pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Milestones  (Read 16399 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« on: June 15, 2018, 09:35 »
+5
Instead of a number, I'm starting over with just the general subject.

Shutterstock Milestones:

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos
February 20, 2009 -Shutterstock reaches 6 million photos, (5 million 2.5 years)
February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)
October 30, 2013 - Shutterstock reaches 30 million images (10 million 15 months)
August 4, 2014 - Shutterstock celebrates 40 million images in it's collection. (10 million 10 months)
December 31, 2014 - 46.8 million images in the collection. (1 million new files per month)
March 3, 2015 - 50 Million Image mark is reached (10 million in 7 months for those watching)
August 12, 2015 - 60 Million Images (10 million in 160 days. 62,500 new files a day)
December 15, 2015 - 70 Million Images (four months)
March 26, 2016 - 80 Million
June 16, 2016 - 90 Million (10 million under three months)
Sept 8, 2016 - 100 Million
February 2017 - 110 Million
October 28, 2017 160 Million
December 29, 2017 - 170 Million (10 million new two months)
April 16, 2018 - 190 Million (20 million new in 3.5 months)
June 10, 2018 - 200 Million (10 million new in 55 days)

No longer tracking the following.

SS Members by registration year rounded
2004 - 2000
2005 - 4300
2006 - 3900 = 9000
2007 - 3800 = 13,000
2008 - 5500 = 19,000
2009 - 7200 = 27,000
2010 - 6000 = 33,000
2011 - 6000 = 39,000
2012 - 10000 = 49,000
2013 - 11000 = 60,000
2014 - 14000 = 74,000
2015 - 26000 = 100,000
2016 - 64000 = 165,000

-=-=-

Year   Cont YR   < 0 Img      Cont % < 0   Cont T      < 0      Cont % < 0

2004    1,950       1,030       52.82%    1,950       1,030       52.82%
2005    15,426       4,725       30.63%    17,376       5,755       33.12%
2006    26,349       3,676       13.95%    43,725       9,431       21.57%
2007    36,631       3,939       10.75%    80,356       13,370       16.64%
2008    48,267       5,767       11.95%    128,623    19,137       14.88%
2009    70,125       7,866       11.22%    198,748    27,003       13.59%
2010    58,454       6,324       10.82%    257,202    33,327       12.96%
2011    66,479       6,026       9.06%       323,681    39,353       12.16%
2012    154,082    9,661       6.27%       477,763    49,014       10.26%
2013    205,951    10,990       5.34%       683,714    60,004       8.78%
2014    228,906    14,050       6.14%       912,620    74,053       8.11%
2015    343,461    26,455       7.7%       1,256,081    100,508    8.00%
2016    422,950    64,440       15.24%    1,679,031    164,949    9.82%

I'm not sure the number of contributors makes a difference any longer. The number is so large, people come and go. I'll try to stick with images from now on.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2018, 09:39 »
+4
It took SS about six years to have the first ten million uploaded files. That was about 2006 to 2012, right about the same date that some people noticed sales and income dropping.

Now that same number of new images takes 55 days. Ten Million new competing images every two months. And some wonder why sales and earnings are down.  ???

« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2018, 12:32 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2018, 14:14 »
+4
Jeez!!!  unbelievable and some people wonder why sales are down. No wonder!  you can sit there and upload buckets and buckets of files without even an 0.38 sale!!..just one big slope to nothing.

« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2018, 14:31 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2018, 05:30 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

Correct! supply way outstripping the demand!  been like that for the last 4 years really! but you know pics are assets and assets means money!  OUR assets!

« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2018, 06:18 »
+4
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

Correct! supply way outstripping the demand!  been like that for the last 4 years really! but you know pics are assets and assets means money!  OUR assets!
They are only assets if someone wants to buy them.....I wonder when stockholders are going to look under the hood and wonder about these 100s of million "quality" assets that SS have. I'm guessing that 80% minimum have never sold.

« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2018, 07:34 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

True, saw the figures, but I kind of tend to ignore the spam and low quality (commercial value) supply when thinking about it. Those supply numbers might be a lot pumped with this kind of assets. For one thing, even when I look at my own portfolio I tend to ignore the images I know don't have high value, which I uploaded just because I had nothing else at hand at that moment and maybe at some point it will have some casual download numbers. I just exclude them from my calculations.

« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2018, 08:21 »
+2
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

True, saw the figures, but I kind of tend to ignore the spam and low quality (commercial value) supply when thinking about it. Those supply numbers might be a lot pumped with this kind of assets. For one thing, even when I look at my own portfolio I tend to ignore the images I know don't have high value, which I uploaded just because I had nothing else at hand at that moment and maybe at some point it will have some casual download numbers. I just exclude them from my calculations.
Thats a fair point from my own experience if the quality of recent submissions were as high as in the past I ought to be doing far worse than I am. I wonder sometimes if the lowering of acceptance standards actually works in our favour as some newbies think any old .... sells.

« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2018, 08:43 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

True, saw the figures, but I kind of tend to ignore the spam and low quality (commercial value) supply when thinking about it. Those supply numbers might be a lot pumped with this kind of assets. For one thing, even when I look at my own portfolio I tend to ignore the images I know don't have high value, which I uploaded just because I had nothing else at hand at that moment and maybe at some point it will have some casual download numbers. I just exclude them from my calculations.
Thats a fair point from my own experience if the quality of recent submissions were as high as in the past I ought to be doing far worse than I am. I wonder sometimes if the lowering of acceptance standards actually works in our favour as some newbies think any old .... sells.

I think, in the end, it comes down to how good the search algorithm is, if the spam and low quality gets pushed deep down, it doesn't even matter if it's being uploaded or not. And it's probably good enough for now.
On the other hands, of course there are very good photographers with quality material that join up everyday, that's the real supply we should be afraid of.

« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2018, 10:38 »
0
I think, in the end, it comes down to how good the search algorithm is, if the spam and low quality gets pushed deep down, it doesn't even matter if it's being uploaded or not. And it's probably good enough for now.
On the other hands, of course there are very good photographers with quality material that join up everyday, that's the real supply we should be afraid of.
It will take years for them to make a profit.
Even in countries there living is cheap.

« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2018, 14:21 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

True, saw the figures, but I kind of tend to ignore the spam and low quality (commercial value) supply when thinking about it. Those supply numbers might be a lot pumped with this kind of assets. For one thing, even when I look at my own portfolio I tend to ignore the images I know don't have high value, which I uploaded just because I had nothing else at hand at that moment and maybe at some point it will have some casual download numbers. I just exclude them from my calculations.
Thats a fair point from my own experience if the quality of recent submissions were as high as in the past I ought to be doing far worse than I am. I wonder sometimes if the lowering of acceptance standards actually works in our favour as some newbies think any old .... sells.

I think, in the end, it comes down to how good the search algorithm is, if the spam and low quality gets pushed deep down, it doesn't even matter if it's being uploaded or not. And it's probably good enough for now.
On the other hands, of course there are very good photographers with quality material that join up everyday, that's the real supply we should be afraid of.
The other factor that seems to be overlooked is that someone still has to consider it good enough to buy it  however high in the search it finishes!

« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2018, 01:19 »
+2
Long discussions, collected statistics - all this just shows that for old contributors exist only 2 options: 1. to support existing earnings level, knowing that any progress is not porssible. How many efforts and which kind of efforts - this is very individual. 2. search for other fields, with real profit

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2018, 08:56 »
+2
Long discussions, collected statistics - all this just shows that for old contributors exist only 2 options: 1. to support existing earnings level, knowing that any progress is not porssible. How many efforts and which kind of efforts - this is very individual. 2. search for other fields, with real profit

Good one and agreeing 100%. For me since 1993 and back with Tony-stone, image-bank etc, etc, stock have always been a sidekick to commission based photography and I recon any "old-timer" should really start looking in that direction. Full-time pro photography involves running studios, equipment, this and that and its a monthly expenditures. Todays stock-photography can hardly match these outlays.

« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2018, 09:33 »
0
after a very good first 10 days the last 8 days were appalling....sure now sales will resort suddenly to read the normal quota, but really there is any motivation to upload more files or work for ss. esp contrary show growth in sales every month, fotolia too.

« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2018, 09:36 »
0
comparing this month to last year june...ay by day is practically the same...first 7 days good...from 7 to 18 crap...thn again very good...according to last year i should expect tomorrow a rise in sales. let'see.   

« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2018, 13:12 »
0
Personally, I think the poor quality of many of these new images is the biggest issue. They accept so much garbage these days that it is often hard to sort through to find the good stuff. Sometimes when I am searching I'll see 25 slightly different variations of the same crappy shot that no-one in their right mind would ever buy. I see vectors up there that look like they were drawn by two-year-olds. If you can't draw with a pencil and paper you have no business selling vector illustrations.


« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2018, 15:38 »
0
Personally, I think the poor quality of many of these new images is the biggest issue. They accept so much garbage these days that it is often hard to sort through to find the good stuff. Sometimes when I am searching I'll see 25 slightly different variations of the same crappy shot that no-one in their right mind would ever buy. I see vectors up there that look like they were drawn by two-year-olds. If you can't draw with a pencil and paper you have no business selling vector illustrations.

i agree. and if you want to improve your level of sales you can only rely on new files.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2018, 22:03 »
+4
Long discussions, collected statistics - all this just shows that for old contributors exist only 2 options: 1. to support existing earnings level, knowing that any progress is not porssible. How many efforts and which kind of efforts - this is very individual. 2. search for other fields, with real profit

Yes I agree. Too many people look at this from a personal level, instead of business. I don't mean the photo business, I mean the stock company business. There are comments about quality and spam and content and rejections, which are fine, but irrelevant. If we are looking at earnings, our own, that's not the same as what the big picture is doing. They don't care about us... we do of course.

The answer is, this market is dying and searching for other ways to sell, which is not other fields, is the answer. The old agency, film photo system, died for the most part. Stock imaging sales for a living, has changed. Micro and web stock has changed. Find new outlets and recognize that Microstock has gone flat, the boom is over. Don't rely on what was, but look for new and what will be.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2018, 10:29 »
+3
Shutterstock Milestones:

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos
February 20, 2009 -Shutterstock reaches 6 million photos, (5 million 2.5 years)
February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)
October 30, 2013 - Shutterstock reaches 30 million images (10 million 15 months)
August 4, 2014 - Shutterstock celebrates 40 million images in it's collection. (10 million 10 months)
December 31, 2014 - 46.8 million images in the collection. (1 million new files per month)
March 3, 2015 - 50 Million Image mark is reached (10 million in 7 months for those watching)
August 12, 2015 - 60 Million Images (10 million in 160 days. 62,500 new files a day)
December 15, 2015 - 70 Million Images (four months)
March 26, 2016 - 80 Million
June 16, 2016 - 90 Million (10 million under three months)
Sept 8, 2016 - 100 Million
February 2017 - 110 Million
October 28, 2017 160 Million
December 29, 2017 - 170 Million (10 million new two months)
April 16, 2018 - 190 Million (20 million new in 3.5 months)
June 10, 2018 - 200 Million (10 million new in 55 days)
August 1, 2018 - 210 Million (10 million new in 53 days)

Has the limit for intake of newly accepted files, finally been reached? September 23rd 220 Million?  :-\

« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2018, 16:58 »
0
Shutterstock Milestones:

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos
February 20, 2009 -Shutterstock reaches 6 million photos, (5 million 2.5 years)
February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)
October 30, 2013 - Shutterstock reaches 30 million images (10 million 15 months)
August 4, 2014 - Shutterstock celebrates 40 million images in it's collection. (10 million 10 months)
December 31, 2014 - 46.8 million images in the collection. (1 million new files per month)
March 3, 2015 - 50 Million Image mark is reached (10 million in 7 months for those watching)
August 12, 2015 - 60 Million Images (10 million in 160 days. 62,500 new files a day)
December 15, 2015 - 70 Million Images (four months)
March 26, 2016 - 80 Million
June 16, 2016 - 90 Million (10 million under three months)
Sept 8, 2016 - 100 Million
February 2017 - 110 Million
October 28, 2017 160 Million
December 29, 2017 - 170 Million (10 million new two months)
April 16, 2018 - 190 Million (20 million new in 3.5 months)
June 10, 2018 - 200 Million (10 million new in 55 days)
August 1, 2018 - 210 Million (10 million new in 53 days)

Has the limit for intake of newly accepted files, finally been reached? September 23rd 220 Million?  :-\
Lets hope so exponential increases can never last forever

« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2018, 19:39 »
+1
There's only one solution, everyone stop uploading! If QC eliminated NCV subject matter, similars and average content, the collection could be halved.

« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2018, 00:41 »
+1
There's only one solution, everyone stop uploading! If QC eliminated NCV subject matter, similars and average content, the collection could be halved.
Well everyone except me ;-). Halved? More than that I reckon 80% at least  of new content never sells.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2018, 17:22 »
+3
There's only one solution, everyone stop uploading! If QC eliminated NCV subject matter, similars and average content, the collection could be halved.
Well everyone except me ;-). Halved? More than that I reckon 80% at least  of new content never sells.

Well everyone, stop uploading anything that I shoot would be my plan?  :)

As far as pk and half, I think if they limited ncv and dupes and similars the collection might be 25% or less of what it is now. Just start looking for ideas and areas where you can find something, no well covered or over covered, even if 90% are unmarketable crap. You should start to see how many images are nothing but numbers and have no hope of ever getting a download, if the buyer has minimal sense and any perception.

SS could stop accepting uploads and start culling out the junk, imagine that, just the good stuff. I know we'd disagree if ours were removed, but in the end, the entire collection might be a few million select images. Imagine that, buyers wouldn't have to wade through a cesspool to find what they want.  8)

Nope, not going to happen and 10 million new images every two months, looks like the level that can be input and processed. That could change. ANyone else wonder how many rejections go along with 10 million new images, or how bad they had to be to fail. LOL

« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2018, 18:33 »
+1
There's only one solution, everyone stop uploading! If QC eliminated NCV subject matter, similars and average content, the collection could be halved.
Well everyone except me ;-). Halved? More than that I reckon 80% at least  of new content never sells.

Well everyone, stop uploading anything that I shoot would be my plan?  :)

As far as pk and half, I think if they limited ncv and dupes and similars the collection might be 25% or less of what it is now. Just start looking for ideas and areas where you can find something, no well covered or over covered, even if 90% are unmarketable crap. You should start to see how many images are nothing but numbers and have no hope of ever getting a download, if the buyer has minimal sense and any perception.

SS could stop accepting uploads and start culling out the junk, imagine that, just the good stuff. I know we'd disagree if ours were removed, but in the end, the entire collection might be a few million select images. Imagine that, buyers wouldn't have to wade through a cesspool to find what they want.  8)

Nope, not going to happen and 10 million new images every two months, looks like the level that can be input and processed. That could change. ANyone else wonder how many rejections go along with 10 million new images, or how bad they had to be to fail. LOL

3.5 million give or take a few hundred thousand if historical (up to two years ago) figures are anything to go by and they don't have to be bad to be rejected.  In fact it's highly likely that the rejected ones are better than most of the accepted ones.

« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2018, 00:33 »
0
There's only one solution, everyone stop uploading! If QC eliminated NCV subject matter, similars and average content, the collection could be halved.
Well everyone except me ;-). Halved? More than that I reckon 80% at least  of new content never sells.

Well everyone, stop uploading anything that I shoot would be my plan?  :)

As far as pk and half, I think if they limited ncv and dupes and similars the collection might be 25% or less of what it is now. Just start looking for ideas and areas where you can find something, no well covered or over covered, even if 90% are unmarketable crap. You should start to see how many images are nothing but numbers and have no hope of ever getting a download, if the buyer has minimal sense and any perception.

SS could stop accepting uploads and start culling out the junk, imagine that, just the good stuff. I know we'd disagree if ours were removed, but in the end, the entire collection might be a few million select images. Imagine that, buyers wouldn't have to wade through a cesspool to find what they want.  8)

Nope, not going to happen and 10 million new images every two months, looks like the level that can be input and processed. That could change. ANyone else wonder how many rejections go along with 10 million new images, or how bad they had to be to fail. LOL

3.5 million give or take a few hundred thousand if historical (up to two years ago) figures are anything to go by and they don't have to be bad to be rejected.  In fact it's highly likely that the rejected ones are better than most of the accepted ones.
A lot seem to be rejected for pedantic/nitpicking model release/editorial captioning reasons. The few rejections I get are for marginal images that seem to be seen by "old school" reviewers...ones I would never have considered for SS in the past.

« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2018, 05:56 »
+2
I've had a few released for missing colons in editorial captions and a few model release ones i used to use but rejected (and i cant tell why) lately.
What they dont seem to do now is check the technical aspect of images (ie look at the images).
Time and time again you see "why am i not selling" questions on the SS format and the portfolios show horrific exposure, noise and everything else wrong with them.
One guy even had a few images with his watermark in the corner accepted.

Things like the editorial captioning could easily have been outsourced to bots i guess.


« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2018, 06:03 »
0
I've had a few released for missing colons in editorial captions and a few model release ones i used to use but rejected (and i cant tell why) lately.
What they dont seem to do now is check the technical aspect of images (ie look at the images).
Time and time again you see "why am i not selling" questions on the SS format and the portfolios show horrific exposure, noise and everything else wrong with them.
One guy even had a few images with his watermark in the corner accepted.

Things like the editorial captioning could easily have been outsourced to bots i guess.
Seems to me certain contributors are just "waved through" the system.

« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2018, 06:39 »
0
I've had a few released for missing colons in editorial captions and a few model release ones i used to use but rejected (and i cant tell why) lately.
What they dont seem to do now is check the technical aspect of images (ie look at the images).
Time and time again you see "why am i not selling" questions on the SS format and the portfolios show horrific exposure, noise and everything else wrong with them.
One guy even had a few images with his watermark in the corner accepted.

Things like the editorial captioning could easily have been outsourced to bots i guess.
Seems to me certain contributors are just "waved through" the system.
I don't think it's contributors with a free pass (unless you are a top earner), but the file type that gets waved through.  JPEG illustrations for one if you look at what gets accepted.  Reviews are done by AI and humans, if AI is letting in hundreds of images of an object from every conceivable view or cannabis leaves in a myriad of colors, and there is a target for rejections, the humans will be throwing out a lot more than they would otherwise need to do.

« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2018, 07:06 »
+1
Seems to me certain contributors are just "waved through" the system.

As far as technical standards (exposure, noise,white balance, focus, sharpness etc etc) EVERYONE gets waved through.  Again, a quick glance at their own forum shows newcomers asking why no sales and you look at the portfolio and not a single one of their images would have been accepted by the previous policy.  There are a few examples on there on the moment (bad form to directly link to them though).

SS QC now basically seems to be check for releases, check for editorial captions then click accept.  No actual technical evaluation, im not convinced anyone even looks at the images now.
Maybe they're unofficially doing an Alamy now and only QCing a few images per batch.

« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2018, 08:25 »
+2
Seems to me certain contributors are just "waved through" the system.

As far as technical standards (exposure, noise,white balance, focus, sharpness etc etc) EVERYONE gets waved through.  Again, a quick glance at their own forum shows newcomers asking why no sales and you look at the portfolio and not a single one of their images would have been accepted by the previous policy.  There are a few examples on there on the moment (bad form to directly link to them though).

SS QC now basically seems to be check for releases, check for editorial captions then click accept.  No actual technical evaluation, im not convinced anyone even looks at the images now.
Maybe they're unofficially doing an Alamy now and only QCing a few images per batch.
When you look at the numbers submitted the time allowed per image must be tiny. So that wouldn't surprise me. Ironically I think its probably those new to Mstock who suffer the most...when I started a had to learn a lot very quickly to get my pictures up to a decent technical standard even though  my friends etc thought I was a "good" photographer. Now people are happily uploading stuff that has close to zero chance of selling as its technically deficient.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2018, 10:14 »
+1
Seems to me certain contributors are just "waved through" the system.

As far as technical standards (exposure, noise,white balance, focus, sharpness etc etc) EVERYONE gets waved through.  Again, a quick glance at their own forum shows newcomers asking why no sales and you look at the portfolio and not a single one of their images would have been accepted by the previous policy.  There are a few examples on there on the moment (bad form to directly link to them though).

SS QC now basically seems to be check for releases, check for editorial captions then click accept.  No actual technical evaluation, im not convinced anyone even looks at the images now.
Maybe they're unofficially doing an Alamy now and only QCing a few images per batch.

Yes, I don't see why some people can't understand the difference, we'll all get rejections for nit picking legal reasons, and some of the worst crap in snapshots will get passed. No one gets a free pass and there aren't bots reviewing captions.

There's a computer pre-check for requirements, then it goes to humans. That simple. They have special propitiatory software for reviews that shows all kinds of information about the image, plus the caption and keywords, license, also photo measures. I still say it's easy for them to look, say "I don't know" and hit reject and get paid. So the people fighting the system who don't understand, add information to the caption like "shot from public property" or "public location POV" are just making their own life more difficult. The reviewers may be stupid and the legal dept may be overboard, but that's their choice. I can play with their rules or keep banging my head against the wall, because I'm getting stupid legal rejections.

Play the game by their rules, it's their agency.

Nearly nothing is rejected for quality anymore. It would have to be horrid. OK beyond horrid, I've seen some of the files that pass. Does anyone get a LCV rejection anymore? Remember when some were advocates of the Alamy system? If it's good enough quality, the content doesn't matter. Now some want to flip on that and complain about junk photos. Which is it? I hate the photo spam, but we can't have it both ways? At least Alamy used to restrict too many similar images.

When you look at the numbers submitted the time allowed per image must be tiny. So that wouldn't surprise me. Ironically I think its probably those new to Mstock who suffer the most...when I started a had to learn a lot very quickly to get my pictures up to a decent technical standard even though  my friends etc thought I was a "good" photographer. Now people are happily uploading stuff that has close to zero chance of selling as its technically deficient.

Sounds right also. Getting accepted is only the first step.  ;D There's no use in my mind, to waste time uploading images that have no chance of selling, much less, hundreds of the same subject. Personal choice, but I still make the best set and move on. Many are one, some are three shots. I have done bigger groups, but not often. Portfolio size doesn't matter if it's mostly Crapstock!


msg2018

« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2018, 11:36 »
0
They have special propitiatory software for reviews

I know it's probably just your spell checker, but you risk fuelling some conspiracy theory among people here that believe in magical thinking.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 11:40 by msg2018 »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2018, 12:23 »
0
They have special propitiatory software for reviews

I know it's probably just your spell checker, but you risk fuelling some conspiracy theory among people here that believe in magical thinking.

 ;D Took me awhile to figure that out. Yeah, not the spell checker I'm the guilty one all the way. Thanks for the correction...

Proprietary software, it has been mentioned in the stock reports and prospectus. SS isn't the only place with agency specific review software. Alamy for sure, on site. Can show embedded data, levels, camera, histogram.

But the problem is still reviewers are human. They are subjective as well as getting tired or lazy. If they are paid by the review, a quick batch of rejections, with assorted vague or wrong reasons, they get paid we get stuck working double for minimal payments.

How else can these places review over 1 million images a week, plus video, plus I'm pretty sure Editorial or illustrations go on a different review track. Reviewers come and leave. I'd think it's very difficult to obtain or hold a good, qualified, review staff? Probably paid just as poorly as us, so many are off site, English is a second language at best.

I'm not going to defend poor and crappy reviews, just pointing out the situation. Reviews are an expense for the agency, making that as cheap as possible and throwing the obligation to re-submit to us, saves the agency money. Situation Normal




« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2018, 08:06 »
+1
They have special propitiatory software for reviews

I know it's probably just your spell checker, but you risk fuelling some conspiracy theory among people here that believe in magical thinking.

 ;D Took me awhile to figure that out. Yeah, not the spell checker I'm the guilty one all the way. Thanks for the correction...

Proprietary software, it has been mentioned in the stock reports and prospectus. SS isn't the only place with agency specific review software. Alamy for sure, on site. Can show embedded data, levels, camera, histogram.

But the problem is still reviewers are human. They are subjective as well as getting tired or lazy. If they are paid by the review, a quick batch of rejections, with assorted vague or wrong reasons, they get paid we get stuck working double for minimal payments.

How else can these places review over 1 million images a week, plus video, plus I'm pretty sure Editorial or illustrations go on a different review track. Reviewers come and leave. I'd think it's very difficult to obtain or hold a good, qualified, review staff? Probably paid just as poorly as us, so many are off site, English is a second language at best.

I'm not going to defend poor and crappy reviews, just pointing out the situation. Reviews are an expense for the agency, making that as cheap as possible and throwing the obligation to re-submit to us, saves the agency money. Situation Normal

In your own post earlier you stated the SS collection has increased by 10 million images in 53 days. You also say they still reject images, in batches even, so what is the ratio? 1 to 1? For every image accepted there's one rejected? That would mean they receive around 20 million images in 53 days. That works out to a review pace of 15723 images per hour, 24 hours per day non stop. That would be 262 images per minute. If they had a review staff of 300 working in 8 hour shifts they would need to review about 27 images per minute each. About 1 image every 2 seconds. There's not much point even looking if you have to review an image in 2 seconds.

That pace will only increase and doesn't include video as you stated. I doubt most images are even seen by human eyes anymore.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2018, 09:26 »
0
They have special propitiatory software for reviews

I know it's probably just your spell checker, but you risk fuelling some conspiracy theory among people here that believe in magical thinking.

 ;D Took me awhile to figure that out. Yeah, not the spell checker I'm the guilty one all the way. Thanks for the correction...

Proprietary software, it has been mentioned in the stock reports and prospectus. SS isn't the only place with agency specific review software. Alamy for sure, on site. Can show embedded data, levels, camera, histogram.

But the problem is still reviewers are human. They are subjective as well as getting tired or lazy. If they are paid by the review, a quick batch of rejections, with assorted vague or wrong reasons, they get paid we get stuck working double for minimal payments.

How else can these places review over 1 million images a week, plus video, plus I'm pretty sure Editorial or illustrations go on a different review track. Reviewers come and leave. I'd think it's very difficult to obtain or hold a good, qualified, review staff? Probably paid just as poorly as us, so many are off site, English is a second language at best.

I'm not going to defend poor and crappy reviews, just pointing out the situation. Reviews are an expense for the agency, making that as cheap as possible and throwing the obligation to re-submit to us, saves the agency money. Situation Normal

In your own post earlier you stated the SS collection has increased by 10 million images in 53 days. You also say they still reject images, in batches even, so what is the ratio? 1 to 1? For every image accepted there's one rejected? That would mean they receive around 20 million images in 53 days. That works out to a review pace of 15723 images per hour, 24 hours per day non stop. That would be 262 images per minute. If they had a review staff of 300 working in 8 hour shifts they would need to review about 27 images per minute each. About 1 image every 2 seconds. There's not much point even looking if you have to review an image in 2 seconds.

That pace will only increase and doesn't include video as you stated. I doubt most images are even seen by human eyes anymore.

I wish I knew the numbers, but I can see from complaints from people who are honest and that I trust, that the nit picking Editorial rejections are real. Rejections for other reasons are also wrong sometimes.

Hypothetical math logic doesn't prove the reviews are done by bots, but nice try.  :)

Images are checked by the system for size and color space, missing parts, corrupted files. (and maybe other physical attributes) How would a bot know if an image needs a release or not, or if the release was correct? How would a bot know a case number? How does a bot see a license number, house number, and reject or any other minor SS rules, a violation, like location or protected buildings or sites.

Yes, software could read for keywords and flag the image, so a reviewer (human) can reject. I think we need to be careful about keywords or risk rejections. How does a bot see a foreign word, when there are none? Hmm, must be a stupid human.

Bots would be consistent, right or wrong, but not upload one day, rejected, upload three days later = identical, and they are accepted. Humans are subjective, bots aren't. Rejection reasons change for the same image, how's that? A batch of images, taken on the same day, same site, get clusters of varied rejections, three for focus, next three for shadows, next three for who knows what. I think some reviewer is just making assorted rejections, so it doesn't look like they are just making quick money.

Good questions, how does SS or any other place, review 1 million images in a week? How many are actually rejected to get to that one million? And if I just accept your numbers, at 2 seconds an image, yes that's why we have such inconsistent reviews. Also right, video someone has to watch the whole thing, or maybe not. All a bot could do was see if it was whole or continuous, a human can see if someone slipped in a nude, suddenly out of context material, or a protected site?

Essentially there are many, many, reviewers, and many are probably barely trained while some are going to be incompetent. Lets assume the cheats or incompetent get replaced, that means more, new, inexperienced reviewers, who don't understand all the possibilities and err on the side of caution. We get rejected, they take their money, the system gets over burdened with second and third uploads of the same. And we as contributors are waiting our time re-submitting something that should have passed the first time!  >:( There are possibly also good, experienced, smart reviewers who zip through images at a fast pace, making good smart decisions.

Nope I'm still not buying into bots do the reviews just because there are so many files reviewed.

« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2018, 15:05 »
0
Certainly possible for bots to review editorial captions, check model releases have all the correct bits actually filled in and so on.

You CAN use AI fairly well to detect image noise, burnt out highlights and out of focus these days. Whether they do or not i don't know.  Adobe does - it gives you a warning of a possibly suspect image in your queue before submission.

I just don't see any actual person-looking-at-an-image going on in RF at all now.  Everything is accepted.  I can quite happily accept its less than 5 seconds for someone to "check" my image.

Also if they're using machine learning/AI it wont always necessarily be consistent between days or images.


nobody

« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2018, 15:38 »
+7
Milestones for SS:

1. Pay us less
2. Pay us even less than less
3. Pay us nothing (100% pure profit for SS and its shareholders)

 :(


« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2018, 00:49 »
+8
many Im sure Know that I reviewed for 3 years 2004/2007 I did it because I was curious and because I wanted get a feel for what It was Like because originally it was research For our First book... . When I Started reviewing SS had About 350,000 Images. I reviewed for a competitor  and I did on average  1000 Images a day which took about 6 Hours and In those days ...sometimes we ran Out of Images with 12 reviewers working. And Had to wait... To be Honest it was quite a Interesting thing to do.It became extremely easy after a short time and you could see Issues in seconds and back then we could and did write Notes to submitters trying to help them which is probably where I got into the habit Of helping others. And you better believe Back then I saw things that would curl your Hair and other things that gave you Nightmares. Honestly.
Things that I could never/Ever discuss even today 10/11 years later.

My goal was about 10,000 Images a week and I was the top guy all the time. It took No Longer than 3/5 seconds to approve or reject.We were Paid quite well then considering. But More than anything Back in the day I got to learn A LOT!!!! Im shooting 60 Years But it taught me what to look for and i was grateful for that education and many things I knew But forgot.

Wanna know something Interesting??. Im seeing the exact same Images and subjects today. LOL

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2018, 16:02 »
+3
Thanks SS, you succeeded in putting my earnings back to 2010 in 2 easy months.   Corporate clowns. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #40 on: August 14, 2018, 02:23 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

Correct! supply way outstripping the demand!  been like that for the last 4 years really! but you know pics are assets and assets means money!  OUR assets!
They are only assets if someone wants to buy them.....I wonder when stockholders are going to look under the hood and wonder about these 100s of million "quality" assets that SS have. I'm guessing that 80% minimum have never sold.

It dont seem to work that way because when they went public they proclaimed they had so and so many milion assets and at that time it was the total amount of files at SS!!....majority of large buyers investors are not stock-photography orientated they simply invest and to these people the fact that its the photographers assets dont even come to mind!  they just see a number thats all!

« Reply #41 on: August 14, 2018, 02:41 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

Correct! supply way outstripping the demand!  been like that for the last 4 years really! but you know pics are assets and assets means money!  OUR assets!
They are only assets if someone wants to buy them.....I wonder when stockholders are going to look under the hood and wonder about these 100s of million "quality" assets that SS have. I'm guessing that 80% minimum have never sold.

It dont seem to work that way because when they went public they proclaimed they had so and so many milion assets and at that time it was the total amount of files at SS!!....majority of large buyers investors are not stock-photography orientated they simply invest and to these people the fact that its the photographers assets dont even come to mind!  they just see a number thats all!
It will only be when/if  the investors spot that profits are declining and wonder why they will start looking more closely or they might just walk. As you say SS or any other stock company don't really have any saleable  assets of their own...

« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2018, 06:41 »
0
Milestones for SS:

1. Pay us less
2. Pay us even less than less
3. Pay us nothing (100% pure profit for SS and its shareholders)

 :(

4. Charge contributors a nominal account maintenance fee for the privilege of accessing their marketplace.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #43 on: September 26, 2018, 09:30 »
0
Not going to make any big observations, just a note: 220,000,000 or 220 Million images now on SS. September 26th 2018

« Reply #44 on: September 26, 2018, 09:56 »
0
Not going to make any big observations, just a note: 220,000,000 or 220 Million images now on SS. September 26th 2018
It looks like growth is turning linear though 1-1.2m per week ;-).

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #45 on: September 26, 2018, 10:21 »
+2
Not going to make any big observations, just a note: 220,000,000 or 220 Million images now on SS. September 26th 2018
It looks like growth is turning linear though 1-1.2m per week ;-).

Might be doing that, I've said before, there should be a point where negative growth of upload numbers occurs. New uploads are a runaway train, we can only watch, nothing can stop the inevitable crash. Too many files!

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos (now that many new a week!)

February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (now that many new every eight months)

Lets me see, why would sales be lower now than 2010? Hmm, can anyone see something that might have caused that?  ::)



« Reply #46 on: September 26, 2018, 10:33 »
+1
Not going to make any big observations, just a note: 220,000,000 or 220 Million images now on SS. September 26th 2018
It looks like growth is turning linear though 1-1.2m per week ;-).

Might be doing that, I've said before, there should be a point where negative growth of upload numbers occurs. New uploads are a runaway train, we can only watch, nothing can stop the inevitable crash. Too many files!

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos (now that many new a week!)

February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (now that many new every eight months)

Lets me see, why would sales be lower now than 2010? Hmm, can anyone see something that might have caused that?  ::)



Ah so thats how trains make little trains :D


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2018, 12:00 »
0
Not going to make any big observations, just a note: 220,000,000 or 220 Million images now on SS. September 26th 2018
It looks like growth is turning linear though 1-1.2m per week ;-).

Might be doing that, I've said before, there should be a point where negative growth of upload numbers occurs. New uploads are a runaway train, we can only watch, nothing can stop the inevitable crash. Too many files!

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos (now that many new a week!)

February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (now that many new every eight months)

Lets me see, why would sales be lower now than 2010? Hmm, can anyone see something that might have caused that?  ::)



Ah so thats how trains make little trains :D

Very good, I always wondered where they came from.  ;D



« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2018, 05:13 »
0
For those interested in video content growth on Shutterstock, these are the (advertised) total video files, in October, from the last five years:

10/2014   -   2,081,208
10/2015   -   3,326,309  (63% increase)
10/2016   -   5,416,462  (61% increase)
10/2017   -   8,306,500  (65% increase)
10/2018   -   "over 12,000,000" (>69% increase)

(using "https://www.shutterstock.com/video" via https://web.archive.org)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2018, 10:10 »
0
Hey, tried to sneak one past me, didn't they?

Nov. 12th 2018 231 Million images on Shutterstock.

« Reply #50 on: November 16, 2018, 11:16 »
+8
Hey, tried to sneak one past me, didn't they?

Nov. 12th 2018 231 Million images on Shutterstock.

They could at least be honest

1 million really good images

2 million not so bad images

100 million really krap images that would make your eyes bleed

and 128 million similars and stolen images

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #51 on: November 16, 2018, 11:28 »
+1
Hey, tried to sneak one past me, didn't they?

Nov. 12th 2018 231 Million images on Shutterstock.

They could at least be honest

1 million really good images

2 million not so bad images

100 million really krap images that would make your eyes bleed

and 128 million similars and stolen images

100% agreement. The numbers are for impressing investors, not for us or license buyers.

Edit: Adobe has 125 million images, but that includes Editorial and everything else. Just "images" is 116 million, which I think means Illustrations, Photos and Vectors, Etc. not video, 3D, premium, Editorial.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 10:52 by Uncle Pete »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #52 on: December 27, 2018, 09:15 »
+2
2018 Update

Shutterstock Milestones:

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos
February 20, 2009 -Shutterstock reaches 6 million photos, (5 million 2.5 years)
February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)
October 30, 2013 - Shutterstock reaches 30 million images (10 million 15 months)
August 4, 2014 - Shutterstock celebrates 40 million images in it's collection. (10 million 10 months)
December 31, 2014 - 46.8 million images in the collection. (1 million new files per month)
March 3, 2015 - 50 Million Image mark is reached (10 million in 7 months for those watching)
August 12, 2015 - 60 Million Images (10 million in 160 days. 62,500 new files a day)
December 15, 2015 - 70 Million Images (four months)
March 26, 2016 - 80 Million
June 16, 2016 - 90 Million (10 million under three months)
Sept 8, 2016 - 100 Million
February 2017 - 110 Million
October 28, 2017 160 Million
December 29, 2017 - 170 Million (10 million new two months)

February 24, 2018 - 180 Million
April 16, 2018 - 190 Million (20 million new in 3.5 months)
June 10, 2018 - 200 Million (10 million new in 55 days)
August 1, 2018 - 210 Million (10 million new in 53 days)
Sept. 26th 2018 - 220 Million images now on Shutterstock
Nov. 12th 2018 - 231 Million images on Shutterstock.
Dec. 26th, 2018 - 240 Million royalty-free stock images Shutterstock (10 million new in 44 days)

70 million new images added in 2018 vs 10 years to add that same amount 2005-2015

End of Dec. 2018
17877 contributors with over 1000 images
7616 Authors with over 1000 video clips
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 09:25 by Uncle Pete »

wds

« Reply #53 on: December 27, 2018, 09:25 »
+2
It would be interesting to know of those 200 million plus images, the percentage that have sold at least once.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #54 on: December 27, 2018, 09:51 »
+1
It would be interesting to know of those 200 million plus images, the percentage that have sold at least once.

And note that the 17,877 artists is our competition, some of those are the spam portfolios that probably have 10 images out of 1,000 sold at all and 99% never get one sale. There are a good number of people with 2,000 walkabout images that will have terrible sales, they don't make anything that displays a concept or has any use for illustrating and idea or telling a story.

People who care, like most forum members, will have much better results. Personally I'm at 27% but there's a bunch of old stale tabletop and nasty bad illustrations, plus some things I found around the house or office and did tabletop. Since I do some specialty areas, many times I make one of a kind or three of a subject, even with that, all of the three, for example, don't get downloads, but one will get better attention.

Years ago, and I realize much has changed in both, the average income of forum members here, was in the top 5% of all iStock contributors. There are many ways to view that, like serious people made better income and others came and went without having their boat leave the dock.  ;D That's one reason why I thought the SS stats are interesting, at least these people have 1,000 images which shows they did more than sign up.

When we had referrals, and I didn't try hard but I did have some, two people out of 20. that I got from a Photo Forum, actually passed the test, only one ever had a sale. Somehow last year, out of the blue I had another join and make a single sale. Whoo Hoo! Big celebration?  ::) But what I'm getting at is nearly 18,000 people who have invested sometime and effort, to produce and upload images.

« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2018, 12:47 »
0
It would be interesting to know of those 200 million plus images, the percentage that have sold at least once.

One of the forums I frequent is run by a guy that has frequent interactions with the heads of Shutterstock, Adobe stock, etc.  After a meeting with at a big electronics show earlier this year in New York, he reported some key info.

The SS rep stated that 90% of their photos never have a single sale.  The other agencies agreed that was about the right ratio.

They then went to say that the trick is to figure out WHICH 10% will sell. They are each trying different approaches to try to raise that percentage, but none have come up with a workable mechanism yet.

« Reply #56 on: December 27, 2018, 13:21 »
0
2018 Update

Shutterstock Milestones:

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos
February 20, 2009 -Shutterstock reaches 6 million photos, (5 million 2.5 years)
February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)
October 30, 2013 - Shutterstock reaches 30 million images (10 million 15 months)
August 4, 2014 - Shutterstock celebrates 40 million images in it's collection. (10 million 10 months)
December 31, 2014 - 46.8 million images in the collection. (1 million new files per month)
March 3, 2015 - 50 Million Image mark is reached (10 million in 7 months for those watching)
August 12, 2015 - 60 Million Images (10 million in 160 days. 62,500 new files a day)
December 15, 2015 - 70 Million Images (four months)
March 26, 2016 - 80 Million
June 16, 2016 - 90 Million (10 million under three months)
Sept 8, 2016 - 100 Million
February 2017 - 110 Million
October 28, 2017 160 Million
December 29, 2017 - 170 Million (10 million new two months)

February 24, 2018 - 180 Million
April 16, 2018 - 190 Million (20 million new in 3.5 months)
June 10, 2018 - 200 Million (10 million new in 55 days)
August 1, 2018 - 210 Million (10 million new in 53 days)
Sept. 26th 2018 - 220 Million images now on Shutterstock
Nov. 12th 2018 - 231 Million images on Shutterstock.
Dec. 26th, 2018 - 240 Million royalty-free stock images Shutterstock (10 million new in 44 days)

70 million new images added in 2018 vs 10 years to add that same amount 2005-2015

End of Dec. 2018
17877 contributors with over 1000 images
7616 Authors with over 1000 video clips

and we complain about sales...i'm still amazed i can reach some sales every month.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #57 on: December 27, 2018, 22:04 »
0
It would be interesting to know of those 200 million plus images, the percentage that have sold at least once.

One of the forums I frequent is run by a guy that has frequent interactions with the heads of Shutterstock, Adobe stock, etc.  After a meeting with at a big electronics show earlier this year in New York, he reported some key info.

The SS rep stated that 90% of their photos never have a single sale.  The other agencies agreed that was about the right ratio.

They then went to say that the trick is to figure out WHICH 10% will sell. They are each trying different approaches to try to raise that percentage, but none have come up with a workable mechanism yet.

Sounds reasonable considering some of the files that have been accepted on SS lately. For AS I'm surprised because I know they try harder to keep the quality up. But all very believable.

And repeating, the people here do better than average so if we are at 72% never one sale that's fair as well.

I will say, that the same files pretty much sell everywhere and the same duds, don't sell anywhere.  :)

« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2018, 03:32 »
0
It would be interesting to know of those 200 million plus images, the percentage that have sold at least once.

One of the forums I frequent is run by a guy that has frequent interactions with the heads of Shutterstock, Adobe stock, etc.  After a meeting with at a big electronics show earlier this year in New York, he reported some key info.

The SS rep stated that 90% of their photos never have a single sale.  The other agencies agreed that was about the right ratio.

They then went to say that the trick is to figure out WHICH 10% will sell. They are each trying different approaches to try to raise that percentage, but none have come up with a workable mechanism yet.
I don't believe they really are though. It would be easy to raise that percentage by having tighter quality control. However that would reduce the overall total sales as those images that we might all consider rubbish but still for some bizarre reason someone buys wouldn't be available . As the cost of maintaining pictures on the web gets closer and closer to zero I don't think agencies care much about what proportion sells hence the trend toward "loose" inspection.

« Reply #59 on: January 07, 2019, 13:29 »
0
Hi,
In the past year or so, someone posted a deep contributor statistic file here, something with data about how many contributors are from each country, and other statistics.

Any chance for a link? Couldnt find it.
Any chance for the recent file as well?

Thanks.
ShutterStock fan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #60 on: January 07, 2019, 14:14 »
0
Hi,
In the past year or so, someone posted a deep contributor statistic file here, something with data about how many contributors are from each country, and other statistics.

Any chance for a link? Couldnt find it.
Any chance for the recent file as well?

Thanks.
ShutterStock fan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Probably this, in Off Topic, but you are right, better here.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/what-to-do-with-site-www-microstock-top/


« Reply #61 on: January 07, 2019, 14:39 »
0
Hi,
In the past year or so, someone posted a deep contributor statistic file here, something with data about how many contributors are from each country, and other statistics.

Any chance for a link? Couldnt find it.
Any chance for the recent file as well?

Thanks.
ShutterStock fan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Probably this, in Off Topic, but you are right, better here.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/what-to-do-with-site-www-microstock-top/


Fantastic, Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #62 on: January 17, 2019, 01:50 »
+5
Earlier today SS was at 244,523,790 images online. I looked at that because I was taken aback at the image number of an approval this week - it was 1.28 billion

Assuming that they are actually assigning numbers to uploads sequentially, which I think they are, that's a staggering number.

Given the number of images online, the ratio is 5.256 - meaning for every image accepted, 5.256 are submitted. That's over the life of the agency. I wondered if that ratio had varied from year to year.

When the collection started to balloon in 2013-14, and when they did away with the 7/10 acceptance to become a contributor in 2015, I assumed, as I think many did, that they just accepted more of the work submitted - and that the junk came from the dropping of any useful standards.

I did a little sleuthing with numbers today and it told me that the issue was not accepting a higher portion of what they received, but increasing the number submitted by a vast amount.

As a contributor, I have image numbers with an approval date that will tell me the total images submitted by that date. With the Wayback Machine, I can look at the total number of images online on the site on that date (after December 2004 when there were "more than 53,000 images" online; before that they didn't show collection size.

My earliest image was from October 28 2004, number 18,634; I found image submittals at roughly yearly intervals (sometimes the dates didn't line up exactly) except for my hiatus while exclusive at iStock.

Not surprisingly, in 2004 and 2005 the ratio of images submitted : accepted was very low - 1.779 and 1.875. They were accepting more than half of what they received. That climbed to 3.035 by October 2007.

Picking back up in October 2011 through August 2016, the number floated around the 5 mark - 4.345 was the lowest between 2015 and 2016. They were then receiving 464K images a day and approving 106K per day

Between Aug 2016 and Feb 2017 the ratio soared to 7.618 - they were receiving 610K images a day and only putting 80K online

From Feb to Nov 2017 things settled back down and the ratio was 3.529, but then between Nov 2017 and Sep 2018, the images per day exploded to 1.38 million, with only 182K going online - ratio back up to 7.566

It's possible there was some chunk of image numbers skipped or reserved during that time - my only data is the image numbers of my submissions.

From Sep 2018 to Jan 15 2019, the acceptance ratio is now 4.006 and submissions are a less crazy (but still very high) 861K per day

You certainly have to wonder at the insane numbers of submissions after 2013 - 2014 or so. I still believe they aren't doing themselves - or contributors - any favors by encouraging this sort of bloatware.

I would also love to see what they're rejecting (given some of the horrendously bad images we've seen them flood the collection with).

« Reply #63 on: January 17, 2019, 03:17 »
0
Another factor here is their policy on resubmitting rejected images. In the past you needed to be careful not to do this too often or you could be in trouble. Now it seems they actively encourage it.

I believe their theory is that "intelligent" search technology means the dross is not presented to buyers too much. Probably an unproven theory at best.

The problem they have created for themselves is that the sheer volume of submissions must make Inspection almost unmanageable with vast numbers of images inspected that are not approved or even if they are very unlikely to sell. I suspect many images are "waved through". Along with this they have a vast number of naive contributors requiring lots of support for even the most basic questions....hence the need to outsource customer service.

I also think its a pretty cynical ploy to give to people in poorer countries the impression that by uploading a couple of dozen phone pics they are going to make serious money.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #64 on: January 17, 2019, 14:54 »
0
Interesting Jo Ann, I didn't quote the whole thing, but how are you determining the accepted and rejection ratios? For some reason every upload is +3 from the last used number. if an image is #10,000 the next is 10,003 I don't know if that makes any difference to how you figured rejections?

And yes, That's why I started tracking the total images growth as it was exploding. Now I'm just trying to note every 10 Million new images. Seems kind of strange as that's around every two months now and it took about 5 years to reach the first 10 Million, 2 1/2 years for the next 10 million. And we wonder why sales started dropping in 2012?

February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)

Last 10 Million new images accepted was 44 days.

« Reply #65 on: January 17, 2019, 16:25 »
+1
Well that makes things more complicated :)

I looked at some images, recent and older, and the every-third-image numbering scheme wasn't always the way things were. So images from the early days - I checked some from 2006 - are sequential. By 2011 (when I came back from exclusivity and started uploading again, the numbers are every third.

I did check some searches by number just to see if other people got assigned numbers in between my image numbers from a batch uploaded sequentially, and I can't find anything when searching for those "in between" numbers, so I assume they're skipping them completely.

That does affect the ratio, but it doesn't affect the overall patterns and how they change over time. There was  higher rate of rejections from late 2016 and they accepted almost everything in the summer of 2017, for example.

This morning I dug around to see when the image assigned numbers really jumped up, and was able to narrow it down to something happening on Jan 20, 2018 where image numbers in the high 797 millions were followed - on the same day - by numbers in the low 1 billion range. I can't find any online content (with some quick spot checks; I'm too lazy to do more) with image numbers in the 800 million or 900 million range, so I think they skipped some numbers.

I think I'm just going to let this investigation go as there's too little solid data.

By the way, if you want to find the upload date for an image - they don't display it on the page - use the browser's View Source option and search for "datePublished".

« Reply #66 on: January 18, 2019, 00:57 »
+1
Quote
By the way, if you want to find the upload date for an image - they don't display it on the page - use the browser's View Source option and search for "datePublished".

Thats the best tip ive read for ages.

I just ran it on a lot of the fraudulent accounts people on the SS forum have identified.  Pretty much every single on of them started uploading the stolen images from October 2018 onwards (original images 2013 or earlier).  It looks like towards Q4 2018 a brand new SS security bug appeared, the known bugs got exploited industrially or maybe more and more image backs became available on torrents/black market.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #67 on: January 18, 2019, 11:15 »
0
Quote
By the way, if you want to find the upload date for an image - they don't display it on the page - use the browser's View Source option and search for "datePublished".

Thats the best tip ive read for ages.

I just ran it on a lot of the fraudulent accounts people on the SS forum have identified.  Pretty much every single on of them started uploading the stolen images from October 2018 onwards (original images 2013 or earlier).  It looks like towards Q4 2018 a brand new SS security bug appeared, the known bugs got exploited industrially or maybe more and more image backs became available on torrents/black market.

Sorry but the preview without a watermark has been around way before 2018, it's been that way back to pretty much forever, just that it's one way to get free, not so large, downloads. This in not a SS only bug as there are also sites that have links to get free from IS or AS as well. Part of the problem is even easier, if you can view an image, it's on your computer in the cache. Anything you see, is already downloaded. In other words, if a site shows an image, the person with a computer view it, already has a copy. That's the way the web works.

You findings are also flawed as there are a number of older thief accounts that haven't been detected because they are using parts of vectors, making changes and they don't show up as easily as stolen photos that are just cropped, flipped, re-colored or filtered. Vector thieves who make composites or use parts are harder to find. I just discovered one that has over 1.3 million images. They could have a subscription, and legally download all they want.

Well that makes things more complicated :)

I looked at some images, recent and older, and the every-third-image numbering scheme wasn't always the way things were. So images from the early days - I checked some from 2006 - are sequential. By 2011 (when I came back from exclusivity and started uploading again, the numbers are every third.

I did check some searches by number just to see if other people got assigned numbers in between my image numbers from a batch uploaded sequentially, and I can't find anything when searching for those "in between" numbers, so I assume they're skipping them completely.

That does affect the ratio, but it doesn't affect the overall patterns and how they change over time. There was  higher rate of rejections from late 2016 and they accepted almost everything in the summer of 2017, for example.

This morning I dug around to see when the image assigned numbers really jumped up, and was able to narrow it down to something happening on Jan 20, 2018 where image numbers in the high 797 millions were followed - on the same day - by numbers in the low 1 billion range. I can't find any online content (with some quick spot checks; I'm too lazy to do more) with image numbers in the 800 million or 900 million range, so I think they skipped some numbers.

I think I'm just going to let this investigation go as there's too little solid data.

By the way, if you want to find the upload date for an image - they don't display it on the page - use the browser's View Source option and search for "datePublished".

Good discovery Jo Ann I started using the view page source and searching for "datep" (just shorter, nothing different) to see datepublished. Makes finding the first upload easier. Although unlikely the real artist could have been the second to upload if they had the same image somewhere else, where it was stolen, and the creator didn't upload to SS until more recently. Unlikely but possible.

I found the file numbering many years ago as far as I could see, the images were numbered 3 apart from the beginning. I was playing and bored at the office and started searching for first the oldest image, and then there was a big gap, until the system actually went live. I also located Jon's portfolio which was fun.

Not disagreeing that reviews are more lenient or many more images are getting in, almost without review. Just noting that if you used file numbers, the actual number of images uploaded and rejected would be 1/3rd. I don't know if that would change the acceptance rate?

Also as noted, people get rejections and re-up images. I know I have. When I send in a batch of Editorial and they are rejected for focus or some higher image standard (old days) I'd wait until Monday and send them again. Invariably 100% accepted. Just like now, some of the reviewers must just make some quick cash by wholesale rejects, and we pay by having to upload everything over again.

By the same theory some could also be accepting based on looking at a few in a batch and passing all.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #68 on: February 20, 2019, 06:28 »
+1
Shutterstock Milestones:

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos

February 20, 2009 -Shutterstock reaches 6 million photos, (5 million 2.5 years)

February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)

June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)

October 30, 2013 - Shutterstock reaches 30 million images (10 million 15 months)

August 4, 2014 - Shutterstock celebrates 40 million images in it's collection. (10 million 10 months)
December 31, 2014 - 46.8 million images in the collection. (1 million new files per month)

March 3, 2015 - 50 Million Image mark is reached (10 million in 7 months for those watching)
August 12, 2015 - 60 Million Images (10 million in 160 days. 62,500 new files a day)
December 15, 2015 - 70 Million Images (four months)

March 26, 2016 - 80 Million
June 16, 2016 - 90 Million (10 million under three months)
Sept 8, 2016 - 100 Million

February 2017 - 110 Million
October 28, 2017 160 Million
December 29, 2017 - 170 Million (10 million new two months)

Feb. 24, 2018 - 180 Million
April 16, 2018 - 190 Million (20 million new in 3.5 months)
June 10, 2018 - 200 Million (10 million new in 55 days)
August 1, 2018 - 210 Million (10 million new in 53 days)
Sept. 26th 2018 - 220 Million images now on Shutterstock
Nov. 12th 2018 - 231 Million images on Shutterstock.
Dec. 26th, 2018 - 240 Million images Shutterstock (10 million new in 44 days)

Feb. 14, 2019 - 250 Million images on Shutterstock  (10 million new 49 days)

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #69 on: February 20, 2019, 06:38 »
0
At this rate (10 million images accepted average every 50 days), in just over 10 years there will be 1 billion images on there :/

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #70 on: February 20, 2019, 06:52 »
0
At this rate (10 million images accepted average every 50 days), in just over 10 years there will be 1 billion images on there :/

Yes and this one was late because I made a note and forgot to post the Feb. 14th milestone.

70 Million new images in 2018. I don't know if the limit has been reached and the exponential growth will stop. We'll see in about 45 days on April 1st.  ::) April Fools Day

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #71 on: April 01, 2019, 12:19 »
+1
At this rate (10 million images accepted average every 50 days), in just over 10 years there will be 1 billion images on there :/

Yes and this one was late because I made a note and forgot to post the Feb. 14th milestone.

70 Million new images in 2018. I don't know if the limit has been reached and the exponential growth will stop. We'll see in about 45 days on April 1st.  ::) April Fools Day

Tried to sneak another one by me eh?

March 31st, 2019 260 million images available on Shutterstock.

I'll be back around May 15th... for another 10 million images. And just because I sometimes like being redundant for the obvious. As many people noticed Microstock had stopped the rapid growth of the previous years, roughly in 2012.

February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)

That's right, every month and a half, we are competing with 10 million new images, which back then took 2 1/4 years to add 10 million images.

Competition is what used to take five years to be uploaded, then 2 1/4 years, when Microstock was new and growing, is now uploaded every month and a half.

Every 90 days we get more new images as competition, than there were total on SS in 2012.


« Reply #72 on: April 01, 2019, 12:35 »
0
And yet...I sell, nearly every day with only 1400 photos and 800 videos online and sometimes I dont upload for weeks or months.

There must be something to their software that seems to be able to present content that buyers really need or prefers portfolios with a healthy sales to upload volume.

« Reply #73 on: April 01, 2019, 12:56 »
+3
And yet...I sell, nearly every day with only 1400 photos and 800 videos online and sometimes I dont upload for weeks or months.

There must be something to their software that seems to be able to present content that buyers really need or prefers portfolios with a healthy sales to upload volume.
One thing that sometimes gets overlooked is the simple fact buyers will only ever buy what they need despite all the conspiracy theories. I'm surprised my sales hold up as well as they do. I only regard myself as reasonably competent but in the last few years the standard of what now gets accepted is risible.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #74 on: April 02, 2019, 13:43 »
+2
And yet...I sell, nearly every day with only 1400 photos and 800 videos online and sometimes I dont upload for weeks or months.

There must be something to their software that seems to be able to present content that buyers really need or prefers portfolios with a healthy sales to upload volume.
One thing that sometimes gets overlooked is the simple fact buyers will only ever buy what they need despite all the conspiracy theories. I'm surprised my sales hold up as well as they do. I only regard myself as reasonably competent but in the last few years the standard of what now gets accepted is risible.

I suppose I shouldn't make it look like my sales have gone dead or that making a note of 10 million new images, is any kind of comment on my personal sales. What I have that sells, continues to get downloads. The Crapstock that used to get downloads in the Golden Era  ;D ::) doesn't get much activity. In other words, my better images, still sell, my junk and marginal efforts, are getting what they should = little or nothing.

I don't understand why some people think that just because they upload some snapshot, they should get downloads. Or if they make 10,000 snapshots, they should make more money. There are still people with portfolios in the 200-300 range of video, that are making over $1,000 a month from those. Quality still sells.

Maybe the buyers have to work harder to find the best images, but it seems they do, and they aren't downloading spam or video turned into backgrounds frame by frame, or terrible blurred images, just because they see them first.

Let me put this another way. I don't think that 10 million new images every 90 days has hurt the sales of my good, interesting or unique images. Sure there's much more competition. But as long as the competition keeps making what's most popular and what I don't, and the competition is uploading walkabout snapshots, I don't feel threatened. (I also don't rely on this income, so of course I can be less tense about market swings and changes.)

So if you please my posts about the numbers are mostly just notes about the numbers. If I hadn't tracked down the year by year, someone would be asking "How many images did SS have in 2010?"  :)

That and to answer the never ending questions about, what happened and why doesn't the market stay the same as it was for many people? Competition

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #75 on: April 10, 2019, 14:09 »
+1
In honor of making it back to over 1,000 posts, for the third time, I'm posting the May/June Milestone in advance.  ;D

264,795,106 royalty-free stock images / 1,676,474 new stock images added this week Today

Yes I'm cheating. I had originally said May 27th, or that weekend. Not even half way to that date, in fact, a rounded two weeks from March 31st, and nearly half way.

Looks like nothing has slowed, as I would have hoped. Last period was about 45 days for 10 million new images. Before that maybe 49 days, and this month, we're going to break the 45 day record. Closer to 40 days. Will this ever stop?



But since this is an edit, not a reply or new message, I expect it to just sit here until May unnoticed.  ;)
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 11:16 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #76 on: April 10, 2019, 16:46 »
+2
1,000 posts?

Congratulations now get back to work!  ;D


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #77 on: May 14, 2019, 10:06 »
0
March 31st, 2019 260 million images available on Shutterstock.

I'll be back around May 15th... for another 10 million images. And just because I sometimes like being redundant for the obvious. As many people noticed Microstock had stopped the rapid growth of the previous years, roughly in 2012.

February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)

That's right, every month and a half, we are competing with 10 million new images, which back then took 2 1/4 years to add 10 million images.

Competition is what used to take five years to be uploaded, then 2 1/4 years, when Microstock was new and growing, is now uploaded every month and a half.

Every 90 days we get more new images as competition, than there were total on SS in 2012.

Well I was wrong, May 10th Shutterstock passed 270,000,000 images. 40 days for those who are counting, kind of like raining images, a flood of epic proportions, for 40 days and 40 nights?  ::) When will the flood of competition slow down?

Next update? June 20th? Oh make it the 21st the longest day of the year.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
3743 Views
Last post October 25, 2006, 14:17
by asian
36 Replies
13157 Views
Last post December 24, 2009, 01:54
by traveler1116
126 Replies
27904 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 15:09
by tickstock
14 Replies
3982 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:28
by etudiante_rapide
45 Replies
9307 Views
Last post March 13, 2017, 15:21
by Brasilnut

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results