|
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 - Minsc
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23
401
« on: August 20, 2016, 15:52 »
Asking people with a similar experience, is it worth the effort at Shutterstock? I was pointed at a contributor who took one of my illustrations, made very slight changes (but not even the title, which is copied word for word) and now passes as his own. What can I expect if I file a complaint? It's not a question of pride (though it does infuriate me), but more of a question of effort/risks(if you experienced any problems that I can't think of) vs benefits. The illustration in question sells fairly well (above average, but not a blockbuster).
I had an experience with this recently. Check if there are more stolen work in his portfolio and make a list if it's a small amount. Chances are, there are more hidden somewhere in his portfolio. Sometimes, designers design similar things, so it's not really theft, so be sure. Other times, a real infringer will steal your exact work and change the color. If you're 100% sure it's your work and he/she stole it, point out the original and the infringing artwork. If yours is original, it will have a lower image ID, and that is the ultimate proof that it's your work. When you report someone, there's a good chance they will get banned and their entire portfolio will be removed if SS confirm the infringement.
402
« on: August 14, 2016, 16:32 »
And this is why the new search algorithm is dumb. It hurts any contributor, both veteran and newcomer who has uploaded work in the last couple of years. Those files are being pushed down to the bottom in favor of images uploaded from 4 years ago. a good algorithm levels the playing field for everyone, not favor a small percentage of contributors.
Sales have obviously fallen for many people since the change last week, me included. I don't know what SS's intentions are... maybe it's a glitch, maybe it's a regional test, or maybe they want buyers to download less. It's a short term gain for SS, but but it won't be good for them in the long run since they're serving up less relevant results in the search.
403
« on: August 12, 2016, 16:43 »
You have picked a rather exceptional example its unlikely the algorithm will recognise the specific context of these images.
Anything that is that has a time based element will be affected it. Anything that's related to technology is affected. Anything that has a design trend element like skeuomorphic design from 5 years ago vs flat design today is affected. Any editorial image that is based on a timed event is affected. Yeah, I gave an exceptional case with the 'New Years' search, but there are so much more. We're talking about tens of millions of images.
404
« on: August 12, 2016, 12:47 »
i am not sure i get what you mean. if so, did you check to see where sjlocke's images are placed???
he was not veteran in terms of ss...
he is relatively newcomer ...
so, according to you, sjlocke's images are not supposed to be placed high
I just did a search for "New Year": https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=new+year&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=trueNotice that the most popular goes back to only 2013, which makes me think that it's not ranked by total lifetime downloads, but they're ranking the images based on total downloads for the last 4 years. That means his images will still rank high because he started just before then. For anyone who started last year like me, it's an uphill climb. And of course, this is an example search of the ineffective new algorithm. The most relevant results should be to show images from 2016 (getting ready for 2017) at the top, and not New Years images from 2013, 2014, or even 2015.
405
« on: August 12, 2016, 11:32 »
SS admin just said they have identified the problem and they're trying to fix it. Looks like it wasn't a logical change after all. Someone probably screwed up the algorithm and deployed it without testing. For a company who claims to have an amazing algorithm, sorting by most downloads isn't really that amazing at all...even a newbie software engineer can do it.
Hopefully things will get back to 'normal' by Monday.
406
« on: August 12, 2016, 02:42 »
double post.
407
« on: August 12, 2016, 02:30 »
I think new ranking system gives more weight to lifetime downloads of an image. Older images with more downloads are ranked higher than new images with less downloads. Apparently, uploaded date really doesn't matter, more the number of downloads, higher the rank. Yep, veterans will be benefited more.
I understand where they're coming from, but it should also consider sales over a recent time period... let's say the last year. Comparing downloads in the most recent year is more important total lifetime downloads. An image may be popular 10 years ago, but if it's not popular in 2016, then it's not as relevant. If you're searching for a computer and some old tower computer is at the top of search, it doesn't benefit buyers or contributors. Newcomers will never make it to the top when you rank by total downloads. Not just newcomers, but newly uploaded images as well. I know veterans would love that, but it doesn't make a lot of sense if you're trying to build a smart algorithm.
408
« on: August 11, 2016, 16:44 »
Ok, I think I figured how the new algorithm works, if this is indeed a more permanent algorithm change.
- Photos are NOT favored over vectors as I originally though.
- The new rank sorting seem to be determined by how long the image has been on SS and/or how many downloads it has over its lifetime. This new change will definitely benefit veterans and older images. The newer images with less downloads are pushed down the rankings.
Do a search for anything and click on the image. The image ID that are lower are ranked higher.
409
« on: August 11, 2016, 16:17 »
They have changed the design of the search a bit and adjusted the algorithm again.
Here's what I've noticed:
- Photos are place higher than vectors.
- They got rid of the tab system (Popular, relevant, most recent) and placed them under a drop down menu.
- They started penalizing spammers. You know, the guys who spam the same keywords over and over in the title to gain higher placement. I don't seem many of them anymore after this update.
- On hover, they show the title...a good reason to penalize all the spammers.
Some of my images got shuffled around...dropped a few places in some rankings, but we'll see how it affect sales in the upcoming weeks. Today is consistent with the past few days, so I don't know the real effect of it yet.
410
« on: August 10, 2016, 12:49 »
I take back what I said about their traffic dropping. It was dropping when I originally made the post, but their traffic has been rising quite a bit lately.
And based on their recent marketing and advertising, they're really pushing hard as a stock photo website instead a community. They're positioning themselves as a macro site, with much cheaper prices than Getty and more expensive than micros.
Their commission cut really sucks, but it hasn't slowed down contributors from uploading.
412
« on: August 06, 2016, 14:12 »
Oh okay thanks. Did "from the same contributor" or whatever always lead to a limited number of images? I thought it used to lead to our gallery?
I don't think that part has changed. That link only shows up under certain conditions, like if the number of similars exceed what they can display in that section. If that link is shown, it links to your portfolio with only similar images, not the entire portfolio. If there aren't many similars, like if you have 5 instead of 20 and that section can show all of it, the "See All" link doesn't show up. That's what I know based on my own usage.
413
« on: August 06, 2016, 12:04 »
They redesigned the contributor gallery a few weeks ago and probably broke some of the tracking by accident. Click on one of your images and then click on your contributor name. That part was changed a few weeks ago. I think the views are still there, but they're not getting tracked.
414
« on: August 06, 2016, 12:00 »
I think people are misinterpreting what I wrote. Of course designers download stock, but they're usually part of a larger organization that has a stock subscription or stock budget. If fact, I think designers download a good portion of stock, but they fall under a bigger umbrella, like a tech company, media company, etc.
Individual freelance designers from what I've seen don't download stock on their own because it's too expensive. I've done freelance design work and I'm usually provided images by the client. If a client provide a budget for stock, then I'll download, but if the client don't provide one and they want unique work, then I won't download any stock.
415
« on: August 05, 2016, 12:54 »
It's likely that he bought a 1 month subscription and downloaded as much as possible everyday. If he downloaded 25 images everyday, that's 750 images a month.
I'm just waiting right now. It may take some time to resolve it.
At least, now you know, where your sales are coming from....
A download is a download, right? And every download help the images move up in the search results.
416
« on: August 05, 2016, 12:36 »
Make sure you check all the sites for the same images, do a reverse image search. Usually the infringer will have uploaded the same rip offs to all the major micros.
You will also probably find the same images on various warez sites, that's often where they will have gotten the originals from. These sites often respond well to an email threatening to tell your agent (insert name of site usually SS) where they make their ad and affiliate earnings
Thanks. Did a search on a number of sites and luckily nothing turned up. It's hard to find on FT because they don't search titles, but nothing has turned up so far. SS is the only place I've seen them show up. Haven't tried warez sites yet, but I'm sure it's out there somewhere.
417
« on: August 05, 2016, 01:37 »
I am curious to know everyones thoughts as to who is the largest purchaser of stock photos? Media Companies, Web Designers or Individual Graphic Designers. When I look at Media Company Websites I can find Stock Images but when I look at some Individual Web Designer Sites and Graphic Artists I don't see very many if any as their work is more specialized to local small businesses who want work that reflects their own products or business. So who then is driving stock photography in terms of photo consumption or sales?
Thanks!
Web designers and graphic designers rarely buy stock. They don't have much of a budget, unless given one by their client. Media companies, technology companies, business organizations, food companies, healthcare companies and full-time bloggers are some of the biggest consumers of stock photography. I read a number of tech news outlets and I see a lot of SS images being used. Just yesterday, I saw a Rawpixel photo in a news story related to employment. I saw at least 30 technology images (photos and vectors) from SS on a website I frequent.
418
« on: August 05, 2016, 01:25 »
Rumor has it that the iPhone 7 will have a 21 MP camera that can defocus the background more effectively than before. Won't be DSLR or even mirrorless quality, but it's closing the gap. After taking a few photos, everyone will think they're photographers and they will flood Instagram with their wonderful creations. Everyone will have photos of flowers, trees, clouds, tomatoes, strawberries and grapes good enough to be used for almost anything.
What good would a union do when we're in the middle of an oversupply? There is no reversing the pricing trend unless you take everyone's phones away and you're going to have to pry it off of their cold dead hands. It's right time to diversify and learn some new skills. Honestly, that's really the only thing you can control.
419
« on: August 02, 2016, 22:03 »
Well, I just found out why my sales were down slightly for the month of July.
Found an infringer with over 100 pieces of my work on SS. It was some of his best sellers too. This guy literally took my work, changed some colors and re-uploaded them. Just unbelievable. Who'd thought that one of my competitors would be... myself.
If your sales are down, I suggest you do a search for your best sellers with the exact same title. These guys are too lazy to do their own titles and keywords. They copy everything word for word because they can't do it themselves.
We need to be paid the money these people make. If SS just kick them off and pocket the money, what incentive do they have to stop this happening? It should be easy for SS to spot this, if they are using almost identical images with the same titles as the originals. Have you asked how much money this person made and when SS are going to pay you? Maybe they inform every buyer that they are using stolen images and need to buy the correct one but we are never told if that happens.
SS can keep the money and use it to fund and develop some kind of system to identify infringements quickly. All I ask for is for them to keep legit contributors safe from thieves. I found 3 people stealing my work this year and it's getting tiresome. At first, I kinda feel bad for the 1st person I reported, but now I have no sympathy. I was able to find all 3 of them just by searching for my images. They copy my titles and keywords word for word. Some of the images show up near my search results which made it ridiculous easy to spot.
420
« on: August 02, 2016, 18:30 »
when i upload a similar image to ss they reject it they tell me because i already have that image in my portfolio.
ss also uses propriety software to review images
why dont they use that software then to scan their database (instead of my portfolio only) for similar images and when a flag goes up, they can review what is the matter
When I walk in Central Park I'm guaranteed to see at least a half dozen photographers taking the same shots from the same vantage points of the same iconic landmarks. With so many millions of images there's just bound to be lots of overlap.
True, but they can also scan the title and keywords. An image that looks like another is a coincidence. A similar image with the exact same title is a miracle. A similar image with the same title and keywords...that's an impossibility. Thieves are too lazy to create their own work and they're too lazy to create their own metadata. If SS does it right, they can easily identify who is legit and who is not.
421
« on: August 02, 2016, 14:00 »
Found an infringer with over 100 pieces of my work on SS. It was some of his best sellers too. This guy literally took my work, changed some colors and re-uploaded them. Just unbelievable. Who'd thought that one of my competitors would be... myself.
r u serious??? so what happened to that slime? did ss remove the thief?Well, I just found out why my sales were down slightly for the month of July.
Found an infringer with over 100 pieces of my work on SS. It was some of his best sellers too. This guy literally took my work, changed some colors and re-uploaded them. Just unbelievable. Who'd thought that one of my competitors would be... myself.
If your sales are down, I suggest you do a search for your best sellers with the exact same title. These guys are too lazy to do their own titles and keywords. They copy everything word for word because they can't do it themselves.
Tell me how this works. Are we assuming that the guy actually bought all 100 images from SS, at full size? Any idea what that would cost? The other possibility is that it's done by, or with the help of, an insider. And given the screwy portfolios now turning up - like the one with thousands of bags of pot - I don't find that hard to believe.
good point. i doubt the thief actually bought the full size and copied it.
what's the benefit , without certainty of making money from it???
i would believe the other possibility ie. insider.
with all the dirty stuff happening these past years, i wouldn't be surprised most of the
unidentifiable cause of the losses of experienced contributors
has everything to do with "insider".
including fan boy coming in here to call everything that says loss of 50% as mere ranting.
It's likely that he bought a 1 month subscription and downloaded as much as possible everyday. If he downloaded 25 images everyday, that's 750 images a month. I'm just waiting right now. It may take some time to resolve it.
422
« on: August 02, 2016, 02:46 »
Well, I just found out why my sales were down slightly for the month of July.
Found an infringer with over 100 pieces of my work on SS. It was some of his best sellers too. This guy literally took my work, changed some colors and re-uploaded them. Just unbelievable. Who'd thought that one of my competitors would be... myself.
If your sales are down, I suggest you do a search for your best sellers with the exact same title. These guys are too lazy to do their own titles and keywords. They copy everything word for word because they can't do it themselves.
423
« on: August 01, 2016, 14:19 »
Revenue was 10% lower than June, but that's almost expected. Had a huge month in June with some large SODs and I knew it was hard to match. Download numbers were about 3% lower than June, which is normal in a month with a big holiday.
In the first half of July, FT was tracking higher than SS by 15%. By the end of the month, SS caught up and surpassed FT. And that's why you can't underestimate SS. FT has higher RPI, but SS has those large downloads that can change the tide.
424
« on: August 01, 2016, 14:11 »
The SS number continues to rise on the right side. Why would it rise if people aren't reporting high earnings?
The vocal minority doesn't represent everyone. Some people are doing very well and some are not. Just the nature of competition.
425
« on: July 31, 2016, 18:28 »
Had a new BME that almost rival SS earnings. The difference was less than 2%.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
