You can compare the figures and see whether that seems realistic.
There are certainly deviations in the weekly ranking because it is not calculated in real time. These deviations should not exist in the overall ranking.

So: My lifetime ranking has fallen to 3,090 today.
I've had 45,625 downloads at Adobe so far - I have only images, no videos.
If there is someone who has sold a similar number of images sold, they can post their total downloads.
If there are significant deviations - which I don't believe - then the Adobe statistics would not be correct.

Quote from: Injustice for all on April 01, 2025, 05:35

Quote from: synthetick on March 31, 2025, 16:06

For anyone deleting files from Adobe, note the following clause in your contributor agreement:

"6.2 Managing the Work. You may remove any Work from the Website at any time, provided, however, that you do not remove more than 100 items of Work or 10% of the Work, whichever is greater, in any 90-day period without 90 days' prior written notice to Adobe."

https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20240216.pdf

ok,I missed this one.

anyway I was planning on deleting 500 images,which is less than 10% of my port,if I decide to do so.

thanks!

Please explain how less images and deleting images you already have accepted, will make more money? What's the secret.

I don't think your question can be answered seriously because nobody knows the algorithm.

But: It can be assumed that there is a portfolio ranking that influences where a contributor's newly accepted images are ranked. To put it simply: Poor portfolio ranking = poor classification of new images. And vice versa. And poor ranking of new images can lead to them never being found, which will further worsen the ranking of the entire portfolio. A vicious circle.

And also quite simply put: If you have a lot of images in your portfolio that don't sell at all or have never sold, it could therefore make sense to delete these images (after self-critical analysis) in order to improve the portfolio ranking (the portfolio quality).

This is all a thesis. Nobody can tell you whether this is really the case. But: If you have 10,000 images in your portfolio, of which 9,000 images have never sold, but the remaining 1,000 images are selling very well, such a cleaning action could - theoretically - be advantageous.

Quote from: Wilm on March 19, 2025, 05:14

Income half of February 2024.

How much content did you upload in the last 12 months?

18 files.

Compared to February 2024, revenue in particular has fallen. In terms of downloads, it was also less, but the main problem is a significant drop in RPD compared to February 2024.

Okay, let's discuss the "lottery factor".

Using Steve as an example:
His bestseller on shutterstock should, if only the factors "diligence, image composition/composition, aesthetics, keywords, commercial benefit" would count, also be a bestseller on AS or istock or somewhere else. But this is obviously not the case.

There may be 3 reasons for this:
- The agencies' clients have different tastes.
- The image only ranked well on shutterstock.
- Possibly: The image was only accepted by shutterstock.

From my point of view, it is therefore simply luck if shutterstock ranked the image so well after it was uploaded that it achieved sales right at the beginning and then continued to rise in the ranking.

How high the lottery factor is, as far as the assessment of the agencies is concerned, I simply compare just shutterstock with Adobe Stock based on my images. The ratings obviously were similar for a few images. For a few images, the differences are extreme.


                SS               AS
Image 1:   $ 4,400       $ 240
Image 2:   $ 1,645       $ 808
Image 3:   $ 1,630       $ 1,810
Image 4:   $ 1,190       $ 128
Image 5:   $ 1,130       $ 0 (was never accepted - despite several attempts)
Image 6:   $ 1.000       $ 230
Image 7:   $ 880          $ 307
Image 8:   $ 870          $ 201
Image 9:   $ 850          $ 225
Image 10: $ 760          $ 1.365

I have images that fetched $300 or $500 on AS, but only $3 or $5 on shutterstock - and the other way round. And of course there are images selling quite well on one agency that have no downloads at all on the other agency because of a miserable starting ranking. On istock, lots of my best selling images weren't even accepted (despite several attempts), so I only have about 800 images online there. And I know that the images that weren't accepted would have made thousands of dollars there too. But it's just not meant to be.

Another lottery factor is of course the copy cats.
If you are lucky in the lottery, you will only be copied a little. If you are unlucky, the usually worse copies will overtake the originals in a short time, because the novelty factor naturally also plays a role in the sorting of the images.

Yes - there is a big lottery factor! And it will have more weight because of AI in future.

Quote from: Wilm on March 13, 2025, 07:35

Quote from: alan b traehern on March 13, 2025, 06:18

I learn from what sells and make more. I learn from what doesn't sell and don't make more. I don't need some unscientific study of some other person, to figure that out.

Quote from: Wilm on March 10, 2025, 15:16

What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

This isn't a game of chance, buyers decide what sells, which decides the rank and how the algos place your images. You and others imagine this business is like the lottery, not planning or skill. Steve is a success because he's smart and works hard.

Hmmm,

It's not that simple, Alan.

Sure, once an image has worked its way to the top of the search results, it should sell better and better.

But when you upload an image, it gets a starting ranking. If the image is ranked on pages 1 to 3 for certain search terms, that's great.

If, on the other hand, it lands on page 15 or 20 or even further back, there is a very high probability that it will be "stillborn". Then there is a risk that this image will never be found.

The image (concept, image structure, aesthetics, customer benefit) itself is not so important. What is important is how the selection assesses the value of the image and where the image is initially classified within the mass of other images on the same topic.

Of course, this problem automatically increases the larger an agency's database becomes. It was therefore easier to get a good starting ranking with an image when the database still contained 20 million files. Today, with half a billion, the air automatically becomes thinner.

Or, if things go really badly, the image is even rejected by one agency, while other agencies consider it to be an image with high commercial value.

You can't argue away the "lottery factor". It's part of the game. After 15 years, I can assure every contributor of that. I can also give you countless examples if you like.

I mean Steve's alltime bestsellers were just a plastic bag and a cat on a plain white background. Alan, how you then can even talk about quality and not just the random factor, which is more important.

Where did Steve write about his bestsellers?

What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

Why am I not surprised? 

Quote from: TonyD on January 15, 2025, 01:02

The Gov in England even wants to legalize assisted dying - just the kind of thing Putin would do

As a doctor, I am very much in favor of controlled assisted dying being regulated by law.
I also understand and accept the counter-arguments.
This is a very sensitive and complicated issue.
In this respect, I find it quite inappropriate to refer to Putin here.
I'm assuming that you've never been in an oncology intensive care unit.
If I were you, I would simply read up on the subject again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47158287

I absolutely agree.

Anyone who is against the subject across the board should wish with all their heart that they were never affected themselves. Because the people I have known who have been affected have wished for nothing more.

When the status quo has progressed so far that the eyes, nose, mouth, all muscles, life-sustaining reflexes (swallowing reflex, eyelid reflex etc.) are no longer able to function and everything in the body except the heart and brain no longer function and the body is consumed by cramps and excruciating pain for months on end and a cure is impossible, that is the time when this debate MUST at least be held.

If there really was arson, I think it was either the Russians or the Democrats.

And here is our second candidate for the doctor!

Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 11, 2025, 09:12

Apparently, there are things called "DEWs" ("directed energy weapons"), essentially "starlink" (or things like it), etc are weaponized to laser heat houses and burn them down. Apparently the same thing that happened in Hawaii. Purpose is for "land re-allocation" (i.e., kicking residents off their land), so some specific "rich" people can purchase the land cheap. Also - apparently if one has a blue house top (i.e., painted blue), that prevents the laser from burning it because the wavelength of the laser doesn't heat a specific blue wavelength.

Might be worth looking into more.

Let's take a purely scientific approach to the problem without the media.

In simple terms, lasers are bundled light radiation.

When this light radiation hits material, the photons transfer their energy to the atomic or molecular structure of the material, which in turn leads to heating and penetration of the material. Depending on the material, this results in fire.

These are energetic atomic processes and not a paint box where you can neutralize colors. Teflon, for example, can reduce the effect, but not paint.

Please explain to me on a physical basis why a blue surface should stop this process?

I am curious.

From a purely scientific point of view, there is another question.

The solar panels on satellites are capable of supplying up to 13 kW of energy.
A laser weapon for drone defense requires 30 kW, modern systems are 300 to 500 kW to shoot down even larger flying objects at a distance of 1 to 7 miles. The Iron Beam is also designed for distances of up to 6/7 miles.
The powerful weapon systems are the size and weight of sea containers, while a Starlink satellite weighs between 300 and 800 kg and is much smaller.

Starlink satellites fly at an altitude of 350 miles. That would be the minimum distance the satellite would be from a house on Earth if it were at the zenith above it. And that's only for a second. Because the satellite flies at a speed of 17,000 mph.

What our "scientist" writes may be conceivable in a few years' time - whether it is financially viable is another matter. Because such a system and every launch with it costs immense sums of money. This would first have to be amortized by the supposed land gain.

Currently, his thesis comes from sci-fi movies, of which he watches too many...

Quote from: Wilm on January 11, 2025, 09:48

Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 11, 2025, 09:12

Apparently, there are things called "DEWs" ("directed energy weapons"), essentially "starlink" (or things like it), etc are weaponized to laser heat houses and burn them down. Apparently the same thing that happened in Hawaii. Purpose is for "land re-allocation" (i.e., kicking residents off their land), so some specific "rich" people can purchase the land cheap. Also - apparently if one has a blue house top (i.e., painted blue), that prevents the laser from burning it because the wavelength of the laser doesn't heat a specific blue wavelength.

Might be worth looking into more.

What have you been smoking again?

Nothing. You?

Anyways - its amazing, don't quite understand why - but why some people (as yourself) it seems have 100% absolute faith and trust in "elected" officials - to be looking out for "your" best interest, and seem to believe that 100% of what is presented on the "news", "newspapers" is "100% absolute truth", don't question anything - and just eat it up. You seem to 100% trust "authority" also, that it would "never" be abused, and that "authority figures" would always 100% tell you the truth, and would never, ever lie to YOU.

Additionally, it seems you 100% ONLY trust what is in "the news". And as for "scientists" or ANYONE in academia, you believe they are 100% "honest", would "never" be influenced by "money" to fudge their results, push a product or service if they benefited financially, and that "authority" figures would be absolutely the same.

You have a very narrow belief/model of how you think the world operates.

Why?

So, someone sets fire to a wooden house with a laser from a satellite at a wind speed of 100 mph in a currently dry area. The next wooden house is 6 yards away - the one with the blue roof. There is also a fairly dry hedge between the houses. Do you seriously believe that the house with the blue roof will be spared, even though the storm is coming directly from the direction of the burning neighboring house?

Before you start talking about science and the media, maybe you should just start with logic and think for yourself about the nonsense you're making up here. 

Quote from: stoker2014 on January 10, 2025, 13:36

Share the link.   

N O !

Exactly!

stocker comes from a country that has been invaded by an imperialist who claims that the members of his people have been mistreated in this country and because he claims to need it as a military shield against NATO.

stocker supports an imperialist US president who threatens to annex - by force of arms if necessary - a country that is an autonomous territory of Denmark and also feels that it belongs to Denmark because he claims to need it as a military shield against Russia.

It remains a mystery how one can (rightly) rail against the aggressor and at the same time de-emphasize another potential occupier when one is affected by losing one's own nation and national identity to a foreign power.