Not sure if fellow conspiracy theorists here discussed this topic already... but it looks to me there is a cup on daily earnings on SS - well at least something funny is going on. This morning I had a couple of large SODs and a couple of extended license sales, nice surprise, no complaints there. But after that my downloads just stopped - never seen anything like that before, and by the end of the day, even though I had a nice total, if you subtract the SODs and extended sales I ended up with the total well below my daily usual, even for a Friday.
It seems to me once you images sold up to certain daily amount they push your portfolio down the search results??
Would hate to think that I am working for a salary and can't grow because someone there decided how much they should pay me.
Anyone else with large ports and tin foil hats seen anything like that?

I don't believe it for a second.  I've seen way too much variation in my sales to think there's anything but market forces affecting my sales.  Interestingly enough, I had a much larger number of subscription sales today, easily 5x my daily average.

Stuff happens, that's all.  Conspiracies are rarely borne out.

Yes, I've noticed the same thing.  One or two ELs or decent SODs then suddenly everything else dries up for a day or two.  Then, things get back to normal.  The drop after the additional income from ELs etc is noticeable.

... and last 3 days I think they play with a search... my earnings are drastically down...

Sometimes it does seem that way, but I haven't ever seen a change in search placement after a few big sales. I am guessing it is just the ebb and flow combined with the usual search monkeying.

It certainly doesn't seem as regular as DT where I get a run of subs, a few credit sales, and then nothing then repeat. If my credit tap comes on during a weekend it makes for a few poor weeks.

So when where how is this being set by whom and why?

Is it set only for the biggest contributors? Because when you have an average contributor, how could he ever get a $75 sale if his daily limit is $10 or $20?

It would also imply that customers with the biggest license fees will see a filtered search result with some of the best selling contributors being filtered out. Why would you "punish" your best paying clients? It would especially be true for customers on the US west coast as they come in latest in the day, isn't it?

No, sorry, it doesn't really add up to me. I think once you have a certain amount of images, your random sales are averaging out somewhere. On some days you sell a lot of licenses to Asia, on others to Europe, and on others you only make big sales in the US. But on most days you'll sell around the clock as the planet turns.

Quote from: ferdinand on September 19, 2015, 04:20
... and last 3 days I think they play with a search... my earnings are drastically down...

I thought that no one mention and I am alone, exactly same here!

Surprised?  this has been going on for some time now. Old news. If I am capped according to my average monthly earnings I am quite happy actually then I'm earning quite a bit.

The worries start when it goes beneath that.

To ear-mark peoples earnings and especially large contributors is far from new. It started way back in the film-days, leading agencies used to make sure people were earning accordingly sometimes a bit less or a bit more.

I had a good day today, but there was nothing in the middle.  Good sales before I got up.  Decent sales after dinner sometime.  I thought it was more of a posting delay.

Quote from: hatman12 on September 19, 2015, 03:25
Yes, I've noticed the same thing.  One or two ELs or decent SODs then suddenly everything else dries up for a day or two.  Then, things get back to normal.  The drop after the additional income from ELs etc is noticeable.

Same here, had a really good month, lots of sales daily, and then EL sale (first sale that day - in the morning) and then no more sales that day. It's too weird.

Quote from: Dumc on September 19, 2015, 09:15

Quote from: hatman12 on September 19, 2015, 03:25
Yes, I've noticed the same thing.  One or two ELs or decent SODs then suddenly everything else dries up for a day or two.  Then, things get back to normal.  The drop after the additional income from ELs etc is noticeable.

Same here, had a really good month, lots of sales daily, and then EL sale (first sale that day - in the morning) and then no more sales that day. It's too weird.

Not weird. Just a reality

Quote from: Elenathewise on September 19, 2015, 03:06
Not sure if fellow conspiracy theorists here discussed this topic already... but it looks to me there is a cup on daily earnings on SS - well at least something funny is going on. This morning I had a couple of large SODs and a couple of extended license sales, nice surprise, no complaints there. But after that my downloads just stopped - never seen anything like that before, and by the end of the day, even though I had a nice total, if you subtract the SODs and extended sales I ended up with the total well below my daily usual, even for a Friday.
It seems to me once you images sold up to certain daily amount they push your portfolio down the search results??
Would hate to think that I am working for a salary and can't grow because someone there decided how much they should pay me.
Anyone else with large ports and tin foil hats seen anything like that?

No a conspiracy Elena but a known fact.

I don't see evidence of a daily cap.

What I do see evidence of is SS playing with search algos.  There have been multiple wild swings in what gets served first in search results, and those have drastically affected my sales.  But no daily cap.  My numbers, which I watch like a hawk, don't support the theory.

But here's the reality that is keeping my earnings down, and WAY down: the dramatic, depressing rise in competition.  That's what has capped my earnings, and makes it a losing battle to achieve any growth.  My earnings at SS and everywhere else are down about 30% vs a year ago.  I know that's a different type of 'cap,' and not at all what the OP is referring to here, but it's what keeps ME up at night: a very real wall that is affecting us more than any tin-hat conspiracy.

It is a fact.  Happens all the time, every time.  For example, I had a $140 day this week then the next three (up until today) I have had zero OD's, zero SOD's and only a hand full of subs leaving me about $15 each day after.  It happens far too often to say it is something other than an algorithm adjustment based on sales.

Quote from: Mantis on September 19, 2015, 11:45
It is a fact.  Happens all the time, every time.  For example, I had a $140 day this week then the next three (up until today) I have had zero OD's, zero SOD's and only a hand full of subs leaving me about $15 each day after.  It happens far too often to say it is something other than an algorithm adjustment based on sales.

Yes and a big fact! it's been going on for months now. Looking at my monthly sales for the last six months and they differ no more then $.50. give or take

Quote from: Elenathewise on September 19, 2015, 03:06
Not sure if fellow conspiracy theorists here discussed this topic already... but it looks to me there is a cup on daily earnings on SS - well at least something funny is going on. This morning I had a couple of large SODs and a couple of extended license sales, nice surprise, no complaints there. But after that my downloads just stopped - never seen anything like that before, and by the end of the day, even though I had a nice total, if you subtract the SODs and extended sales I ended up with the total well below my daily usual, even for a Friday.
It seems to me once you images sold up to certain daily amount they push your portfolio down the search results??
Would hate to think that I am working for a salary and can't grow because someone there decided how much they should pay me.
Anyone else with large ports and tin foil hats seen anything like that?

I think it's on accident. By my experience this was never happen to me, i have almost every day SODs and this days in most of the cases are good days overall with more subs.
Shutterstock are very intelligent and they know very well that people like you Elena(maybe me too ) which sale a lot are the backbone of their collection. Good images sells more, why they will limit sales and why they will limit the buyer's choice?

It would be very easy to see if this were true, just do a search (or have someone else on a different computer) and see if your images show up or if they are moved down to the bottom of the results.  Unless you're saying they are not paying you for downloads which I very much doubt.

I am surprised this comes to light now. As I said earlier its nothing new at all. Been going on for a long time. Now all of a sudden people start noticing it?

Quote from: weymouth on September 19, 2015, 16:03
I am surprised this comes to light now. As I said earlier its nothing new at all. Been going on for a long time. Now all of a sudden people start noticing it?

Well, if you think it only happens to you, you might think it's coincidence. But when you see, other people have same experiences too, it might be some truth in this.

I've been politely laughed at for suggesting similar theories.

Just because Area 51 hasn't been turned into a National Park, with rangers wearing HazMat suits and carrying MegaTazers, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quote from: Dumc on September 19, 2015, 16:41

Quote from: weymouth on September 19, 2015, 16:03
I am surprised this comes to light now. As I said earlier its nothing new at all. Been going on for a long time. Now all of a sudden people start noticing it?

Well, if you think it only happens to you, you might think it's coincidence. But when you see, other people have same experiences too, it might be some truth in this.

Thats what I am saying. It's facts!  and there are loads of people experiencing the same thing, earnings are somehow capped or shall we say somehow controlled.

The cycle on DT is no mystery. Several of the DT admins have admitted, on their forum, to cycling contributors in the search results. Serban himself has stated it outright in order, as he put it, to give everyone a fair chance. This is why you get good sales for a week or so followed by nothing for a week or so and then repeat.

Shutterstock however, has stated that their mandate is to deliver the best image to the buyer based on search terms. This is why they won't do exclusive because giving an exclusive preferred search placement would go against that mandate. It seems to me that pushing a contributor down in search results due to an earning quota would also go against that mandate.

I won't rule out anything when it comes to what microstock agencies are capable of but it does seem hard to believe they would muck up their search results just because someone is making more than normal.

Quote: " Serban himself has stated it outright in order, as he put it, to give everyone a fair chance".   are you sure he said that?  that is a dreadful statement from a business man. This is a cut throat business and may the best man win and I don't think you find many happily giving it away just to be fair. 

I find that hard to believe. What's in it for SS to single out contributors based on their earnings? How does it profit SS by focusing on individual contributor earnings instead of optimizing their search algorithm? How high would the supposed earnings cap be? Would customers see different search results if contributors are left out? Does it apply to all search orders? Too many questions are left open. It doesn't make sense to me.

I think it's confirmation bias. I'm surprised the OP's conspiracy theory is getting +'ed so often.

Quote from: weymouth on September 19, 2015, 19:04
Quote: " Serban himself has stated it outright in order, as he put it, to give everyone a fair chance".   are you sure he said that?  that is a dreadful statement from a business man. This is a cut throat business and may the best man win and I don't think you find many happily giving it away just to be fair.

No, it was another DT admin (Dudau) who often puts his foot in his mouth. This is what he said -

"The "similars" policy has been relaxed a bit, since we updated the uploads limit, and I can say that's an acceptable selection. However, the placement changes continuously, in order to give everybody a fair chance, so what you see today on the first page it may not be there next week or the next month, depending on too many factors to be described here. As I said, it's a game of numbers and quality, and the ideal situation is to have both. If not, one should focus on at least one of these, in order to succeed."