Hi All,

I see that this notification was posted in another thread but I'm posting it here as well to ensure maximum exposure.

We removed the View statistics from the Adobe Stock contributor portal, because the feature wasn't yet providing aggregate views across the Fotolia and Adobe Stock websites and caused confusion.

Over the last few months our foremost priority for the Adobe Stock Contributor website has been to make the submission process as fast and easy as possible. We now provide an automatic category suggestion, more auto-keywords and the ability to upload a CSV file of metadata for easier keywording of multiple files or videos.

We are working on improving the available statistics on the contributor portal but can't share a release date at this time.

Please share your feedback on the portal and keep the suggestions for improvements coming. I recommend you take a look at the expanded auto-keyword function and the auto-category feature as those are two new features that can potentially increase the speed of your upload process dramatically.

I'm at Photoshop World in Orlando this week so my responses may not be too swift but I will check in here as often as I can.

Thank you!

Mat Hayward

Three cheers for csv!!!

Now this is how to deal with contributors correctly. Thanks for the update!

I want to repeat publicly my previously (and privately) expressed thanks for Mat's quick and effective personal response to my plea for help just a few days ago. The glitch that I called to his attention was cleared up right away.

Mat is indeed showing the way that a stock agency should deal with and support its contributors! 

Good job Mat for keeping us posted!

I wish there was a "Mat" for SS ...

There's only one Mat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for sharing infos to us

Hi Mat,
thank you for sharing valuable info.
I upload from Fotolia website and I find that there is only one thing that makes uploading very time consuming.
That is the need of reordering keywords to have the most important 7 on top. Is that still the way you recommend?
Other than that the uploading is fine to me

Wow, thanks for the feedback! I really appreciate it. We are in this together so I promise I'll continue to communicate as much as I can in as timely a manner as possible to issues relevant to contributors at Adobe Stock.

@brightonl: Yes, the keyword order still impacts search and it's very important to list your most important keywords within the first 7. In my personal workflow I use Adobe Bridge to add keywords as they stay in the order I added them. As you probably know, if you use Lightroom to add keywords they are alphabetized which is not ideal.

All that being said, I may change my workflow up now. I played around with the new auto-keywording the other day. Taking off my Adobe hat and putting on my contributor hat, I have to say I was very impressed. I uploaded a photo of a German Shepherd puppy and got 22 keyword results including the fact that it was a dog, a puppy and the system correctly identified the breed! Using the auto keyword feature you can simply drag the most important keywords to the top if they aren't already there. It's much easier and reasonably fast to do in the portal as compared to the Fotolia UI in my personal opinion.

Thanks again,

Mat

Good news about the CSV.

There doesn't seem to be any transparency about what licenses have been sold - just received a video commission for only $7.34 on Adobe stock, though have no way of knowing how it comes about that the file is sold at such a low price. I was led to understand that videos wouldn't be available at such huge discounts. Any way of finding out some details?

Hi Mat and many thanks for being here with us when needed.

I see that everyone here is very content of how things are going. I don't want to shoot the messenger but as you asked for feedback, I have to ask two questions:

1. Why do we need an auto-keywording tool when most contributors already have their metadata on file at the moment of upload? If I remember correctly, there was an announcement in the past that AS/FT reads the metadata even from video files.
Auto-keywording failed even for the mighty Go0gle, so why waste time with something not needed?
Also, the upload process on FT was already one of the fastest of all agencies and upload never ever failed in the past like it does on AS.

2. My second is probably off topic but if we are talking about time invested in enhancing features, I have to ask this:

FT was my bestseller till mid last year but after AS overtook the agency, sales are dropping slowly but continuously, sinking to 30% earnings in 2017 compared to 2016.
It could be just me but I still want to ask, is it worth to further upload to an agency that became one of the low earners (despite the poll on the right).

What is Adobe doing in this regard?

double post.

My earnings are going well on FL so it may not be the agency as such. Just saying.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 22, 2017, 10:04
My earnings are going well on FL so it may not be the agency as such. Just saying.

Glad to hear that.

For me, well earner images from last year are still there but big credit sale like $4.46; $2.36; $1.65; $1.5; $1.13;......as of April 2016 don't happen any more. Mostly I got is $0.26 ($0.29 - tax) and 1 credit $0.25. That is where the difference comes from but as I said before, it could be just my long lasting bad luck.

Or it could have something to do with this or other plan change:

QuoteThe transfer of credits to standard licenses requires the purchase of an Adobe Stock plan. The royalty you earn for licenses will initially be $0.99 per image, with each image during the promotion representing one converted credit. Soon thereafter, we will move to pay a royalty at 33% of the image price based on the specific, undiscounted product that was purchased by the buyer. For reference, based on some of the most popular Adobe stock plans, the small image plan of 2 images per month will earn you $3.30 in royalties for each sale. Licenses from the 10 images a month plan pay out at $0.99, and sales from a large subscription plan with 350 or 750 images a month guarantee a minimum payout, which is $0.25 - $0.40 based on your Fotolia rank. We'll be monitoring royalties and payouts closely to keep a careful eye on the success of our contributors.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/28841/28841/msg471289/#msg471289

Dodie, it is not only you with 25, 29, 32 cents.

A suppose Adobe Stock is following the same way like SS and the rest, in the long run. What else??

Quote from: Josephine on April 22, 2017, 11:38
Dodie, it is not only you with 25, 29, 32 cents.

A suppose Adobe Stock is following the same way like SS and the rest, in the long run. What else??

I didn't want to say it myself but that is what I was thinking too, copying SS methods.
Although SS has many other advantages like editorials while AS brought nothing new, just more rejections for what was previously permitted. I was waiting to see a revolution ( in our favor) in microstock from such a big company like A.

Mat is not the Messiahs... he is just real clever, making us believe that he is...

I thought the auto-category was kind of pointless. It's fun to see what it picks, but I usually just end up changing or choosing it anyway. I guess I never reorder my keywords. Didn't realize that was still a thing.

Quote from: Josephine on April 22, 2017, 13:46
Mat is not the Messiahs... he is just real clever, making us believe that he is...

It is not his fault but of those who just push the ++++es for no other merit but making his job, pure flattery.

Quote from: MatHayward on April 20, 2017, 16:51
... It's much easier and reasonably fast to do in the portal as compared to the Fotolia UI in my personal opinion.

Mat

Hi Mat and thanks for being Mat!
If I could agree about the CSV and auto-keywording tool, I have to totally disagree about the general fotolia UI : that's a "worker" UI, where the Adobe Stock UI isn't. I've tried it but completely abandoned, worst of all about how MRs are managed.

There is a need for a very-simple system like the one in 123rf (you are a contributor, test it: it's very easy) or the one in Photodune: you simply upload MRs with the batch of files and the system attaches everything (envato) or you create a CSV with attachments and if there are duplicated MR's the system ignores them. If there aren't, the system stores them.

Very simple and automated!

This could be a GREAT improvement VS fotolia UI: upload files, mr, csv : go in the site and 1-CLICK-ATTACHMENT : done. THIS is improvement!

Thanks for listening!

@Mat,

I said that I have two questions but I have a third one too:

I don't see on my AS portfolio any kind of filters of sorting. Images are presented to the buyer in a single way, the layout that FT calls relevance. There is no possibility for the buyer to sort images by any other criteria like new or popular, whatever.
No sets, no filters, photos, videos, illustrations all mixed in a big mess.

I can't expect from a buyer who wants to buy videos to check all my pages one by one to find what he needs.
Why would he lose so much time when there are other agencies with a clearer interface?

These are the things that should be fixed first, more options for buyers are very important. Maybe you could mention these things to your superiors.

It's more than a year now, how long for AS to catch up with other agencies?

There's a "sort by" pull down at the top right.  Recent, relevance, popularity, downloads and undiscovered.  There's a filter box next to the search entry that drops a panel with all kinds of options.  Not sure how you aren't seeing all that.

Thank you Sean.
I see it on my contributor dashboard but that is not available for buyers.

I never use AS except when I want to check something, therefor I was searching the way I thought a buyer would do.
I'll tell you what I was doing and please tell me if I am not searching the right way.

So, search for a keyword like rose, or an image ID, click on any image in the result, then click on the contributor's name to go to his portfolio.

You will see the portfolio exactly as I described it earlier, no matter if signed in or not.

There probably are other ways to search but if I did it this way, it's possible others will do the same.

Am I doing something wrong? How else could a buyer search?

I'm used to any kind of websites, usability is the most important thing on a site. If the buyer can't navigate to his pleasing in a few seconds, he goes away.

Quote from: Josephine on April 22, 2017, 13:46
Mat is not the Messiahs... he is just real clever, making us believe that he is...

Mat is Mat, and each site should have its own Mat. But unfortunately for us they have not.
There was one (or two) on Shutterstock, but he has been eaten by the shareholders...

Ah, I see what you're saying.  There's a difference between this:
https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=205335036
and this:
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/205335036/seanlockephotography

I have the first bookmarked so that's what I always use.  The second is what you get when you click a contributor's name.  Yes, a search should always have the same interface available.