Quote from: Poncke on December 25, 2012, 18:15

I dont think its keen to track traffic through your program and then ask for the person to reveal him/herself to give you feedback. In my opinion you have no business in knowing who uploaded how many files.

The reason I am not using your program or want to try it is because you track numbers. I dont care if thats not important data or not, you still have your program communicate with my PC so you can track more than only numbers. I am not sure if you tell people in the tos that this program feeds back data to you. And you should also put in a opt out button for people who dont want to share that data.

I assume your program is not highly protected from hacking and maybe someone with bad intentions can inject malicious code onto a PC  using that same communication you have set up to get the number of files uploaded using your software.

I was rereading this and would like to more carefully answer this post. ALL sensitive data is saved in a sqlite database that is on your computer! That data is used to connect directly to the agencies without passing throug my site. This can be verified by anybody with some programming skills. The program loads a url after any upload to let the webpage know that there has been an uploa, but does not tell by who or anything like that. Actually it is as if somebody would write an anonymous letter telling "i uploaded!" in fact filezilla and other ftp programs are saving your acess data in plain text files accessible by any hacker. The sqlite file is not encrypted (yet) but a hacker wouldnt even search for such a file in the first place... Hope this clearifies some doubts! It you have more please ask!

So it looks like at the very least you can tell the url of the sites that we upload to. As well as the upload dates and how many images we upload to each specific site.  Are you also collecting additional information that you have not mentioned?

That was Bobby Deal - photoshow - that Fotolia kicked out.

And Fotolia deleted my account (which I had left open but with no images after I became an iStock exclusive) and then refused to have me back as a contributor when I returned to being an independent. This was all over their displeasure over comments in public forums about their policies.

I like knowing who I am talking to. I would prefer it if people weren't anonymous, but I understand why some need or prefer to be so. I don't say anything in a public forum or on facebook that I have a problem being found in a search. I do think knowing something about where I'm coming from - portfolio of 50, 2,000 or 50K; doing stock for 6 months or 6 years; are my images boudoir shots, travel, food, 3D renderings, etc. - provides context for my opinions. I'm not sure how you could assess them - and validity isn't relevant for the most part in discussions like these - without knowing something about me. If I comment on what iStock likes or doesn't but I'm not a contributor there, you'd treat that differently from the case where I'd been there for many years, or where I was exclusive and an inspector there.

I think that because the sites do not post often at MSG, its members have a false sense of security that they can say what ever they want without consequence.  I can remember when Rinder "claimed" on MSG that he submitted someone else work as a review test on IS.  It not take long for them to permanently ban him from submitting to their site altogether and to be fair you can not blame them for taking such a stance.

I did not answer the questionnaire because the questions seemed to be biased against being anonymous. I do not flaunt who I am mainly because I think it is important not to take my own self worth too seriously and I want to be able to respond honestly to problems presenting on the sites without fear that the micros will retaliate in some way!

I give equal weight to the people I know here and the people I do not know based on what they have to say period. 

In fact I know some people here that are anonymous because they walk the walk on the sites through action and you can also hear that wisdom in their words on MSG. Unless you are a newb, you can pretty much spot your friends even when they are posting anonymously to protect their business interests.

^^^ Too late mate. The VC's may have provided funding until the IPO. They won't be there afterwards. Their job is done, their money is made and will now be ploughed into new ventures. The clue's in the name.

LOL, they will not be gone if they think there is still money to be had!  There are a few key people who know what the long term plans are but everyone else will be kept in the dark!  Most people believe what they want to believe and most often their beliefs have nothing to do with reality. Unpleasant facts are most often overlooked and swept out of the minds eye, so that we can keep our picture of the how we want life proceed.

Jon Oringer at least said in one of his recent interviews that SS currently has 600 000 customers and he estimates that there are another 70 million out there.

Rebecca tells us that the market as ended, new contributors and new files will mean we inevtably lose sales and that there is no future. Also the traffic at gettyimages itself keeps going down. So they have no organic expansion, unless they buy other people�s businesses.

Like others have said "meeting expectations" is not growing.

SS sees a huge world market, Getty doesn�t.

Who do you think will have more growth in the next few years?

Venture Capitalist's like to see a return on their investment and if they can grow to the point they no longer see future growth you can be sure they and Mr. Oringer will cash out before the company starts it's decline. The VC's seem to have placed key people in SS management to assure that they maximize their investment.

Now if you were trying to sell stock... what would you be telling potential investors about your potential market?

Quote from: jsnover on December 12, 2012, 15:21

I can not say with certainty, but I believe there is an automated pre-screening that images go through and some - for reasons that have nothing to do with the image actually being out of focus - fail that test.

It's irritating, but has happened enough (on images accepted everywhere else; and I really do know what is in focus and what isn't) that if a downsize doesn't do it I'll submit a collage of several shots and so far that's always been accepted.

Given how large my images are, a collection of smaller ones isn't the worst thing for SS to have - and the full size is for sale elsewhere if a buyer needs it

Of course, all these shots were accepted by DT, GL and Alamy.   And SS accepted, at the same time, other shots which were technically identical to the ones rejected.   

I think the problem in most cases is  subjects that just don't have sharp, obvious edges.  As I've posted in other threads, I too am convinced a software screen  is in place and it's rejecting when it doesn't find enough edges.   I can do things to enhance edges, for example high-pass filtering and selective contrast enhancement.   More hoops to jump through.   

Shutterstock's SEC filing included this statement: "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."  I think the implications are obvious.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm

I spotted this statement as well and based on a few of the higher end submitters that are reporting mass focus rejections I tend to think they have said proprietary technology in place.

Quote from: rubyroo on December 04, 2012, 05:32

Whilst I realise that this doesn't necessary mean that he's staying at the helm precisely as he is now, I see nothing but optimism for the future of SS in this interview.  He doesn't sound like someone who wants to walk away from his creation:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/

No he wont just walk away, but with a few billion quid in the pocket ofcourse he will leave the admin and running of the company to others.
Thats not the problem. Problem is and will alway be after an IPO. Once the shareholders start their yearning for profits the troubles start. Its a classic and always follows and to think SS will be the first one not to be effected, well thats to be naive.

Anyhow, wait and see.

I tend to look to facts over warm fuzzy feelings to predict the future.

Jon mentioned at approx. 05:32 in this guardian podcast that he has no intention of granting us cost of living/doing business royalty increases in the foreseeable future. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/audio/2012/dec/11/audio-tech-weekly-podcast-bitcoin-shutterstock

And the Venture Capitalist look to have prime positions in place internally to negatively influence our income longer term. I am sure those key people are in place to cash out the Venture capitalists position and glean as much cash as they are able to wring out of SS.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Shutterstock-RVW1046893.htm

�It used to be better�
Current Shutterstock Employee � Reviewed Aug 2, 2011

Pros � Perks: food, chair massages, yoga (for tech only) in the elevator bay, espresso machine, get to browse photos at work when bored, innovative, awesome coworkers, the view from the bathroom.

Cons � Negatives: Management secrecy and poor communication, lack of opportunities, very limited equity, located in Fi Di, top positions filled by VC picks, fun lookin hallways lead to drab cube farms

Advice to Senior Management � The company is either a start up or larger company with corporate structure and people in 3 piece suits. It is presently the latter dressed as the former.

Conversation about site programming
http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Shutterstock-Interview-RVW597821.htm

Quote from: cidepix on December 09, 2012, 19:49

most of the contributors fell into the trap by believing they have good intentions now 

I don't see any sign of that. Almost all the posts in that thread seem to be heavily laced with scepticism. Giving a civil response to a question isn't the same as believing in good intentions.

As for why she posted, I'd run with the idea that the Carlyle group, having discovered what they have bought, want to try to undo some of the damage to the brand that H&F and Getty inflicted on it. It's significant that Rebecca admitted that "some" contributors think istock is incompetent, uncaring and greedy. I can almost hear the Chairman telling her "we've got to change that perception, Rebecca, it's bad for business. Win back their confidence and it will help stop the hemorrhaging on the bottom line".

So the whole thing is probably just a PR exercise. My guess is that the response has been exactly as expected. If there are any surprises in it, it will probably only be that so many diamonds and even black diamonds are openly talking about quitting exclusivity. That one may have caught them off balance, I doubt if anything else has.

ClaridgeJ - one reason they might want it is that it is still a cash cow.

Looks like damage control and attemps @ perception management.  I knew it could not be a great Nov/Dec when several of my black diamond mates started to refer to IS as ISuck.

Could be that they shuffled sales down to the 20% or lower royalty crowd during prime income season for many exclusives.

Quote from: cobalt on December 08, 2012, 16:28

They should just set istock free.

Give it back to Bruce or find somebody from the community and come to a sensible agreement. They can then have a licensing agreement for the exclusive content and cherry pick whatever they want for their luxury brands that they can micromanage to their hearts content. Getty is the Hermes of the stock industry, they have the upper market locked in very well, where you can go wheeling and dealing for multimillion dollar contracts with large cooperations. Nothing wrong with that business model.

But istock doesn't fit in there.

They need a licensing agreement similar to the one  they have with flickr.

Istock can then go back to growing organically and becoming the marketplace of the industry.

Well. at least that scenario would give us a future. Sort of like Steve Jobs saved Apple when he came back in after John Scully nearly destroyed it. And look were Apple is now, even without him.

I don't see anyone from Getty having the necessary skills and vision to replace Bruce.

They have owned the place for 6 years and still don't get it.

Give it back to Bruce?  yeah right, he was the one that put us there from the very start, by selling it, knowing full well the Getty track history after take-overs.

Youre 100% right though, Getty has the upper end well and truly and IS as you say dont fit in there.

I completely agree, Bruce threw us under the bus for his own gain!

It is depressing when you look into any of these companies because the company they keep is telling. They are all looking to cash in at our expense.

Thomas Evans ~ President and Chief Executive Officer of Bankrate, Inc and a key SS board member
The conversation in the following clip starting @ 2:30 is interesting.

Bankrate's Evans Sees Growth, Acquisition Opportunities

Thomas Evans interview is interesting especially when you look at SS reviews at glassdoor from current SS employees.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Shutterstock-RVW1046893.htm

�It used to be better�
Current Employee � Reviewed Aug 2, 2011

Pros � Perks: food, chair massages, yoga (for tech only) in the elevator bay, espresso machine, get to browse photos at work when bored, innovative, awesome coworkers, the view from the bathroom.

Cons � Negatives: Management secrecy and poor communication, lack of opportunities, very limited equity, located in Fi Di, top positions filled by VC picks, fun lookin hallways lead to drab cube farms

Advice to Senior Management � The company is either a startup or larger company with corporate structure and people in 3 piece suits. It is presently the latter dressed as the former.

Conversation about programing on the site.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Shutterstock-Interview-RVW597821.htm

"
Shutterstock Developer Interview

Posted Aug 7, 2010 � 1 of 1 people found this helpful

No Offer � Interviewed in New York, NY Jun 2010 � Reviewed Aug 7, 2010

Interview Details � I first got called in for the first round phone interview, asking three questions regarding to their own database designs. So, I'm asked about tackling their problems that they have had problems for months. The first question was about how would you design the database structure involving meta data for an image. They had one basic table about the images. Anyways, the other two questions were related, and I could answer them well. This one lasted 45 minutes.

A week later, I got called in for a second round phone interview. It was geared more towards my experience and some Perl questions. I told him specifically that I have written object oriented Perl (OOP) a while ago, and I couldn't remember what I wrote. He also asked me where to look for if I have questions about using Perl. I told him CPAN, which seems to be a satisfying answer. Anyhow, the interview lasted about 45 minutes.

About two weeks later, I was scheduled for the final round interview at their office. It was to my surprise because I thought I failed miserably in Perl because I haven't used it for years ever since I moved to PHP, but I also said that I can catch up really quick. Anyways, it's held at the financial district in Manhattan.

I went to that building asking for Shutterstock. The attendant called checked the reservation list, and said I wasn't in the list, so he called up the office and neither did the persons at the office know who I am -- as if I was an unexpected guest. I was asked why I'm here; I simply replied that I was here for the interview. The attendant passed my info to Shutterstock, and yet they still didn't know me. It was unexpected, but whatever: I waited for about 20min, and finally the guy came down from the elevator and greeted me and asked what position I was interviewed with. I said developer. He shrugged and led me to the interview site.

The interview started out with two guys. they discussed about my experience, and finally they moved on to SQL stuff written on the white board. I explained everything to them, and they were very pleased. Then they moved on to the design question, showing me a few pictures from Shutterstock, I mean, istock photo site. They basically asked me how do I tackle the problem that they're facing: given a home in the search query -- how do you determine whether the picture is the actual home, not part of the home such as a door. I explained a few ways. The first way is through keywords and the second way is through pattern recognition by determining the object heuristically. There's no right or wrong answer to this.

Lastly, the guy asked me to fix a bug on Shutterstock. It's related to the wrong categories name for different languages. He asked me to trace out the source of the problem. It uses Mason HTML with Perl. Since I've never used Mason HTML, I was pretty slow finding the problem. It took me about 15min to locate the error. I was led to another room where I meet two more people.

Over there, I was asked another design question, like how do I design geomapping routes. Basically, they would like to know how "google maps" does the routing from San Fransisco to New York City. I explained to them. And, that concludes the last interview.

I waited for two weeks, and was notified that I didn't get an offer. These are the two reasons:

1. My Perl skill is not extensive enough.
2. I don't brainstorm on algorithms.

For the first one, the only time they asked about my Perl experience was in the second round phone interview. So they cannot judge me based on that without giving me an actual Perl test in the one on one interview. As for the second one, I was never asked about algorithms. I was only asked to explain my approach to the problems. No algorithms were ever asked or focused.
From most of the questions here, they were trying to use me to tackle their site problems. Basically, the company is using the interviews to solve some of the problems. They never intend to hire anyone from the beginning. The interviewees are like their free consultants, which is why they're "hiring" ALL positions.

Interview Question � Given a search query, how would you determine the most relevant images for that search query. For example, if someone types in "house" as the search query, how do rank "beach house" higher than something like a door, as both of them relate to house?   Answer Question

Other Details - I applied through a recruiter and the process took 4 weeks."

sadly its about the 100th time this happens...

You are being kind, it is easily in the mega thousands.  I remember Halloween images going missing August 2011. Nothing has changed from one year to the next.

Quote from: sharpshot on August 04, 2012, 17:19

Quote from: Lagereek on August 04, 2012, 14:47

Quote from: sharpshot on August 04, 2012, 14:36

Quote from: Lagereek on August 04, 2012, 13:03

Well folks! stop your grinning and drop your linnen because we are about to get whalloped! I didnt believe it but somebody pointed it out to me. They have changed their default to "relevancy"  and after doing some 20 searches in various fields I have to say. It is everything but "relevant", it is really, really bad with some really amateurish imagery right up front.
I dont know if this is an experiment or not, they were going to try it out, werent they and if buyers liked it, they would keep it?  well the only type of buyer who would like this, is the type of buyer an agency and contributor simply dont need.
I find it totally meaningless uploading to a search such as this.
Im afraid with this search we are back to square one, back to the IS best-match fiasco.

I just checked, using a browser that didn't have me logged in and the default was "popular".  The search doesn't seem to of changed much.

remove your cookies and it will change.

I didn't have any cookies because I used chrome and I never visit SS with chrome.  I get the "popular" search by default with chrome and "relevant" with Firefox.  I was using Firefox with cookies disabled.

Well I think youre getting it wrong, somehow, everyone I know and thats plenty are getting relevancy, believe me, I can even hear its relevancy by the loud noise theyre making.

Are you signed on as a buyer?

gbalex, are you saying only buyers go into the secure subdomains of the sites? Im not understanding your point. Im not sure about shutterstock but i have to log into my istock account as do most buyers and contributors.

Typically websites use the secure area to process transactions. So essentially the secure subdomain is used by the shopping cart!

I just deleted cookies for all my browsers.

IE Default Search Setting = Relevant

Chrome Default Search Setting = Popular

FF Default Search Setting = Popular

I just did a search for some of my most popular images that have shown up in the first row of the most popular search for years.  

About half of them show up, the other half are no where to be found.  Last week different best sellers were missing from the popular search so they must demote them to the nether regions based on some type of rotating algorithm that changes frequently.

Unfortunately most of my best sellers do not show up at all using the relevant search. That being the case even though those images have been time tested and proven to have relevant keywords; by buyers who frequent use those keywords to find them often enough that they have end up in the first row of the popular search for years. I don't know what indices could be more relevant, the images certainly have had time to drop from the ranks, had they not been in demand by SS's buyers.

As a buyer I left IS because they insisted on serving me content I did not need or want, I will not hesitate to do the same if SS continues with these algorithms.