My soul cries!

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-4252879p1.html
He have exactly 50 pictures, This is spam?
Shutterstock hunting these contributors or just the title spammers?

This is just mind blowing. Why SS is allowing this is beyond me.

And they won't take two pictures of different sea lions sitting on different rocks?  Maybe I use a robot to write slogans multiple times across each of them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote from: Groman on July 03, 2016, 19:52
My soul cries!

^^ The one phrase that spammy scum doesn't have

http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

Quote from: Dumc on July 04, 2016, 19:51
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

With the new feature of SS (now in beta version) buyer can add his/her own text to images and buy the license like this, im pretty sure they add this new feature to stop this kind of Bulk Uploads.

Quote from: Dumc on July 04, 2016, 19:51
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

This port is (yet another) disgrace, not only for the approach but for nonsense or misspelled captions, such as:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-446070451/stock-photo-does-your-marketing-make-your-new-customers-fell-welcome-hand-pressing-a-button-on-blurred.html



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Hehe, funny indeed....

It's so obvious that this is a business spiraling out of control.  On the one hand, crude automated "reviewing" is rejecting all sorts of good stuff for crazy reasons.  On the other, employees are stuffing in the spam portfolios of friends, bypassing inspection.   

Quote from: stockastic on July 04, 2016, 21:24
It's so obvious that this is a business spiraling out of control.  On the one hand, crude automated "reviewing" is rejecting all sorts of good stuff for crazy reasons.  On the other, employees are stuffing in the spam portfolios of friends, bypassing inspection.   

wala wala ... i see it in my crystal ball...
oooh look, shutterstock.. the name is slowly morphing ...
holy $h*t, what's that? i don't believe my eyes,
it's changing it's name to ... ISTOCK???

Totally pathetic examples
This wretched business is going to the dogs
Why do contributers have to find these things? Isnt SS full of staff to deal with this stuff? Get off your massage tables and do your job!

Quote from: Mrblues101 on July 04, 2016, 20:01

Quote from: Dumc on July 04, 2016, 19:51
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

With the new feature of SS (now in beta version) buyer can add his/her own text to images and buy the license like this, im pretty sure they add this new feature to stop this kind of Bulk Uploads.

Geat news! Be so!

There are so many sayings, you could tell short stories with these images...

the solution: must be kick out all of annoying spammers. SS not see this problem.

I can't even see much relationship between the pics and the text, in most cases.

I have this weird feeling, that background images aren't even his....

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 05, 2016, 17:04
There are so many sayings, you could tell short stories with these images...

one question from me...
how did all of these get past the reviewer of "out of focus"

i had images with only a fraction of the subject in motion
eg father playing with child (hands in motion)
or cyclist background in motion due to panning
or a climber up the mountain with just a single head in the foreground out of depth of field

and all got rejected for "out of focus".
nothing got past the reviewer who does not understand motion, panning, critical focus,
are all part of the impact of action... and insist everything to be in focus.

the images you show are all shot closeup with a tele lens or as full aperture
which emphasizes focal point,
nothing wrong with that... but the reviewers i got do not want such images
as everything has to be in focus and not a single sign of motion allowed.

once again showing there is one rule for experienced contributors
and another for a certain group who seems to be immuned from any or all review
by the curators.
reeks of NEPOTISM
something more characteristic of the old Istock before they got sold to the big G

What we should be angry about isn't that this stuff is low quality - it's that it was obviously never inspected, or at least not to the same standards as the work of ordinary contributors.  This 'portfolio' of cr@p (let's call it a port-phony-o)  was loaded directly by an insider or employee, the inspectors never looked at it.  This isn't conspiracy theory, it's really the only explanation I can think of.   And like someone else said above, it's likely the background images were stolen.

Whatever one might say about Oringer, he doesn't seem to be a crook.  So how would he react if he saw this account?  Is there any discussion of this on SS's own forum? 

Quote from: stockastic on July 05, 2016, 20:45
What we should be angry about isn't that this stuff is low quality - it's that it was obviously never inspected, or at least not to the same standards as the work of ordinary contributors.  This 'portfolio' of cr@p (let's call it a port-phony-o)  was loaded directly by an insider or employee, the inspectors never looked at it.  This isn't conspiracy theory, it's really the only explanation I can think of.   And like someone else said above, it's likely the background images were stolen.

Whatever one might say about Oringer, he doesn't seem to be a crook.  So how would he react if he saw this account? Is there any discussion of this on SS's own forum?

having been with top mgt and being in one situation where i did get to know where CEO stands,
i have always said i trust Oringer , but never the floor management front line team leads.
i was in these sort of front line team lead many times in my early days, and yes,
there is a lot of bs going on amongst the floor mgt and their own ppl,
where we team leads had to lick boots and eat $h*t while the relatives and cahoots of the
floor mgt clique slack off big time (ie. extended breaks , coming in drunk, leaving early,etc)

one day, i by chance got to meet a CEO , not realising who he was, in the lift,
and when he asked how i like working there, i spilled the beans about all the crap we team leads
were taking.  oblivious to me he was one of the big guys.

needless to say, the next week, he came in to reveal himself, and a lot of heads were rolling
and the floor and his relatives were given the pink slip quick.

once again, i found out that CEOs don't expect their floor managers to be this way,
they trusted their mid management to hire the right ppl..
and never look to see what is going on down below.

unless something really bad happened, where they had to come to do damage control
or got someone to narc on the floor managers, like i did unsuspectingly.

anyone knows anyone who is a team lead in ss???  better still, anyone knows
a private line to Oringer???

reiterate - I too believe Oringer is not a crook.
but then again, many of the USA voted for Nixon and he too admitted that he "was not a crook"
and later on, others voted for Clinton who said he never had $*x with monica

as the great Alvin Lee ( RIP)once said, i may be wrong but i won't be wrong always!!!