|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Lowls
101
« on: December 17, 2022, 07:59 »
And here's my last 5 non-exclusive sales. Earnings at far right...
Thank you for posting that and the one prior. It makes what I am seeing completely normal. That's OK. It was old footage that I found as I was backing up the rest. Better out there than not and there's a lot of that subject on there. Thousands. So I'm lucky I got a download. Thanks again
102
« on: December 17, 2022, 07:17 »
I had two sales today do far and I couldn't see what the other photo was. It said 2 but ut inly showed one. Then in the column to the right there it was. Contributor fund 0.58 😳
103
« on: December 15, 2022, 14:44 »
Ah ha! I found a back door. Kinda
Right if you're using mobile version go to your top earners. See all top earners where you can view your top earners and see keywords used. Unpaid earnings is also at the top right of that. Clearly visible.
Screen grabbed lol.
Thanks again folks
104
« on: December 15, 2022, 14:37 »
Can anyone else not see their unpaid earnings anywhere. The only way I can do it at present is total earnings minus payouts. Which I've screen grabbed in case that too vanishes. But nowhere. Not on mobile anyway.
Sometimes I have to wait for like 5 secs for the earnings to show up in the upper right corner.
You're a star thank you. Rarely look at it on the computer as its ... over there and not here. Brilliant aren't they. I've selected view desktop site and usually that works but lol oh * not here in SS land. Thanks also flywing.
105
« on: December 15, 2022, 13:11 »
Can anyone else not see their unpaid earnings anywhere. The only way I can do it at present is total earnings minus payouts. Which I've screen grabbed in case that too vanishes. But nowhere. Not on mobile anyway.
106
« on: December 15, 2022, 11:41 »
Erm I too have the new dashboard. You can't see how much they owe you. Literally nowhere. You can see monthly downloads etc but not total since last payout. Vanished. And how can you tell if you reach payout. what. Most of it is them pushing their crap at you. They are complete hemorrhoids.
Upper right hand corner "Unpaid Earnings"
Here's a trick, another broken part of the new pages. Go to Earnings, now you have to click it again to see Earnings Summary, and then it's just numbers, but if you click the date, it finally shows Subscriptions, but not the rest, you have to click each column individually to finally see what sold. Waste of time.
But wait! If you click the back arrow instead of the X in the upper right, here's the page you get. And it's dead, no data, no images, no exit, no nothing. Then you can hit the forward arrow and get a Earnings Page with no data. Wow nice going SSTK. Don't they ever look at what they coded, before making it live?
Screen Capture.
No wonder they got rid of the forum, it would be filled with threads about how useless this new update is.
Every time they do something stupid, it would be exposed on the forum. The final was the 10 and the reset, which still took months to take action and kill the whole thing. All it would have taken was moderation? Remember the spam attack. Yes while the forum was good for sharing, between contributors, it exposed too much of the truth.
Nope. No unpaid earnings anywhere. Monthly etc. But no unpaid earnings anywhere. If you mean on the front page that loads where most of it is their crap like in Firns screen grabs? If so it's not on that page. If you mean clicking on something to see it then no. Nowhere thee either. I'm viewing on a mobile but have selected desktop site. It reloads but nothing chmages.
107
« on: December 15, 2022, 10:54 »
Erm I too have the new dashboard. You can't see how much they owe you. Literally nowhere. You can see monthly downloads etc but not total since last payout. Vanished. And how can you tell if you reach payout. what. Most of it is them pushing their crap at you. They are complete hemorrhoids.
108
« on: December 10, 2022, 13:25 »
Quick question
I've not sold anything on Pond 5 before but I sold a video. Yay for me. Had an email saying what I got. Went to my dashboard and looked at total earnings but this is less than the page that has all tha data per photo. So that says 40 ish dollars but total earnings is less. Normal? Not normal?
109
« on: November 15, 2022, 04:37 »
Here we go again
100 peoples photos of a hand are used to generate an AI photo of the perfect hand.
Customer pays $10.00 👌
Shutterstock takes $6.00
Contributer gets 0.04 cents each.
Now prove you were one of the 100.
Prove your hand photo was used.
Find your photo particles in the customers hand composite.
Now tell me you trust SS to let you know your photo was used and pay you.
110
« on: November 04, 2022, 06:58 »
111
« on: October 27, 2022, 02:42 »
you didnt mention this was still in the research phase when amazon discovered the bias & shut the program down before it went live https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G And now we are going to enjoy SS's budget version. Which will do what. AIs generally become with each iteration more feral.
I would imagine it will completely destroy SS by using data sets that are completely false and will skew everything.
yes, your imagination! why would they be completely false? there are many examples of successful ML. and the current AI generators are far from being either 'feral' (whatever that means!) or 'false'. in fact, each iteration should make the AI stronger - what's your reason for saying more training will make the AI worse? [/quote] feral /ˈfɛr(ə)l,ˈfɪərəl/ adjective (especially of an animal) in a wild state, especially after escape from captivity or domestication. "a feral cat" Perhaps you should have spent your valuable time looking in a dictionary instead of scraping the net to prove me wrong. I didn't forget to mention it was in the testing phase because it wasn't in a testing phase and had been running for some time. According to the expert who was wheeled out to testify about fbook and others extensive use of AI for anything. It certainly wasn't explained that way by the expert but you have a link to a msm article so it must be true. The data sets will be completely false because if you had a brain in your skull and stopped being a know it all and failing you would realise that when you search SS for images, increasingly what you ask for is nothing like what you expect. If I ask for a particular insect I get lots of that insect. I also get whatever crap someone decided was that insect. Be it dustbin lid or pencil sharpener. Because of poor identification or poor keywording or whatever it may be. There are millions of photos in the database that are not what they are titled as or even close. Then we can get on to interpretive images. A man sitting on the floor with his back against the wall head down knees up. This could be depressed. Tired. Relaxed. Meditating. Sad. Mourning. It could be anything and will be keyworded as such. And of course it will be. It has been keyworded to fit as many circumstances as possible to sell as widely as possible. You as a seller must imagine everything a buyer wants and show them what that looks like. What does a palm tree mean. On a beach. With a thunder cloud in an otherwise blue sky. It means whatever attributes were given it by its seller. And that's your data set. The end aim here is a buyer goes to SS and types in Labrador dog, coloured pink and singing karaoke. Because they want that on some t-shirts. And this "AI company" will scour the images and create this wonder for them. And they'll get a mungrel that's punk from karachi. Because those users thought that's what a labrador looked like. And tye other user called it punk not pink because that's what hot pink means to them so they titled it punk and karaoke wasn't in the third person's spelling autocorrect so it changed it to Karachi for them and they didn't notice when they were uploaded 40,000 images that they stole from 40 profiles in the last week. Give me a break. If you need that explaining to you several things are implied 1. You're a pedant 2. You're an AI 3. You are the owner of the wonder company 4. You 'love' A.I. in a deep and natural way Whatever you're done.
112
« on: October 26, 2022, 05:36 »
When will these old farts ever learn. So blinded by the theory of AI are they that they have no idea how this will bite them in the arse. They should do their research.
Amazon used a powerful AI to hire the beat and brightest. It filtered thousands of applications and was doing really well. Until one day the higher ups looked at their workforce and struggled to find a female.
What had happened was that the AI had become a misogynist. In fact it made the decision to deliberately seek out any female application and avoid processing it. It learnt rather interesting and efficient ways to do this. It would look at their applications and search for their school. If it was an all female school it rejected them immediately. If that didn't work it searched their social media.
And now we are going to enjoy SS's budget version. Which will do what. AIs generally become with each iteration more feral.
I would imagine it will completely destroy SS by using data sets that are completely false and will skew everything.
113
« on: October 04, 2022, 05:31 »
I remember initially when I researched adobe that when opening the account to choose the currency of the country you were in. After which it would remain as is. Can't remember the details but yeah conversion costs.
114
« on: September 14, 2022, 01:39 »
These are current news editorial images, yet the whole batch have been rejected for not meeting editorial guidelines.
Adobe does not accept current news editorial image, they only accept illustrative editorials or their very own definition of it I don't understand half of the time.
.. we don't accept content that sells ....
115
« on: August 12, 2022, 14:10 »
Hahaha rejection for similar. Sigh how pathetic.
I have about 3 or four images that have autumnal and jave autumn leaves. A lake with trees in colour. Bright yellow leafs, red leafs and another. Different trees compositions entirely. I uploaded some gorgeous autumnal tree shots last year ... rejected for similar in my port. NSS but then I have landscape photos that have a sky in it ... should we stop. Careful ... you have a person on a path and a person on a beach. It's a nonsense.
Rejecting similars is not a fault or a crime or an offence. What it actually is, is this:
1. Poor search algorithms and criteria that cannot bring back a decent collection. So you get pages and pages of generic qualifying images that cannot be whittled down enough.
2. Concern over data bloat. Well guess what, when you have a photo of a tree that's a tree. Want an oak well here's an oak. An oaks an oak isn't it?
No of course not. Like faces, hands, sunsets, clothes, events, clouds and water and expressions and colours.
Adobe we take probably 20 to 30 photos of each thing. Typically I'll select one from that I'm happy with or maybe two. And ill submit 1. It's already been through a review process. But I've stepped away from submitting because I jave new ideas or interpretations of similar objects, landscapes etc but why bother. Set it all up, take the shots, self review, process and upload for 'similar' ... good grief. If it ain't on the shelf it can't sell Adobe. You need bigger shelves, and a better search tool else why would you reject various angles of the same thing, dog, tree, house, subject ....
... oh that's right. You don't. Until you do for a bit.
116
« on: August 04, 2022, 12:35 »
Ha not only have they leased Shutterstocks image analysis A.I. they've leased their response flow chart.
1. Post some images here (at lower resolution as that what it accepts) and the community can pull your arms and legs off for us.
2. The reviewing team are almost always right (almost always is one of those made up on the spot statistics). How could you possibly know unless everyone who's images are rejected is checked. Most bail and don't bother challenging. You have no idea of the correct percentage of correctly rejected images.
3. I'll look into that ...
4. I'll look into that ...
5. I'll look into that ...
6. Rebooting .... end run return to 1 ...
I haven't searched for previous threads for the generic response runaround but I know it has a better chance at being accurate than your statement lol.
117
« on: June 13, 2022, 03:56 »
My main concern is a sales count number against images which is patently wrong. A certain image is claimed to have sold 5 times. Whilst I haven't kept count I know it sells quite often. They claim 5 sales of that image and I have been logging all of 2019 sales. 3 more years to go. In the first year 9 months it sold 3 times. So 5 is just wrong. But where are they getting 5 from. Have they only paid me for 5. It also states that all of my port has sold at least once. A thousand images. There were some pretty shonky images in the beginning.
118
« on: June 09, 2022, 23:50 »
Hmmmm the new page has struck. Mobile version is bleak. One thing I thought was good was how often a photo has been sold.
100% of my port has sold at least once. 75% more than once. But two images claim to have been sold 5 times. And they have not. They have sold more than that.
Of course how I could check is month by month year by year. And that's gone. At least on mobile version.
Anyone else notice that their images state less sales than they have actually had?
119
« on: May 20, 2022, 02:47 »
The 70s called and asked for their jacket back ☺️
Seriously interesting though.
Hey! I love that jacket! Plus, the 70s were awesome 
Before my time but I feel you. We should start a crowd fund for you 😉 https://tinyurl.com/yuyv7mbj Just need to check your girth to make sure it's a comfy fit 🤣
120
« on: May 19, 2022, 08:26 »
The 70s called and asked for their jacket back ☺️
Seriously interesting though.
122
« on: May 06, 2022, 17:28 »
Same here 😳
123
« on: May 05, 2022, 03:01 »
Urgh never mind.
Pond is not a concept it's a Noun.
Obviously. Pond wasn't meant to be a concept. Pond was just an obvious word in the title and keyword that someone would type to find dragonflies. The title that was rejected stated something like "Golden ringed Dragonfly basking in the sun after feeding near a pond. Scientific name (Latin name). It was rejected for the scientific name and keyword pond, life. Pond insects. Flying pond bugs all find dragonflies in the search bar. But I wasn't allowed Pond because there was no pond. It was a stupid refusal. I won't debate that any longer because it is patently obviously a pond related subject. Or stream either is correct.
I believe I did point out various examples of this rigidity being lame. I stated that we could no longer have conceptual titles because a photo titled meditation would now have to become "woman sitting oddly alone in room. But we cant have room because only one wall can be seen. Prisoner becomes "young man sitting on generic bed against a wall wearing grey overalls. No prison visible.
I guess it comes down to how badly do adobe want their photos to be found. Not very in that case. And I'm a native speaker of English. So to throw these subjective obstacles in the way is tiresome. It was removed on my behalf and then published. Well I say refused it was placed in a limbo state until I corrected mistakes. After 3 goes I couldn't work out why which is why I asked for help and the explanation given that title must be in English not foriegn languages (Latin is the only name for some insects but whatever) that I can only title what is visible which makes conceptual ideas risky and that future repeated instances of rule breaking like this could result in 'keyword spamming' and closure of account.
Pond. Ok lol jeeze
Obviously you are wrong. I find many images with Latin names in title and many with concept words that you claim they don't allow. You are wrong or lying.
https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=dragonfly&search_type=default-asset-click&asset_id=469521372
Maybe you are just watched more because you are a keyword spammer and got caught.
I would be very careful calling people liars if I were you. A very silly post to make. And rather than make you look even more foolish I'll just ignore the rest of what you wrote, will write, have ever written. You will now be consigned to the ridiculous draw along with feather boas, dog paw washers, and verruca socks.
124
« on: May 04, 2022, 13:40 »
Your days are numbered as the ever over reliance on A.I. will see you living in a trailer park and sleeping on a outdoor couch as functioning alcoholics. Where I will find you and take your photo weeks before you fall foul of some hideous X rated event only seen in the darkest regions of Tarantino's mind.
For the record, I will not sign a model release!
-Mat Hayward
"You have no right to expectation of privacy in a publicly accessible place" Sorry dude I don't need one. You are literally one A.I. evolution away from a compromising Tik Tok upload. 😊😉
125
« on: May 04, 2022, 03:34 »
Suggested improvement No. Whatever.
"Thanks for the opertunity to review your work but it sucks"
Rejection reason: technical issue (for adobe not SS apprently)
Click here to find out why which will whisk you off down a rabbit hole to the main page of a never ending load of click bait which will result in knowing zero about what specific technical issue you fell foul of.
So yeah - actual technical issue information rather than nonsense would be great. I would have put it more politically correctly like:
"Dear Adobe gang (you guys rock btw) it would be super helpful to have some idea which specific technical issue was found on my photo so that I can correct the issue and keep providing you all-stars my best images and keep living my best life"
But I won't. I don't know you. I don't care. In reality 10% of you are one stresser event away from becoming serial killers or starting an office fire. Your days are numbered as the ever over reliance on A.I. will see you living in a trailer park and sleeping on a outdoor couch as functioning alcoholics. Where I will find you and take your photo weeks before you fall foul of some hideous X rated event only seen in the darkest regions of Tarantino's mind.
So yeah more specificity on what technical issue was the issue. I don't want to ask 'the helpful community' which are in all probability a feral collection of rabid has beens endlessly ripping and snarling with each other until an innocent chump turns up waving a jpeg before being tossed aside. A mere husk of the broken English speaking person they were before. And then watch them fawn all over you thanking you for their are raping.
Nope a simple "out of focus" " crap composition" "not a unicorn" quick note would do wonders for the productivity of the Eloi.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
