Author Topic: Year to Year Poll comparison (Read 10718 times)

tätarätä · « **Reply #25 on:** January 08, 2022, 03:24 »

I started at shutterstock June 2008. Never focused to start a stock photographer career, just upload a few images every month.
Shutterstock still worked for me. In 2020 earning at shutterstock have been about the same than 2008, but with a much larger portfolio. Its like to go to work every day. Same hours work, same income. Portfolio growth is just to keep the level of income.
Nowadays i have no images at shutterstock active. Just uploading a few images every month to a macrostock agency.
(edit Jan 9th) and some images to Adobe stock.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #26 on:** January 08, 2022, 10:31 »

Quote from: Wilm on January 07, 2022, 16:27

I started at shutterstock in the middle of November 2010, Pete.

And it was a great time that I will never forget!

I forgot to account for members who had signed up and left in the number assumption. My year matched relatively well, but when the mass of new users coming in happened, the member number for a year, would no longer relate to the number of members. My Mistake.

Photo numbers are another issue. It used to be, when I started, every image was 3 away from the previous. So if I uploaded a batch of ten, they might be, 8651233, 8651236, 8651239 Etc. And those are actually my first three images and their numbers. So I assumed that it was always that way. Apparently not as Jo Ann said some of hers in later years are consecutive. There's no way to tell anymore, too many images, uploading too fast, all day and night.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/sport-car-front-view-icon-vector-2101903084 2,101,901,084 is a vector,, new upload from a new contributor. Her latest is number 2102510725 ? What? two days and half a million new uploads?

If the every third image numbering thing is active, then 700,272,929 images have been assigned a number on the system. Just for comparison, a photo, #2,100,818,788 was my latest upload.

That says nothing about passing or still being here, just that that many images have been uploaded.

Same goes for member numbers. It doesn't mean there are 319,430,041 contributors, just that that many have applied. And it's just as possible that those IDs aren't consecutive?

WavebreakMedia joined 2006 - ID 76219
Voyagerix Joined 2008 - ID 175351
Andris Torms Joined 2010 - ID 660631
phonchai Joined 2017 - ID 175645076
Nina Markevceva 2021 - ID 319430041

The numbers in that graphic I posted were people with at least 1 image, or Not Zero images, not the number of total contributors on those years.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #27 on:** January 08, 2022, 11:46 »

Quote from: SVH on January 07, 2022, 14:55

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 07, 2022, 13:27
My only claim is, account numbers assigned and I'm assuming they are consecutive and have been for years, and that one of the newest is, 319,430,041, so I've concluded that, that's how many people have signed up for an account. To be fair, Jon Oringer is account #81, so the number isn't precise.

Pete, we have 7 billion people on this planet and you think that 1 out of 22 people (that includes children) joined SS as a contributor? Really? Same goes for the number of uploads. Can never be 2,101,861,852 obviously

SS has assigned that many account numbers, I can't say anything more. The new vector artist is account number 319,430,041

The uploads, I say divide by 3 and that's how many images have been uploaded for review.

Other odd things that might be interesting, searching SS for all images, there are 3,799,838 pages and if I look at "Fresh Content" and the last page, the image ID is 179701874 which is pretty high for the oldest? And images only the oldest number is 1638480892.

Member Since 2008

Member since 2004

Look at the image ID number?

So I'm going with... 2,101,901,084 image IDs assigned and maybe that means 700,272,929 images have been uploaded? And yes, I'd agree, that sure seems like an illogical high number of images and a highly unlikely number of contributors, 319,430,041 assigned. But... those are the numbers from SS itself.

cascoly · « **Reply #28 on:** January 08, 2022, 14:03 »

it's common to use non-consecutive numbers in order to keep actual numbers secret & that may account for the artificially high # assigned to contributors - it's difficult to imagine 300 million, even if only for those who applied

meanwhile SS website says

1,000,000,000+ image downloads
1,000,000+ image contributors
300,000,000+ images

and they have little incentive to under-report those approximate numbers

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #29 on:** January 08, 2022, 14:59 »

Quote from: cascoly on January 08, 2022, 14:03

it's common to use non-consecutive numbers in order to keep actual numbers secret & that may account for the artificially high # assigned to contributors - it's difficult to imagine 300 million, even if only for those who applied

meanwhile SS website says

1,000,000,000+ image downloads
1,000,000+ image contributors
300,000,000+ images

and they have little incentive to under-report those approximate numbers

Right, and for you and everyone else, including myself, who think these numbers are rather odd, I'm only reporting what I see in the numbers and on the website. I've wasted too much time already just looking at numbers, IDs and accounts. I really can't see anything conclusive except that's what the numbers are on the images and the accounts.

The every third number for images was back in 2012. I can't see any way to look at contributors numbers and make any reasonable guess, and not even some far out crazy assumption.

They have no reason to report anything and can make up whatever they want. We'll never know. We've been through this for years, how many contributors? Well is that signed up, or have at least one image or where I saved them in 2018, at least 1,000 images. I think the part that might matter is:

1) This is the competition - anyone, anywhere on the planet
2) Know your competition - everyone who has a camera of any sort and a computer or phone
3) Try to understand the market - wild and crazy and unlimited

Just_to_inform_people2 · « **Reply #30 on:** January 08, 2022, 17:42 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 08, 2022, 14:59

I really can't see anything conclusive except that's what the numbers are on the images and the accounts.

Let things settle and think again.

tätarätä · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2022, 05:07 »

I can't say how many contributors at shutterstock are active uploading. But i guess not more than 100.000 active photographers. Maybe there are much more contributor accounts, but not very active.
And i doubt that the number of active contributors will increase at a high level.
There is much more time to invest to earn some money than 10 years ago.
If i search at shutterstock photos with keyword "Steak" i get 1.093.244 results.
There is no niche to find. Every possible photo about a steak is online.
If i search jogging photos there are 547821 results. A better chance than steak but my wife is not very sporty. An amateur model for 2 hours jogging probably costs about $80. But one model is not enough so better 3 models.
Wow, $240 for some jogging photos that maybe even make lower sale revenue than production costs.
What if one of this models break her foot at shooting???
If i would start now as a new contributor at shutterstock i probably give up after 3 months - an inactive account within a few months.
Actually my account is inactive since 2021.But starting 2008 i have been active at shutterstock fo years.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #32 on:** January 10, 2022, 09:48 »

Quote from: SVH on January 08, 2022, 17:42

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 08, 2022, 14:59
I really can't see anything conclusive except that's what the numbers are on the images and the accounts.
Let things settle and think again.

OK, thought about the information and my conclusions and interesting comments from others, please tell me?

A simple conclusion is, a boatload of competition coming in from everywhere by the thousands from thousands of people. I mean what valid conclusions can I make about the real number of contributors or the real number of images that have been uploaded?

Just_to_inform_people2 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 10, 2022, 13:33 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 10, 2022, 09:48

OK, thought about the information and my conclusions and interesting comments from others, please tell me?

Although your reasoning was pretty logical, the outcome cannot match reality. So probably the numbers are not incremental with one from day one. There is probably another logic in place at SS or maybe they switched the logic a few times when the numbers were getting greater or something entirely else.
You cannot have 1 out of every 22 people being registered as a contributor with SS. People under 18 are about 30% of the world population so that would mean 1 out of 17 even, for adults. I'm sure that SS would have liked that to be true

Just saying that on basis of the numbers you see you cannot deduct the number of contributors. And then again, they publish the numbers themself on their website. And they would sooner exaggerate the numbers then not. Same goes for the number of uploads.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #34 on:** January 11, 2022, 11:04 »

Quote from: SVH on January 10, 2022, 13:33

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 10, 2022, 09:48
OK, thought about the information and my conclusions and interesting comments from others, please tell me?
Although your reasoning was pretty logical, the outcome cannot match reality. So probably the numbers are not incremental with one from day one. There is probably another logic in place at SS or maybe they switched the logic a few times when the numbers were getting greater or something entirely else.
You cannot have 1 out of every 22 people being registered as a contributor with SS. People under 18 are about 30% of the world population so that would mean 1 out of 17 even, for adults. I'm sure that SS would have liked that to be true

Just saying that on basis of the numbers you see you cannot deduct the number of contributors. And then again, they publish the numbers themself on their website. And they would sooner exaggerate the numbers then not. Same goes for the number of uploads.

Oh good, that's what I was saying also. They are just numbers and we can't tell the real value of these numbers. I know for the images that many are uploaded and many are rejected.

Imagine this, someone uploads 50 new images, all are rejected, they upload the same a couple days later and all are accepted. That's 100 numbers. Or someone like Richard said he did, on the SS forum, had uploaded the same images 6 times, until they were accepted. That plus I have evidence (using my photo uploads in a batch) that SS numbers every new image 3 away from the previous image. So easy? Divide the number by 3 and you get, how many photos have been uploaded to the system. Nothing to do with how many accepted.

As for user numbers, we don't know if they are continuous or not. Even if they are, and your point about the population of the world, so what? Are you saying it's impossible that all accounts are assigned a number from the same pool, and buyers as well as contributors each have a unique ID number? Now the "USER" ID doesn't look so impossible? Although if I was arguing your side, yes, highly unlikely.

Anyway, I do agree, any conclusions are of doubtful value for serious conclusions, and that's why I wrote, they are just numbers.

The only real numbers would be, 2018 December, 17877 artists had over 1,000 assets. And in 2016 there were 164,949 contributors with 1 or more assets. Oh and in April 2017, 100 accounts had 100,000 images or more which represented 15% of the entire collection.

We can only guess at how those numbers have grown?

tätarätä · « **Reply #35 on:** January 11, 2022, 12:15 »

Quote

The only real numbers would be, 2018 December, 17877 artists had over 1,000 assets. And in 2016 there were 164,949 contributors with 1 or more assets. Oh and in April 2017, 100 accounts had 100,000 images or more which represented 15% of the entire collection.

Interesting, were did you get this numbers?
I sometimes look at https://microstockrank.com/shutterstock/photos-rank
Datas are from June 2019. There have been 116.024 Contributors with at least 2 images in Portfolio. In June 2019,Number 116.024 was DeeDee Lowe with 2 images. If you look at shuterstock nowadays, she still have 2 images in her portfolio - https://www.shutterstock.com/de/g/DeeDee%20Lowe
Shutterstock is far away from 1.000.000 active contributors.

Milleflore · « **Reply #36 on:** January 11, 2022, 13:25 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 11, 2022, 11:04

Quote from: SVH on January 10, 2022, 13:33
Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 10, 2022, 09:48
OK, thought about the information and my conclusions and interesting comments from others, please tell me?
Although your reasoning was pretty logical, the outcome cannot match reality. So probably the numbers are not incremental with one from day one. There is probably another logic in place at SS or maybe they switched the logic a few times when the numbers were getting greater or something entirely else.
You cannot have 1 out of every 22 people being registered as a contributor with SS. People under 18 are about 30% of the world population so that would mean 1 out of 17 even, for adults. I'm sure that SS would have liked that to be true

Just saying that on basis of the numbers you see you cannot deduct the number of contributors. And then again, they publish the numbers themself on their website. And they would sooner exaggerate the numbers then not. Same goes for the number of uploads.

Oh good, that's what I was saying also. They are just numbers and we can't tell the real value of these numbers. I know for the images that many are uploaded and many are rejected.

Imagine this, someone uploads 50 new images, all are rejected, they upload the same a couple days later and all are accepted. That's 100 numbers. Or someone like Richard said he did, on the SS forum, had uploaded the same images 6 times, until they were accepted. That plus I have evidence (using my photo uploads in a batch) that SS numbers every new image 3 away from the previous image. So easy? Divide the number by 3 and you get, how many photos have been uploaded to the system. Nothing to do with how many accepted.

As for user numbers, we don't know if they are continuous or not. Even if they are, and your point about the population of the world, so what? Are you saying it's impossible that all accounts are assigned a number from the same pool, and buyers as well as contributors each have a unique ID number? Now the "USER" ID doesn't look so impossible? Although if I was arguing your side, yes, highly unlikely.

Anyway, I do agree, any conclusions are of doubtful value for serious conclusions, and that's why I wrote, they are just numbers.

The only real numbers would be, 2018 December, 17877 artists had over 1,000 assets. And in 2016 there were 164,949 contributors with 1 or more assets. Oh and in April 2017, 100 accounts had 100,000 images or more which represented 15% of the entire collection.

We can only guess at how those numbers have grown?

Maybe the contributor numbers are assigned at the point of application - not acceptance. And every application has a new number, regardless of whether they have previously applied or not. And depending on the number of rejections, this could account for so many extra numbers.

But I agree with you, Pete. They are just numbers, and for others to focus on that is distracting and a somewhat waste of time.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #37 on:** January 11, 2022, 13:54 »

Quote from: tätarätä on January 11, 2022, 12:15

Quote
The only real numbers would be, 2018 December, 17877 artists had over 1,000 assets. And in 2016 there were 164,949 contributors with 1 or more assets. Oh and in April 2017, 100 accounts had 100,000 images or more which represented 15% of the entire collection.
Interesting, were did you get this numbers?
I sometimes look at https://microstockrank.com/shutterstock/photos-rank
Datas are from June 2019. There have been 116.024 Contributors with at least 2 images in Portfolio. In June 2019,Number 116.024 was DeeDee Lowe with 2 images. If you look at shuterstock nowadays, she still have 2 images in her portfolio - https://www.shutterstock.com/de/g/DeeDee%20Lowe
Shutterstock is far away from 1.000.000 active contributors.

Right, June 23, 2019, but Microstock Rank doesn't count people with no images. I referred 17 people between 2009 and 2020, 15 never uploaded one image. Not a significant number, but just an example. Leaf could look at his SS referrals and give us a good number?

1,673,031 registered contributors in 2016, 164,949 had at least one image. Under 10% had one image or more. Based on that and your number 116,024 Contributors with at least 2 images in Portfolio, would indicate there were 1,160,024 people, in 2019, who had signed up for an account.

Microstock rank is going to need to run their crawler again and see what they get now. You probably noticed, countries are unlisted, member since has gone away. All that means is that SS doesn't include that on the member pages anymore, so the data mining can't get that information now.

Enough time wasted, (I mean that about myself) but thanks for the numbers. 9,986 people on the Rank site have under 10 images. Let me guess, those people aren't active, and if SS counts that kind of person, they could make up any number they wanted and call it real. Based on what we can see and guess, over 1 million accounts have been opened on SS.

Quote from: Annie on January 11, 2022, 13:25

Maybe the contributor numbers are assigned at the point of application - not acceptance. And every application has a new number, regardless of whether they have previously applied or not. And depending on the number of rejections, this could account for so many extra numbers.

But I agree with you, Pete. They are just numbers, and for others to focus on that is distracting and a somewhat waste of time.

I'm good at wasting time?

Of course, everyone gets an account number when they apply. Every image gets a number when it's uploaded. Everyone who applied for the SS forum, to be anonymous, got another account number. I created a buyers account years ago, lost now, but that had an account number. We can only guess at the image thieves accounts and fake accounts and fraud accounts and those numbers.

I'm not claiming there's anything to the number except... Someone who opened a new account at the start of 2022 has the account number 319,430,041 and one of the images she uploaded, at the start of 2022 has the image number 2,101,901,084 some interesting number?

Plus is someone comes back in 2023 and reads this and finds a new user, they can see how many new account numbers there are and how many new image numbers have been assigned. Not how many artists or how many images though.

Speaking of numbers, did I ever mention the used camera and lens that I got for $120 at the auction?

Only 12,000 shots taken? It's still a puppy.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Year to Year Poll comparison (Read 10718 times)

tätarätä

Uncle Pete

Uncle Pete

cascoly

Uncle Pete

Just_to_inform_people2

tätarätä

Uncle Pete

Just_to_inform_people2

Uncle Pete

tätarätä

Milleflore

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors