MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Very high level conspiracy theories here, read at your own risk.  (Read 5508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 02, 2015, 23:29 »
0
Over a year ago I speculated that SS was using some sort of software algorithm to review images, and most people thought I was cracked, but a few took notice.

At some point someone interviewed someone over at SS who eluded to the existence of a piece of software used to review the images and that seemed to confirm my suspicions. It all started when it seemed like all of the sudden a lot of people were getting strange rejections for all kinds of strange reasons, it was almost like an actual person never really looked at the images . . .

That was a while ago, a long while ago. Some folks are still getting these "odd" rejections now and then, and some of us just seem to get them all the time. It did seem strange that a lot of contributors who had been with SS for 10 years or more were all of the sudden producing "crap" out of focus, noisy, poorly lit images.

My latest conspiracy theory is that SS is "throttling" accounts. If you get "odd" rejections, and you complain, or they fail to answer your email questions, and you complain, or just about anything happens, and you complain . . .

. . . it seems that over the next few days, and weeks your sales take a nose-dive for some un-explained reason. Sure you could explain it away as just normal market shift, and if you track it you couldn't pinpoint a logical reason for these "odd" market-fluctuations that cause you sales to dip, but somehow it just seems to consistent with problems and interactions with real people over at SS.

As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."

Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.

I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.



« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2015, 01:27 »
+7
I have emailed SS a number of times on rejections I felt were unwarranted.  In most cases they agreed and reversed the decision.  In a couple of cases they stuck with the reviewers' decision and pointed out why.  After looking at the images again I either agreed or at least could see why there might be an issue.

At no time has my account been throttled due to my 'complaints'.

While I like a good conspiracy theory as well as the next person the glaring hole in yours is that SS could not give a rodents rear end about your images, your account, your complaints or anyone else either.  They have more new photographers joining everyday than they need and they are not going waste their time throttling anyone for whatever reason.  If you tick them off enough they will just close your account and be done with you.

« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2015, 01:36 »
+2
Over a year ago I speculated that SS was using some sort of software algorithm to review images, and most people thought I was cracked, but a few took notice.

At some point someone interviewed someone over at SS who eluded to the existence of a piece of software used to review the images and that seemed to confirm my suspicions. It all started when it seemed like all of the sudden a lot of people were getting strange rejections for all kinds of strange reasons, it was almost like an actual person never really looked at the images . . .

That was a while ago, a long while ago. Some folks are still getting these "odd" rejections now and then, and some of us just seem to get them all the time. It did seem strange that a lot of contributors who had been with SS for 10 years or more were all of the sudden producing "crap" out of focus, noisy, poorly lit images.

My latest conspiracy theory is that SS is "throttling" accounts. If you get "odd" rejections, and you complain, or they fail to answer your email questions, and you complain, or just about anything happens, and you complain . . .

. . . it seems that over the next few days, and weeks your sales take a nose-dive for some un-explained reason. Sure you could explain it away as just normal market shift, and if you track it you couldn't pinpoint a logical reason for these "odd" market-fluctuations that cause you sales to dip, but somehow it just seems to consistent with problems and interactions with real people over at SS.

As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."

Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.

I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.


I can say that for Fotolia! Not for SS.

« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2015, 02:03 »
+3
Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.
Yeah, and it's true that China and Saudi Arabia held a majority of Shutterstock shares  8) 8)

« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2015, 04:56 »
+1
I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.

Done!

Snow

« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2015, 05:50 »
0
Over a year ago I speculated that SS was using some sort of software algorithm to review images, and most people thought I was cracked, but a few took notice.

At some point someone interviewed someone over at SS who eluded to the existence of a piece of software used to review the images and that seemed to confirm my suspicions. It all started when it seemed like all of the sudden a lot of people were getting strange rejections for all kinds of strange reasons, it was almost like an actual person never really looked at the images . . .

That was a while ago, a long while ago. Some folks are still getting these "odd" rejections now and then, and some of us just seem to get them all the time. It did seem strange that a lot of contributors who had been with SS for 10 years or more were all of the sudden producing "crap" out of focus, noisy, poorly lit images.

My latest conspiracy theory is that SS is "throttling" accounts. If you get "odd" rejections, and you complain, or they fail to answer your email questions, and you complain, or just about anything happens, and you complain . . .

. . . it seems that over the next few days, and weeks your sales take a nose-dive for some un-explained reason. Sure you could explain it away as just normal market shift, and if you track it you couldn't pinpoint a logical reason for these "odd" market-fluctuations that cause you sales to dip, but somehow it just seems to consistent with problems and interactions with real people over at SS.

As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."

Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.

I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.

That seems to be part of the game they play yup. That goes for all agencies!

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2015, 08:01 »
+1
There is surely a part of software automation in the review process, to analyse the size, the resolution, the type of file, etc.
Then it is very possible that some zombiviewers act like automatic zoftware

« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2015, 08:51 »
+1
Over a year ago I speculated that SS was using some sort of software algorithm to review images, and most people thought I was cracked, but a few took notice.

At some point someone interviewed someone over at SS who eluded to the existence of a piece of software used to review the images and that seemed to confirm my suspicions. It all started when it seemed like all of the sudden a lot of people were getting strange rejections for all kinds of strange reasons, it was almost like an actual person never really looked at the images . . .

That was a while ago, a long while ago. Some folks are still getting these "odd" rejections now and then, and some of us just seem to get them all the time. It did seem strange that a lot of contributors who had been with SS for 10 years or more were all of the sudden producing "crap" out of focus, noisy, poorly lit images.

My latest conspiracy theory is that SS is "throttling" accounts. If you get "odd" rejections, and you complain, or they fail to answer your email questions, and you complain, or just about anything happens, and you complain . . .

. . . it seems that over the next few days, and weeks your sales take a nose-dive for some un-explained reason. Sure you could explain it away as just normal market shift, and if you track it you couldn't pinpoint a logical reason for these "odd" market-fluctuations that cause you sales to dip, but somehow it just seems to consistent with problems and interactions with real people over at SS.

As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."

Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.

I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.

I don't think this is a secret. When they went public they disclosed "proprietary inspection software" and I think it was Gablax who posted the link. Whether they are using it or not is really the discussion, not that they do or don't have the technology....just to be clear.

« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2015, 08:55 »
+6
WE CALLED SS REVIEWERS A DIRTY NAME......AND NOW THEY'RE REJECTING ALL OUR STUFF


« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2015, 09:02 »
+1
Over a year ago I speculated that SS was using some sort of software algorithm to review images, and most people thought I was cracked, but a few took notice.

At some point someone interviewed someone over at SS who eluded to the existence of a piece of software used to review the images and that seemed to confirm my suspicions. It all started when it seemed like all of the sudden a lot of people were getting strange rejections for all kinds of strange reasons, it was almost like an actual person never really looked at the images . . .

That was a while ago, a long while ago. Some folks are still getting these "odd" rejections now and then, and some of us just seem to get them all the time. It did seem strange that a lot of contributors who had been with SS for 10 years or more were all of the sudden producing "crap" out of focus, noisy, poorly lit images.

My latest conspiracy theory is that SS is "throttling" accounts. If you get "odd" rejections, and you complain, or they fail to answer your email questions, and you complain, or just about anything happens, and you complain . . .

. . . it seems that over the next few days, and weeks your sales take a nose-dive for some un-explained reason. Sure you could explain it away as just normal market shift, and if you track it you couldn't pinpoint a logical reason for these "odd" market-fluctuations that cause you sales to dip, but somehow it just seems to consistent with problems and interactions with real people over at SS.

As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."

Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.

I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.

That seems to be part of the game they play yup. That goes for all agencies!

Regarding the bolded statement, I doubt SS has a team looking for trouble makers. It would be exceedingly difficult and costly for them effect punitive damages on trouble makers in a pool of 50K contributors. What would constitute a troublemaker? Subjectivity? Do they have specific criteria? Who monitors the this? Who decides Joe-Blow is or is not a troublemaker or fits the criteria? They simply would be wasting resources on this.

Now, it is probably doable...I mean the RC system and ranking used to play a role in image/artist placement during search.  FT was a good example of this and Deposit Photos I recall offered "selective placement" for those who were invited and submitted to them. So it's certainly doable if the technological model is right, but I just don't think SS would waste a "formal process" to enact punitive punishment on select contributors, although it certainly does feel like it at times.  Punitive is more around what Fotolia does/did to contributors who voiced disagreement with them...."THE MIGHTY CHAD BIRDCALL" just closed your account without ANY explanation from the terms. 

« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2015, 09:44 »
+1
I was going to hit the AGREE button but fear retaliation.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2015, 09:53 »
+5
So a billion dollar publicly traded company is picking on contributors who ask questions about rejections?  :o

« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2015, 10:15 »
+2
So a billion dollar publicly traded company is picking on contributors who ask questions about rejections?  :o
He did say there was a high level of conspiracy theories.

Snow

« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2015, 10:55 »
+3
So a billion dollar publicly traded company is picking on contributors who ask questions about rejections?  :o

Didn't you get booted from FT Ron?
I don't think the OP was talking about rejections in specific. It could be anything from complaining on their forums or via support to exposing their methods publicly.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2015, 11:48 »
+6
Pretty much the way I see it and they have answered on the SS forum and here that a human looks at every reviewed image. (not every image, the computer rejects some for failure to meet minimum standards, saves time and labor) Now if it's too small or some other flaw, duplicate, or who knows what other technical reason, that a computer can pre-test.

Why are they paying 200 reviewers if it's a computer?

As for following and punishing, I'm in the group with the rest who think SS is too big to care, or take action against what people write on a forum, or on their blogs. We already know that other top four sites have closed accounts for blog posts and messages on forums.

Anyone ever been kicked off SS for the same?

Yes I've had some strange and bizarre rejections, (the weekend conspiracy theory) and the last time I asked for a rejection review outside of those, strange ones, I got a nice detailed answer why, and what I should do to fix it.

There is surely a part of software automation in the review process, to analyse the size, the resolution, the type of file, etc.
Then it is very possible that some zombiviewers act like automatic zoftware

« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2015, 12:06 »
+1
So a billion dollar publicly traded company is picking on contributors who ask questions about rejections?  :o
I saw similar situations in big companies. Reasons were different: from corporate security to games of employees

« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2015, 10:03 »
+3
I saw similar situations in big companies. Reasons were different: from corporate security to games of employees

You bring up a good point. No, Shutterstock, the billion dollar publicly traded company doesn't give a crap, they are busy making their trips to the bank and to their summer homes, but think about Lobo-esque type employees who 1. feel they have the "power", and some contributors need to be taught lessons, or maybe 2. employees who feel they should be getting a higher wage for their work, given that the company IS a billion dollar one, so they are spiteful towards other people. Then you got your passive-agressive people. And so on.

Sometimes it sure FEELS like a reviewer or someone at SS might have it in for contributors. Could these tinfoil hat scenarios happen? Certainly, and I think in small instances it probably does. For the most part, no, it's probably just coincidence.


« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2015, 13:43 »
+5
I rarely get rejections, never wrote to them to complain about anything, and grow my portfolio regularly.  Yet I am down almost 50%. 

Either this theory is not true or they just don't like me. 

« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2015, 17:42 »
+1
I rarely get rejections, never wrote to them to complain about anything, and grow my portfolio regularly.  Yet I am down almost 50%. 

Either this theory is not true or they just don't like me.


which comes to my theory that the email approval eff-up is just the part of the crumbling system...
your down almost 50% ... and for others too i am sure...
is not because they don't like you but that clients are not getting to see what they want to see
due to IT eff-up.
sales are down ... if not for the rare $20 to $120 single large earning... that
as someone here pointed out before... is rescue to a bad month to month for many if not some of us.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2015, 18:18 »
+9
As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."

Well there's two thoughts here.

Do agencies keep an eye on people who appear to them as trouble-makers? Yes, absolutely. I think we have some good examples of people being booted from forums or even the agency itself.

Would they modify the system to flag a problematic account? Why not? I design software and businesses do it all the time. What about the nutjob who calls their tv/phone/cellphone provider several times a day every day and complains non-stop about everything? Good chances are their account is flagged with some internal problem code. Another example but the opposite. Big spenders at a casino. They get flagged as a high roller and get all kinds of perks. So it's entirely possible when it comes time to review Mr. Troublemaker's images they may come with an alert for the reviewer who can then auto-reject them and move on.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2015, 20:41 by PaulieWalnuts »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2015, 03:08 »
+2
What about the nutjob who calls their tv/phone/cellphone provider several times a day every day and complains non-stop about everything? Good chances are their account is flagged with some internal problem code.

confirm.
that's exactly what we did in one of my jobs in IT multinationals many years ago, actually our CRM software was specifically designed to keep track of this kind of issues and as far as i know from former colleagues this is the norm in any big respectable company otherwise it would be a total mess to deal with clients.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2015, 03:10 »
+2
Why waste time and resources on bullying people and not just boot them off then? If they would auto reject everything someone submit they wont even be making money of them. So you keep them at a cost just to bully them?

« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2015, 03:46 »
+3
From company management POV it is not wasting. I did contract jobs in many companies, and saw a lot. In 90% of them HRs and managers believe that negative attitude from top is positive for company. They don't care how it affects employees, more important that they should feel "the power". I feel myself lucky that i do freelancing.

« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2015, 07:27 »
0
i never had strange rejections...

i've just got a batch of some 3d printing machine rejected because of color/light/white balance: these pictures were actually really manipulated in color correction by be so it was not a surprise the rejections, i just tried it, because i thought that if these images would have passed the review they were more "sellable" as the final result is not common and "cool"...but it was rejected, so i've corrected white balance and now they're on my port.

the only not positive thing is that my sales are stable while but i'm uploading much more...but this is just due to a massive uploading from thousand contributors

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2015, 09:14 »
+5
Why waste time and resources on bullying people and not just boot them off then? If they would auto reject everything someone submit they wont even be making money of them. So you keep them at a cost just to bully them?

If they got rid of everybody that spoke negatively online about an agency they would be getting rid of a lot of people. That then would circulate on social media and cause outrage, more negative opinions, and more people getting dumped. It eventually would blow up and be bad for everybody. If instead they just quietly and ambiguously give people a time-out it gets the same result without the bad PR. The person just stops submitting, complains a little, then quietly goes away and becomes some other agency's problem.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 09:28 by PaulieWalnuts »

Envato ElementsMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
6450 Views
Last post November 28, 2009, 11:30
by PeterChigmaroff
7 Replies
3273 Views
Last post August 03, 2010, 20:04
by sweetgirll
A Conspiracy?

Started by WarrenPrice « 1 2  All » 123RF

47 Replies
11864 Views
Last post December 17, 2010, 19:47
by ibogdan
8 Replies
1909 Views
Last post November 16, 2011, 14:32
by WarrenPrice
12 Replies
2157 Views
Last post October 04, 2018, 11:33
by EssexVIG

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements