MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How is this possible ?  (Read 8122 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 19, 2017, 12:18 »
0
I've got an interesting feedback one of my customer, that she is hardly find suitable conceptions at stock agencies, due to tons of overhelming same conceptions, or same images in various crops, filters etc.
For example on Shutterstock ID: 433880728, 436619266, 437470180, 447365770, etc. 

Second thing is worst. From this style (examples above) are tons of photographers (or maybe stawmans?) with different countries of upload, who copy this style - sometimes with international faces - on local professional market I dont know personaly anyone of them, but those models acting professionaly, not just first shooters - the pictures are hardly filtered, fake flared etc. as at main uploaders.

Why agencies allowing this ?


« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2017, 12:25 »
+1
Provide a link.

« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2017, 12:32 »
0
Provide a link.
Well I've just learn't something you can search SS using image Id :-). I don't know what the problem is with the image? Too many similars or copied?

« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2017, 12:35 »
0
Provide a link.
Well I've just learn't something you can search SS using image Id :-). I don't know what the problem is with the image? Too many similars or copied?

Same images in various crops, then filtered versions. Filtering, cropping, stop motion moving means variability when the conception is the same ??

« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2017, 13:49 »
0
I've got an interesting feedback one of my customer, that she is hardly find suitable conceptions at stock agencies, due to tons of overhelming same conceptions, or same images in various crops, filters etc.
For example on Shutterstock ID: 433880728, 436619266, 437470180, 447365770, etc. 

Second thing is worst. From this style (examples above) are tons of photographers (or maybe stawmans?) with different countries of upload, who copy this style - sometimes with international faces - on local professional market I dont know personaly anyone of them, but those models acting professionaly, not just first shooters - the pictures are hardly filtered, fake flared etc. as at main uploaders.

Why agencies allowing this ?

Wow. And from such a big supplier. I'd definitely report this to shutterstock.

Shelma1

« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2017, 14:12 »
+5
That's nothing. Click "next page" at the bottom to see more than 400 of the same icon with slightly different color backgrounds. All uploaded and approved at the same time.

https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=World%20health%20day&sort=newest&image_type=all&search_source=base_landing_page&language=en&page=2

« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2017, 14:18 »
+1
That's nothing. Click "next page" at the bottom to see more than 400 of the same icon with slightly different color backgrounds. All uploaded and approved at the same time.

https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=World%20health%20day&sort=newest&image_type=all&search_source=base_landing_page&language=en&page=2
Just ridiculous I find it hard to believe its worth doing......

« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2017, 14:21 »
+3
Looks like automated "production"

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2017, 14:50 »
+3
I would love to hear how many sales they get from this kind of image spamming. There must be some reason to continue uploading similars?

« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2017, 14:56 »
+3
I would love to hear how many sales they get from this kind of image spamming. There must be some reason to continue uploading similars?
You have to assume its worth doing or they wouldn't do it I guess but it just seems bizarre

« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2017, 15:23 »
0
Wasn't there some website that showed sell through rates of this portfolios and it was something less than 1%

Shelma1

« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2017, 15:35 »
+2
All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.

Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 15:37 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2017, 16:33 »
+2
All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.

Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.
I don't buy it. There are too many of these portfolios.  My guess would be that there must be some kind of sanction for this in particular cases. It can't be under the radar with this volume of work.

Shelma1

« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2017, 17:38 »
+1
But there's got to be a method behind the madness. They can't be doing this just to fill up a portfolio. And they're not making money with the images themselves. But whoever is mass approving these is making a lot of money saying yes to five hundred nearly identical icons in seconds.

Remember, it took months and months, thread after thread and a petition with thousands of signatures for SS to notice keyword spamming. Now it's image spamming.

« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2017, 18:15 »
+6
All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.

Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.

Why do you assume that all reviewers are human?


Have you seen a starling swarm? They're fascinating and there's a good reason why some birds fly in swarms.

Now, if successful contributors decided to flood the agencies with similars, there must be a reason behind it.
And I think this is the final stage of microstock.

The "old school" approach was that submitting too many similars dilutes your sales, because you compete with yourself, and your files cannot advance in the most popular ranking. Now, it looks like flooding the search results with a swarm of images yields better results than producing high quality images.

By flooding, some images will earn crumbs, but at least you're getting something. If you produce unique, high quality images there is a high chance that they will sink and you won't earn anything. 0. If you take into account production costs, you make a loss.

It's sad, but if it has come to this, there is no future in microstock. You may penalize some contributors for doing that, but it doesn't matter. You can't change the overall climate.

I don't think that the flooding strategy is the real problem. It is a diagnosis.

I don't care anymore. I don't invest in MS anymore. I am moving on to something else.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 19:21 by LDV81 »

« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2017, 18:30 »
+3
All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.

Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.

It has to be something like this.  Remember the 'marijuana guy' with 10s of thousands of nearly identical pot photos?  No way is this stuff going through the real review process; someone is just slipping it in.   It's a business that's drifting out of control.

« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2017, 18:34 »
+7
Those "Happy Runny Nose Day" on facet backgrounds are bad enough, but how about nearly 2700 gradients - no text no nothing!

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true

Based on the image numbers, this rubbish was uploaded late January/early February. This is current policy or practice - I'd love to know if they intend this or if they're just asleep at the wheel.


angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #17 on: March 19, 2017, 19:46 »
+4
This kind of image spamming makes it so hard for people like me who only upload 2-3 BEST shots from a session. It is so frustrating...

« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2017, 19:58 »
+1
Those "Happy Runny Nose Day" on facet backgrounds are bad enough, but how about nearly 2700 gradients - no text no nothing!

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true

Based on the image numbers, this rubbish was uploaded late January/early February. This is current policy or practice - I'd love to know if they intend this or if they're just asleep at the wheel.

There are over 2000 files of "colorful abstract gradient" all just a simple two color gradient. Fascinating!! I would go over the edge just producing them.

« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2017, 20:20 »
0
And look at the last 10!!! those are the one shuterstock accept from this contributor to get accepted as a shuterstock contributor???? really???

Those "Happy Runny Nose Day" on facet backgrounds are bad enough, but how about nearly 2700 gradients - no text no nothing!

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true

Based on the image numbers, this rubbish was uploaded late January/early February. This is current policy or practice - I'd love to know if they intend this or if they're just asleep at the wheel.

There are over 2000 files of "colorful abstract gradient" all just a simple two color gradient. Fascinating!! I would go over the edge just producing them.

« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2017, 20:33 »
+7
SS has to be losing respect from buyers and contributers with stuff like this

Once upon a time it was the model micro agency
Now every week seems to be a notch down for one reason or another, esp after going public


« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2017, 20:40 »
+4
Those gradients are the best (worst) yet. Why do they bother! Wonder if a plain white background would be accepted. Then black, then red......

« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2017, 21:02 »
+5
I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.".  So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2017, 21:36 »
+3
I doubt anything will get done. They are too focused on numbers (not quality). I wonder if anyone is brave enough to submit a blank white or black photo and see if it gets accepted ...

« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2017, 21:52 »
+3
I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.".  So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed.

Meanwhile at Shutterstock: 1.269.450 new stock images added this week    :o

When I started, I think it was around 50K/week.


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results