Seems there is a new policy out......

Yeah really working well there SS

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Iulian+Dragomir  added 30301 images in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Xologon added 13480 in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/TonsOfBackgrounds added 9098 in the last week

In fact just go check the top additions and they've gone crazy

http://www.microstock.top/indeximg.phtml?p=1&sort=added

Its a joke!

I'd post links to SS but I know they'd do nothing about it.

this is creative? My 12 years old son can do the same and better!!!!

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Tatiana53

Quote from: lima on March 26, 2017, 18:42
this is creative? My 12 years old son can do the same and better!!!!

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Tatiana53

Hilarious

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 26, 2017, 17:33
Yeah really working well there SS

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Iulian+Dragomir  added 30301 images in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Xologon added 13480 in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/TonsOfBackgrounds added 9098 in the last week

In fact just go check the top additions and they've gone crazy

http://www.microstock.top/indeximg.phtml?p=1&sort=added

Its a joke!

I'd post links to SS but I know they'd do nothing about it.

I'm not sure those are actually added in the last week? Looks to me as if that shows just a weekly average. I looked at my own name on the list and the weekly total doesn't match what I have uploaded in the last week - not even close.

Quote from: KuriousKat on March 26, 2017, 23:29

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 26, 2017, 17:33
Yeah really working well there SS

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Iulian+Dragomir  added 30301 images in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Xologon added 13480 in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/TonsOfBackgrounds added 9098 in the last week

In fact just go check the top additions and they've gone crazy

http://www.microstock.top/indeximg.phtml?p=1&sort=added

Its a joke!

I'd post links to SS but I know they'd do nothing about it.

I'm not sure those are actually added in the last week? Looks to me as if that shows just a weekly average. I looked at my own name on the list and the weekly total doesn't match what I have uploaded in the last week - not even close.

I'm not sure how reliable those stats are the "Top person" adding has been a member since 2011 and added ALL his pics in one one week? It does say "per week" so would assume weekly average.

To me all this just spell one thing only: they dont care!  as long as money is coming in they really couldnt care less. I am quite sure that within a year or two they will have embarked on the Istock downslope. There is not one single sign that proves otherwise and frankly I will be thinking twice before anymore uploading since it will just drown and disappear.

Has anybody read the Policy Clarification on the blog - and/or followup comments? It seems they are enforcing more things now - but maybe not the right things?
After the initial declaration, no further input from SS which is a shame. It sounds like good intentions BUT.......

someone should post and complain on their forum, like with the keywords spamming, that seems to work. ss seesm to respond in the forums.

Uploaded a single image Easter theme. Rejection was Similar Content -- This image is too similar to other images submitted or already published. There's the answer to your complaints. Next will be complaining that we get rejections for similar to others or too much alike our own.

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90618-policy-clarification-similar-content-submissions/
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012339

Yesterday I have sold 4 "similar" photos to the same customer (same situation, people, light and framing, but with a change of clothes).
This demonstrate that somebody wants to have more choice/solutions, and maybe decide then.

Shutterstock missed that!

Quote from: Chichikov on March 30, 2017, 09:45
Yesterday I have sold 4 "similar" photos to the same customer (same situation, people, light and framing, but with a change of clothes).
This demonstrate that somebody wants to have more choice/solutions, and maybe decide then.

Shutterstock missed that!

Everything depends of how similar they are... i think that similar is not the problem but repetitive content is here.

Quote from: Mrblues101 on March 30, 2017, 18:51

Quote from: Chichikov on March 30, 2017, 09:45
Yesterday I have sold 4 "similar" photos to the same customer (same situation, people, light and framing, but with a change of clothes).
This demonstrate that somebody wants to have more choice/solutions, and maybe decide then.

Shutterstock missed that!

Everything depends of how similar they are... i think that similar is not the problem but repetitive content is here.

This is an important point.
In many cases how can they decide what is  the limit between similar and different?

Take a photo of "thumb up" then flip it... they are similar or not?
The same image can have a completely different meaning according the way you see it.
And I don't think that 99% of the people looking for a "thumb down" will think to make a search "thumb up" and then flip the image.

Normally I avoid doing similars but after reading this thread I decided to push it yesterday just to see where the line might be. I shot two sets of images, each set with identical lighting, POV, and props. The first set was a lobster roll; one with lettuce and celery and the other without. The second set was mac and cheese; again one plain and the other with the addition of lobster. I chose these particular subjects because although the images are indeed similar I know from experience that buyers for these subtle but important regional variations would not be.

Both lobster rolls made it through but the lobster mac and cheese was rejected due to similar. I didn't learn a thing.

Lol. I did the same thing; I submitted two variations of drawings of people, one with all women and one with men and women. Rejected for being similar, even though in your case and mine the images actually had differences that were fairly significant.

What I learned is that Shutterstock probably told reviewers to crack down on similars, so the picky reviewers started punishing regular contributors for submitting a couple of images that were somewhat similar, While the unscrupulous reviewers who accept 500 identical icons with slight variations in background color ignored the request completely and went on accepting mass submissions of identical images anyway, because accepting 500 images at once makes you some quick money.

It's a lot easier for SS to say "we told reviewers to watch for similars" than to do the tedious work of actually finding and deleting offending ports.

Similars has a broad meaning here. Variations should be ok, use same element in multiple art should also be fine and colors also predict the mood. So the reviewer should understand it before rejecting all.

Similar spamming should not be allowed, There few contributors upload 100s of same thing with less to no variation. Shutterstock should ban them, they are the ones who cover all the search pages of newest first.

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 31, 2017, 11:29
Lol. I did the same thing; I submitted two variations of drawings of people, one with all women and one with men and women. Rejected for being similar, even though in your case and mine the images actually had differences that were fairly significant.

What I learned is that Shutterstock probably told reviewers to crack down on similars, so the picky reviewers started punishing regular contributors for submitting a couple of images that were somewhat similar, While the unscrupulous reviewers who accept 500 identical icons with slight variations in background color ignored the request completely and went on accepting mass submissions of identical images anyway, because accepting 500 images at once makes you some quick money.

It's a lot easier for SS to say "we told reviewers to watch for similars" than to do the tedious work of actually finding and deleting offending ports.

Makes sense to me!

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 31, 2017, 11:29
Lol. I did the same thing; I submitted two variations of drawings of people, one with all women and one with men and women. Rejected for being similar, even though in your case and mine the images actually had differences that were fairly significant.

What I learned is that Shutterstock probably told reviewers to crack down on similars, so the picky reviewers started punishing regular contributors for submitting a couple of images that were somewhat similar, While the unscrupulous reviewers who accept 500 identical icons with slight variations in background color ignored the request completely and went on accepting mass submissions of identical images anyway, because accepting 500 images at once makes you some quick money.

It's a lot easier for SS to say "we told reviewers to watch for similars" than to do the tedious work of actually finding and deleting offending ports.

They need reviewers for the reviewers.

They need proper editors I would say but they cost money and its tough parting with money so better to play it cheap. Besides the more acceptance the more pictures the mosre assets.
Nothing new since agencies have been working like this for 30 years.

its same old same old, they go from one end to the other, they will eventually find a balance, but it shows how poor the instructions are or how incompetent the reviewers are

do these people actually make money off these lame spammy images? if so, i may just dump my camera and photoshop very word in the dictionary on various backgrounds. 

No, I don't think those images make much, if any, money. I think the reviewers who accept them make the money. Either that or there's a "vast right-wing conspiracy" of reviewers and contributors who submit 500 icons to push back competitors in newest search, get quick bucks for approving 500 images at a time, and then submit decent images right afterwards with another account so their images are at the top of "newest."

Hold on, adjusting my tinfoil hat to get a stronger signal. 

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 01, 2017, 15:18
No, I don't think those images make much, if any, money. I think the reviewers who accept them make the money. Either that or there's a "vast right-wing conspiracy" of reviewers and contributors who submit 500 icons to push back competitors in newest search, get quick bucks for approving 500 images at a time, and then submit decent images right afterwards with another account so their images are at the top of "newest."

Hold on, adjusting my tinfoil hat to get a stronger signal. 

Well, I don't think that theory requires a tin foil hat, because there HAS to be a reason it is being done, and there HAS to be a reason shutterstock is allowing it. And that reason most certainly HAS to do with money, otherwise who would waste their time?

Quote from: cathyslife on April 01, 2017, 16:07

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 01, 2017, 15:18
No, I don't think those images make much, if any, money. I think the reviewers who accept them make the money. Either that or there's a "vast right-wing conspiracy" of reviewers and contributors who submit 500 icons to push back competitors in newest search, get quick bucks for approving 500 images at a time, and then submit decent images right afterwards with another account so their images are at the top of "newest."

Hold on, adjusting my tinfoil hat to get a stronger signal. 

Well, I don't think that theory requires a tin foil hat, because there HAS to be a reason it is being done, and there HAS to be a reason shutterstock is allowing it. And that reason most certainly HAS to do with money, otherwise who would waste their time?

And its not like there isn't precedence for a double standard.  Need i say Istock and Yuri?