&s_colid=&memorize_search=1&s_exc=&s_excp=&s_sp=&s_sl0=y&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_color1=FFFFFF&s_percent1=10&s_color2=FFFFFF&s_percent2=10&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_orp=y&s_ors=y&s_orl=y&s_orw=y

it also shows that dreamstime's 'relevancy' search is pretty much garbage.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #54 on:** April 18, 2011, 19:53 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on April 18, 2011, 15:24

Quote from: pseudonymous on April 18, 2011, 15:02
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 Dreamstime's "oops we have a problem thingy:)). Next time you wanna get me, do your homework better ;-)

Wanna get you? A little paranoid aren't you? No one wants to get you "dude". I simply looked at the date the photo was taken on the image and assumed you had uploaded it around then. Forgive me for not bothering to sift through 148 pages of your work originally. Having a look at the entire series in your portfolio now here:

http://www.dreamstime.com/portfolio.php?clientun=Elenathewise&page=&sortcriteria=8

I can see others that are similar as well and using Dreamstime's 'similars' policy, I'm surprised that even more of those images in that series weren't scheduled for deletion. Again, I'm not out to "get you". I'm not even saying the policy is a good thing. I'm simply saying that this isn't a policy that Dreamstime just created, it's been around for a while and no one should be surprised that your image was scheduled for deletion.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #55 on:** April 18, 2011, 20:04 »

Quote from: melastmohican on April 18, 2011, 16:00

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 don't see that it's a sign that the company is struggling to survive. Quite the opposite. They've grown to the point where they're going to start to be even more fussy. It's only natural that as their database grows with more and more quality images, they're going to want to weed out the ones that don't make the cut or the ones that are similar to others in the contributors portfolio and to those in the entire database. This wouldn't be about storage costs but rather about quality and improving search results.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #56 on:** April 18, 2011, 21:11 »

Quote from: pseudonymous on April 18, 2011, 19:53

Forgive me for not bothering to sift through 148 pages of your work originally.

Ok. You are forgiven

idspopd · « **Reply #57 on:** April 18, 2011, 21:56 »

from what i see here and other threads similar like this, i found that all agencies are nuts, since they all always have something to grump on. i wonder why you all don't sell direct from day one, and forget about uploading to agencies.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #58 on:** April 18, 2011, 22:23 »

Quote from: idspopd on April 18, 2011, 21:56

from what i see here and other threads similar like this, i found that all agencies are nuts

Sadly, so true!

sharpshot · « **Reply #59 on:** April 19, 2011, 02:03 »

Quote from: idspopd on April 18, 2011, 21:56

from what i see here and other threads similar like this, i found that all agencies are nuts, since they all always have something to grump on. i wonder why you all don't sell direct from day one, and forget about uploading to agencies.

That might happen in a few years time. If someone could sort out a decent universal search and payment system, I think we would all be much better off. This is such a big market, I do think someone will come up with a great way to sell direct one day. It could have big benefits for buyers and contributors.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #60 on:** April 19, 2011, 02:12 »

could also be a royal POA for buyers. Unless, as you mentioned, ONE search engine could search all those thousands sellers, millions of files looking for that one perfect image.

It is going to take a major break through to have a lot buyers leaving a central depository to find one of MY images on my very own site.

sharpshot · « **Reply #61 on:** April 19, 2011, 03:21 »

^^^That's why I don't have my own site to sell direct yet but I hope its possible for someone to set up a way for buyers to purchase credits that then let them buy from lots of different sites, without the hassle of registering on every site. Then there will have to be a way to search through all those sites and to make sure the images found have decent technical quality. It wont be easy but I hope someone is working on it.

jameslee · « **Reply #62 on:** April 19, 2011, 03:30 »

that's why I vote by toes.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #63 on:** April 19, 2011, 04:07 »

Actually I think it is good that DT is starting to get rid of some pictures. But I disagree in the way they do it.
The similars are in many cases not really the problem. Crappy images and nonsellers are the problem combined with a search engine which is not that good.

If DT would lets say delete images which have not sold within a year many problems would be solved. DT even does not have to go through all the similars anymore, because the buyer would decide. If there are similars which all get downloaded once in a while there would be no problem with them. If there are similars which are not interesting to the buyer, they would get disabled after a year. I have no idea why there is no one of the big angencies which implements s.th. like that. It would be the best for all of us.

cobalt · « **Reply #64 on:** April 19, 2011, 05:14 »

istock had a system like that for the dollar bin. They moved files there that didn´t sell after several years and once in the dollar bin they had a "30 day clock" ticking. Every time an image was bought in the dollar bin, the clock was reset and the file had another 30 days to go. If it wasn´t bought a single time then after 30 days it was deleted.

It was a great system and many files started getting noticed and flaming there.

At the moment the clocks have been stopped and no new images are being put in the dollar bin. They say they want to do something special with the bin, but we have no idea when.

many photographers now delete older files from istock but put them on the partner program. so you can do your own spring cleaning but the files can still have a life somwhere. Like the dollar bin, many files that didn´t sell at all on istock are now popular in the PP.

Sorry about losing those images elena, only 3 months old and a lovely series. Very bizarre decision.

fotografer · « **Reply #65 on:** April 19, 2011, 05:28 »

I don't know why so many people think that old non selling images are a problem and clog up the searches. If an image is old and non selling it will be at the back of just about any search on any site.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #66 on:** April 19, 2011, 05:53 »

Quote from: fotografer on April 19, 2011, 05:28

I don't know why so many people think that old non selling images are a problem and clog up the searches. If an image is old and non selling it will be at the back of just about any search on any site.

Yeah, but if 5% of the images deliver 95% of the earnings (as I suspect they do) then if the storage cost is more than 5% of the overall costs, 95% of the images become uneconomical to store, don't they? Something like that, anyway. Serban's got at thing against images with zero downloads, which certainly do not pay for their storage.

How many hundreds of thousands of non-selling similars should DT store to ensure a buyer whose going to buy one anyway gets a big choice?

In addition, the shift to subscriptions might lead a buyer to download five similar images to compare at full size just to select the best, in which case each of the extra similars is costing DT commission but delivering no return - it just increases the payout from DT to the photographer.

So there are plenty of reasons why they might not like similars.

gostwyck · « **Reply #67 on:** April 19, 2011, 07:05 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 19, 2011, 05:53

Yeah, but if 5% of the images deliver 95% of the earnings (as I suspect they do) then if the storage cost is more than 5% of the overall costs, 95% of the images become uneconomical to store, don't they? Something like that, anyway. Serban's got at thing against images with zero downloads, which certainly do not pay for their storage.

How many hundreds of thousands of non-selling similars should Dreamstime store to ensure a buyer whose going to buy one anyway gets a big choice?

I doubt that it has anything to do with 'storage costs', which frankly must be fairly minimal in the greater scheme of things. If you wanted to significantly reduce storage costs then you'd have to trim down the entire collection by 20%+ and there's no likelihood of that happening. DT were ruthlessly rejecting perfectly good images years ago for being 'too similar' when at the same time they were breathlessly celebrating every 100K target attained on their way to 1M images. I'm sure that this is a reaction to customer complaints about the poor search results but of course that issue is almost entirely to do with the pathetic algorithm.

I think it's quite likely that the upload limits were imposed to save money on reviewing costs though as those must be fairly hefty. Even if the costs of reviewing were as little as 10c per image, with 100K new images per week being uploaded, it adds up to over $500K per annum.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #68 on:** April 19, 2011, 07:12 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 19, 2011, 07:05

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 19, 2011, 05:53
Yeah, but if 5% of the images deliver 95% of the earnings (as I suspect they do) then if the storage cost is more than 5% of the overall costs, 95% of the images become uneconomical to store, don't they? Something like that, anyway. Serban's got at thing against images with zero downloads, which certainly do not pay for their storage.

How many hundreds of thousands of non-selling similars should Dreamstime store to ensure a buyer whose going to buy one anyway gets a big choice?

I doubt that it has anything to do with 'storage costs', which frankly must be fairly minimal in the greater scheme of things. If you wanted to significantly reduce storage costs then you'd have to trim down the entire collection by 20%+ and there's no likelihood of that happening. Dreamstime were ruthlessly rejecting perfectly good images years ago for being 'too similar' when at the same time they were breathlessly celebrating every 100K target attained on their way to 1M images. I'm sure that this is a reaction to customer complaints about the poor search results but of course that issue is almost entirely to do with the pathetic algorithm.

I think it's quite likely that the upload limits were imposed to save money on reviewing costs though as those must be fairly hefty. Even if the costs of reviewing were as little as 10c per image, with 100K new images per week being uploaded, it adds up to over $500K per annum.

and pictures will be a lot more selective like at IS which will be more "enjoyable" to them (to sell to) but I guess they are going "pretty" further from acting this way when they are not close to Shutterstock, IS

Slovenian · « **Reply #69 on:** April 19, 2011, 07:38 »

I think it's a great idea and most of the MS sites should get 2/3 of the content deleted, IS probably about 50% and SS and similar agencies, where ppl post series of tens of photos with little or no variety and terrible quality up to 90%. I'd delete all of the files with heavy and obvious keyword spamming as well, I'm loosing my mind trying to track my newly approved photos on SS. For instance I made a series in a hair salon, every ppl shot has the keyword hair, although a man with a helmet is standing in front of his house. But there are much worse cases, I just uploaded an athletics series, searching for athletics and I get a series of 30 totally crappy shots of BUGS, that immediately pushed my images to the 2nd page. Looking for shopping and finding cartons of eggs. Ahhh. Keyword spamming and huge series of crappy shots are killing MS. And when will they start looking for qualities such as originality, concept and marketability, just checking for IQ doesn't cut it anymore. It's driving away the buyers. I'd say 90% of the pre 2007 content should be deleted, the best shots from that era are just average now (most of them anyway)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #70 on:** April 19, 2011, 08:11 »

Quote from: Slovenian on April 19, 2011, 07:38

I think it's a great idea and most of the MS sites should get 2/3 of the content deleted, IS probably about 50% and Shutterstock and similar agencies, where ppl post series of tens of photos with little or no variety and terrible quality up to 90%. I'd delete all of the files with heavy and obvious keyword spamming as well, I'm loosing my mind trying to track my newly approved photos on Shutterstock. For instance I made a series in a hair salon, every ppl shot has the keyword hair, although a man with a helmet is standing in front of his house. But there are much worse cases, I just uploaded an athletics series, searching for athletics and I get a series of 30 totally crappy shots of BUGS, that immediately pushed my images to the 2nd page. Looking for shopping and finding cartons of eggs. Ahhh. Keyword spamming and huge series of crappy shots are killing MS. And when will they start looking for qualities such as originality, concept and marketability, just checking for IQ doesn't cut it anymore. It's driving away the buyers. I'd say 90% of the pre 2007 content should be deleted, the best shots from that era are just average now (most of them anyway)

now you are just going NUTS like the topic name.. removing 2/3 ?? that´s like bringing SS from 15 million to 5 million, that is just dumb in my opinion, they should have done it from start not now erasing everything and not even on that amount, that is like paying again a reviewer to go all around (when it should have been done before) that´s is just too much work and a lot more money.. they should look to some that really have similar stuff (and not well done..) they should look for new cntributors, not calling them and approved their first pictures that aren´t worth and good enough to be online..

lagereek · « **Reply #71 on:** April 19, 2011, 08:37 »

A good clean-up will only benefit us in the long run.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #72 on:** April 19, 2011, 09:01 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 19, 2011, 08:37

A good clean-up will only benefit us in the long run.

a good one! (not removing pictures that aren´t that similar)

more important is not approving every new "apple" from each contributor that enter microstock unless it is very good, DT is one of the most "friendly" agencies, they approve a little for each contributor and some of those new pics are really bad, less than average is only pulling microstock down.. DT is quite depressing and perhaps a few old SS pictures.. IS may be the only with really nice pics, not approving only to get "more uploads" from contributors

Elenathewise · « **Reply #73 on:** April 19, 2011, 10:30 »

Quote from: fotografer on April 19, 2011, 05:28

I don't know why so many people think that old non selling images are a problem and clog up the searches. If an image is old and non selling it will be at the back of just about any search on any site.

I agree. Plus, Dreamstime is a slow site with not-so-great search algorithm, and the fact that images have not sold there doesn't mean they are not sellable - many of my images that had no or very few sales on DT are very good sellers elsewhere.
And they do have their "donate for free" or "disable" option for images that hasn't been sold in a while - so why go manual and spend so much effort on combing through collection??... If someone has too many similars and only one or two images out of the series get sold, the rest will go automatically into their free section or get disabled after a while, right? Right. Then it looks like they are just wasting time and effort and pissing off contributors for no good reason. <shrug>

Elenathewise · « **Reply #74 on:** April 19, 2011, 11:00 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 19, 2011, 08:37

A good clean-up will only benefit us in the long run.

Unless they pour out the baby with the bathwater.

I understand concerns people voiced here and agree with examples of image spamming. However, I am not a spammer. Why don't they go after the guy with 50 shots of the same pizza slice instead of deleting very questionable "similars" from my portfolio?

I also don't understand why automatic removal of unsold images (which they already have in place) is not enough.

Dreamstime and other agencies exist because you and me and all of us give them our images to sell. Submitting images to them and get them approved only to find out later that they removed them is a huge waste of time and effort for us.
From now on, DT goes on a "back burner" - there are many agencies that are waiting for our submissions, we've been doing extremely well with some of them especially in Europe.
Dreamstime will get what they are asking for - much less images from us, if any at all.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Dreamstime is going nuts? (Read 35933 times)

cthoman

fritz

Suljo

Phil

TheSmilingAssassin

TheSmilingAssassin

Elenathewise

idspopd

Elenathewise

sharpshot

WarrenPrice

sharpshot

jameslee

Freezingpictures

cobalt

fotografer

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

luissantos84

Slovenian

luissantos84

lagereek

luissantos84

Elenathewise

Elenathewise

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors