|
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 - Wilm
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 35
376
« on: November 09, 2022, 05:41 »
Anyone with next to no dls on AS prepared to share their rough weekly rank? That should give us some idea.
With 4 downloads this week so far it says that I am ranked 24 000.
Would you be so kind as to post your weekly ranking again on Sunday evening when the week is over?
377
« on: November 09, 2022, 05:09 »
In 2019 there were nearly 465.000 AS contributors - based on a research of Robert Kneschke. I could post a link to this research but I don't know if I'm allowed to do so.
I don't know how many contributors there are now. And I don't know how many there are active.
Some rough current data:
Roughly 20,000 contributors have about 10 or more downloads per week.
Roughly 7,000 contributors have about 50 or more downloads per week.
Roughly 5,000 contributors have about 75 or more downloads per week.
Roughly 3,000 contributors have more than 100 downloads per week.
Of course, the numbers fluctuate between better and worse weeks, e.g. because of holidays or after Christmas at the end of the year.
378
« on: November 08, 2022, 16:28 »
I assume that you will be penalized if you simply upload anything for the sole purpose of increasing your portfolio.
If the SS accepts the job, then the job suits him. The CC bears the cost of storing the work.
Yes, good works should sell better than bad ones. But I would say that stock works should sell better. But when the SS is in such a mess as the last 2 years, the authors of good works also have poor incomes. These are at least those authors whom I personally have known for a long time.
Yes, I also know some formerly very successful contributors who have gone very steeply downhill.
But many of them - like me - have not uploaded anything because they are frustrated with the way shutterstock has dealt with the contributors. And for that they are currently being punished.
This is also understandable for me from the agency's point of view.
But accepting an image and letting it disappear into nirvana immediately afterwards makes no sense. Then they should reject it right away if they think it's bad.
Wilm, I had 2 photos accepted yesterday. I checked their position and I found them on my first page @ #18 and #19.
Photos approved last week are #22, #25, #26.
Photos approved 2 weeks ago are #31, #32, #33 and #40.
None of them are particulary good to deserve a high ranking.
This shows that new stuff is artificially promoted, being given the chance to break through. This artificial boost is fading over time, if no sales happen (or maybe enough views, or other metrics).
So it matters if you upload regulaly, not because the contributor is penalised otherwise, but because new photos, which are artificially ranked higher, may trigger additional sales for older photos, since older photos are presented as an alternative. The buyer will chose the best photo for him, which may be older.
So new photos (especially if they are good enough to get enough attention, while on top of the ranks) may give a boost to old photos, and may trigger a viral second wind to the whole portfolio.
Hello ZT, I am absolutely familiar with the mechanisms. But that a new image is accepted and directly on the day of acceptance lands on the last place in the search is absolutely new to me. And nothing else is my point. This simply does not make sense! Something about the image is obviously wrong. The image itself is unusable, the keywords are wrong or bad - or whatever. I dont know. As I wrote: I never had that before - it is new after 11 years.
379
« on: November 08, 2022, 15:13 »
I assume that you will be penalized if you simply upload anything for the sole purpose of increasing your portfolio.
If the SS accepts the job, then the job suits him. The CC bears the cost of storing the work.
Yes, good works should sell better than bad ones. But I would say that stock works should sell better. But when the SS is in such a mess as the last 2 years, the authors of good works also have poor incomes. These are at least those authors whom I personally have known for a long time.
Yes, I also know some formerly very successful contributors who have gone very steeply downhill. But many of them - like me - have not uploaded anything because they are frustrated with the way shutterstock has dealt with the contributors. And for that they are currently being punished. This is also understandable for me from the agency's point of view. But accepting an image and letting it disappear into nirvana immediately afterwards makes no sense. Then they should reject it right away if they think it's bad.
380
« on: November 08, 2022, 14:02 »
Wilm, no wonder, SS has long broken search algorithms and promotes authors in manual mode. Obviously you are not in favor. The SS has sunk to the bottom, worse than ever, the income is meager, the authors are being fooled.
I don't know the algorithm either. I assume that constant uploads are rewarded. But only if high-quality images are delivered on a regular basis. I assume that you will be penalized if you simply upload anything for the sole purpose of increasing your portfolio. And you will be penalized if - like me - you upload next to nothing over a long period of time. In this particular case, however, I rather have the feeling that the AI assumes keyword spamming. But I have no idea which keywords that could be. Or the image is just bad and unusable. But I can only judge that when I know how it develops with the other agencies. But I agree with you on one point: I did something at shutterstock in the younger past that didn't do my portfolio any good. I suspect it was my inactivity.
381
« on: November 08, 2022, 11:58 »
Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port. I never bothered reporting the problem to Shutterstock, because I didn't expect any of their "expert contributors" to understand my problem anyways. They would probably have replied something like that how images a sorted in my port are a secret or something like this. But the other reason why I didn't bother reporting it is that it didn't seem to have an effect of the overal sorting in the whole Shutterstock database or my sales. My all time best seller on Shutterstock is a Christmas images, but it kept selling.
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine. I don't know whether it's specificially the keyword "Christmas". Might just as well be something like "december" or "winter" or any other of the keywords one would commonly use for Christmas images.
Firn, what you write is correct. Within my own portfolio, the Christmas pictures are at the very end. And the keyword christmas is included. But if I search for "gold badge embellishment" in the general search, for example, it is also at the last place - relevant, popular or random. Or if I search for "ornament gold vintage decoration gray black", for example, I get 95 pages. The picture is on page 94. Probably the picture is just bad or unusable. In any case, I have never had anything like this before. I will delete it.
382
« on: November 08, 2022, 08:29 »
But when I search for this file within my portfolio, it is on the last page as the last image.
That's usually the case, unless you sort by "Fresh image". Then it should be the first image.
Until now, the new images within the portfolio appeared on page 1 or 2, but never on the last page.
And if it also ends up on the last page in the general search, it is absolutely worthless. Then I might as well delete it again.
Wilm, after your posting here I checked my new submissions of the last days and searched Shutterstock sorted by popular. The result was completely inconsistent. With an average of 10.000 - 15.000 hits I found some of my new images on pages 1 - 3, with others I gave up with the search after 10 pages.
Ralf, the last image I uploaded before this is shown as number 1 in my portfolio. And the new one now ranks 1319 out of 1319 images. That makes no sense to me.
383
« on: November 08, 2022, 08:24 »
And if it also ends up on the last page in the general search, it is absolutely worthless.
You can probably find that out by simply seraching for your image in the general search, but from my experience the sorting in your portfolio and the general search have absolutely no connection.
I have images that are on the last pages of my port, but on the first page for relevant keywords in the general search.
I am aware of the difference. Nevertheless, it never happened that a new picture ended up in last place in my own portfolio and in the general search (searching with relevant keywords). Nevertheless, thank you for your answer!
384
« on: November 08, 2022, 06:05 »
But when I search for this file within my portfolio, it is on the last page as the last image.
That's usually the case, unless you sort by "Fresh image". Then it should be the first image.
Until now, the new images within the portfolio appeared on page 1 or 2, but never on the last page. And if it also ends up on the last page in the general search, it is absolutely worthless. Then I might as well delete it again.
385
« on: November 08, 2022, 04:26 »
I uploaded a new file after a long time. It was accepted quite quickly.
But when I search for this file within my portfolio, it is on the last page as the last image.
This is also true when searching the shutterstock database. So the image will never be found. Then there would have been no need to accept it.
Is this a bug?
Has anyone had similar experiences?
386
« on: November 07, 2022, 03:20 »
AS is 15% worse than January to October 2021 for me, but almost identical to 2020 and 2019. Last year was above average there.
SS is 33% worse than 2021, 49% worse than 2020 and 51% worse than 2019.
387
« on: November 06, 2022, 13:26 »
For me, AS is pretty constant - apart from small high and low deviations. Let's see if the pngs can possibly bring in a little boost. But SS is gradually going down the drain. I don't even want to think about the coming beginning of the year....
388
« on: November 04, 2022, 12:42 »
I have taken in a piddly $30 so far in November at shutterstock.
Now I read that there will also be 7 adjustments - four of the downloads are from last year! I don't understand how that can be. If the credit card was not covered, they should find out much sooner than well over 1 year later! It really is getting worse and worse.
389
« on: November 01, 2022, 03:25 »
For the first time ever I had more downloads on AS than on SS.
In terms of downloads, it was the second best month of the year for AS. And for shutterstock, the worst ever.
390
« on: October 31, 2022, 03:23 »
if shutterstock doesn't want them, I don't care. They'll do fine somewhere else - I'm pretty sure!
It's funny to see the images rejected by SS, but being sold next day on Adobe ...
It happens in both directions. I have images rejected by SS but which sell on Adobe and images rejected by Adobe which sell on SS. I've stopped trying to look for any logic in the decision making.
Adobe rejected two images for me in the period of one year. I have the feeling that the selection there is more thorough than with shutterstock.
391
« on: October 30, 2022, 13:55 »
I uploaded three clean 40 megapixel renders today. All three rejected because of image noise.
There is no noise because they are renderings. But okay, if shutterstock doesn't want them, I don't care. They'll do fine somewhere else - I'm pretty sure!
392
« on: October 24, 2022, 15:12 »
In October, Adobe Stock is currently at 226% over shutterstock in terms of revenue. And it's been an average month so far.
Shutterstock is missing the big licensing revenue this month as well. That's the problem. There are fewer and fewer SODs and Enhanced. Not even level 6 would change anything.
393
« on: October 22, 2022, 05:12 »
Or is there also a minimum payout amount at Getty that has to be over $100?
Yes, minimum payment amount on getty is $100.
Okay, thanks, I didn't know that.
394
« on: October 22, 2022, 02:47 »
What's going on??
Getty sent me $1.22???
What???
Did any of you get your payment too? And are the numbers not right there either?
It's bad enough I had the worst month ever there. But they still don't have to screw me!!! Where is my money? I never had that before!
explanation
ADAGP Collective Licensing Payback 2022 September
Oh, thank you, it actually says that - I didn't pay attention to that. Then the correct payment will probably still come. Or is there also a minimum payout amount at Getty that has to be over $100?
395
« on: October 21, 2022, 16:55 »
What's going on??
Getty sent me $1.22???
What???
Did any of you get your payment too? And are the numbers not right there either?
It's bad enough I had the worst month ever there. But they still don't have to screw me!!! Where is my money? I never had that before!
396
« on: October 20, 2022, 07:16 »
I have 900 images on istock.
I suspect that you can only achieve an RPD above 1 if you also offer videos.
Nowadays. It was possible years ago with images only.
397
« on: October 20, 2022, 03:23 »
No.
35% of nothing = nothing!
Either the buyers are no longer licensing correctly or the need for special licences has declined sharply.
This is also true for Adobe Stock. The number of extended licences there is also going down and down. But there, the RPD is still OK - in contrast to shutterstock.
398
« on: October 20, 2022, 03:07 »
For the first time, my earnings on istock were under $100 - that's never happened before. The RPD was only $0.42. 
399
« on: October 18, 2022, 11:57 »
This is really a sad report, Alexandre. Especially since you continue to upload diligently.
I wish you very much that the curves go up again. But, to be honest, I don't believe in it any more - like you.
400
« on: October 14, 2022, 15:49 »
At least the payout works and is in time. Received my money today.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
