The point in adding numbers to the image base is not so that the customers can have a better choice.

It is to dominate the net, the search engines and the whole flow of information and clicks.
Wise enough seen from the agencys view. Dangerous for us contributors, since our pictures get washed out..

You don't know that Jens. Is the issue new images being added or old ones not being removed? That is a different discussion as "everyone" always says to not delete old files, and then the same "everyone" moans about number of images and that their images get swamped. Simultaneously you read people saying their sales are going up on SS even with a million files added each moth. Is that down to image quality? Commercial value? Luck? Serach algorithms? Who knows.
Trhere is a reason why the search options have a "New" filter. I would love to know how these files are determined to be "new", when they pass from new to old, what percentage of sales are new or old files, etc. There is so much info to possibly analyse but we see none of it.

Is the market getting bigger? More customers? Existing customers spending more? So many variables but the increasing number of images is constant and provides a constant new choice for buyers. If you're supplying high quality commercial images does it matter to contributors if there are 100 or 1,000,000 images added each month? Your images will appeal to customers searching using your keywords and no other customers. The amount of images affects what the buyers can choose, not what you sell.

I don't think buyers are bothered by the number of images, only that it keeps increasing. By constantly increasing, and increasing by ever larger numbers it means the buyers have an ever increasing number of new images to purchase - hopefully being the first ones to use a particular image.

Look at the car market, or fashion market, or any supply and demand market, suppliers don't remove old items, they just let them sell their course and they get replaced with new models or items. Over time the once popular old items become fashionable and popular again - to some degree.

Try shooting a smurf that isn't blue, everyone does blue, be different and think outside the box! 

I dont understand, everyone knew they messed up and that a claw back was on the way. If you held onto the overpayment, there is no impact on your financials. The money wasnt ours in the first place. Bring on the down votes, but its the same with taxes. You need to pay back overpayments. So you put the money aside for when they come and get it. If you've spent the money, you only have yourself to blame.

There is no way to check that the sales figures they tell you are correct, how can anyone trust the clawback figures are correct? To take the attitude that "you only have yourself to blame" is insulting. How could we keep the overpayment to pay back after/now? We had no idea how much it was until now, nearly six months later! Hell, we can't even be sure there were any overpayments, we only have the word of proven liars that there was an error. This is then compounded by "keyboard errors", lack of apologies, lack of explanations.......all on top of their already shady history.

Your overall attitude to this industry and the people within it is appalling. You tout yourself as a business and offer opinions on things you have no experience of and then behave like a small child with posts like the one quoted. You lack tact, composure and any form of apathy.

You are a very poor representation of the people in this industry.

Here's something and I wondered what people here think? I have two new files one yesterday and one today that will be easy to track, one is #6 (215) results in a two word search, the other is about mid-page, (1600) three word search.

Anyone else care to watch a newly accepted, distinctive Single upload and see how it's lasts or falls each day?

Might be interesting to see what happens. Files that have 10,000 results aren't going to be easy to follow, so if you have something around 1000 or less, give it a shot please?

Part two, people are complaining that new files get a boost and old files are being pushed to the bottom. So it appears, no matter what SS does with the search, people will be unhappy? 

Quote from: chris56

last two times I have uploaded I have monitored this with a magnifying glass and so have two pals of mine here and with identical findings and results.

New files get one day of exposure and the one/ones that sell will remain, all the others will just fade away never to be seen.

This is IMO, far too little. Just by coincidence  not one single file might sell which means theyre history. Lots of work just goes to waste for nothing really unless some manage to sell in the span of 24 hours.

In retro it means one can sit there uploading to kingdom come and not make a penny more.

Hmmmm, taking something said by that person as being meaningful or accurate is a bit like relying on the lottery for income

Sorry, P5 is a great site.One of Mine sells constantly.

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/1039769/catv-1098-homeless-senior.html

Really? Constantly? 2 sales out of 28 views

Ok, can someone explain this!
Rejection Reason:
"Trademark--Image potentially infringes on intellectual property rights."

What makes up the coloured squares in the text? Other photographs?

Other sites take all my files while SS gives random number of invalid dimension errors.

Had same problem yesterdat but tried again overnight and all accepted okay so I guess a temporary glitch

I have same D600 with that lens. Aberration appears on my lens beyond f11 but only at endges, easily fixed in ACR. Not noticed any distortion issues and only vignettes when using screw in filters at 28mm -enough that I had to buy a new slimline CPL to avoid vignetting.

Happy with set up, probably 75% of my portfolio shot with it. D610 without the oil spot problems would be nice.

Of course you are correct. I don't know either way. But if someone is getting a single image that never would have come to SS or used anything microstock, because FB is making it available, then it's a benefit.

People who need one image, don't buy subscription packages. That's the people I'm looking at.

If we are competing with ourselves and stealing from our own better commissions, I'd agree with your viewpoint.

No I don't know either way for sure. I thought of it as expanding the market, not just a sideways transfer of buyers to a different way to get the same images, for less.

Quote from: Me on December 13, 2013, 05:21

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 13, 2013, 02:32

As unlikely as I am to get one of these, let me propose another perspective.

These are new image buyers who are not normally or currently image buyers. These are people who would never buy a Subscription or an image from SS, but now will select something from one of us and pay for that use.
I might be wrong, but it means, none of these DLs would have happened, if not for this deal. So the choice is something or nothing?

I'll take the something from someplace that would never DL anything otherwise.

Just the way I view it at this point. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.

Percentages are irrelevant since we already sell subs. Size would be interesting, since it's not explained and appears to be some vague "digital" wording?

You don't know that Uncle Pete. They could just as easily have been sub plan purchasers and now they don't need to be, or SOD buyers, and now they don't need to be.

That is part of the overall concern really - we just don't know. Are these buyers new, existing, moving agencies, etc? Have we had $5 sales diverted from other agencies onto $0.36 subs equivalent? Great for SS but bad for contributors. No way of knowing and even less way to find out. Guess you either live with it and do nothing or leave.

As unlikely as I am to get one of these, let me propose another perspective.

These are new image buyers who are not normally or currently image buyers. These are people who would never buy a Subscription or an image from SS, but now will select something from one of us and pay for that use.
I might be wrong, but it means, none of these DLs would have happened, if not for this deal. So the choice is something or nothing?

I'll take the something from someplace that would never DL anything otherwise.

Just the way I view it at this point. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.

Percentages are irrelevant since we already sell subs. Size would be interesting, since it's not explained and appears to be some vague "digital" wording?

You don't know that Uncle Pete. They could just as easily have been sub plan purchasers and now they don't need to be, or SOD buyers, and now they don't need to be.

Try Amazon

Well if I posted my Stock Income, I would be yelled at by various obnoxious people who hide behind screen names and do not post links to their galleries or anything real.
So lets just say Shutterstock - Best Month Ever, Dreamstime -got a payout over the minimum, 123royalty free - ugh (well I only have a few images there anyway), Istock - Negligible (I quite uploading to them years ago and only have a few images there), Lucky Oliver - STOLE MY COMMISSONS and left the building a few years ago, the others I don't even check most of the time.

All in all it was an Awesome Month

You wouldn't be yelled at Mike, just no-one would believe you