One thing i thought of during the presentation and i *think* someone asked it but the discussion got confused.

It was said it might be a good idea to rejuvenate keywords on older non popular images to make them more relevant.  *However* they also stated that after that first 30 or so days the search is far more behaviour than keyword based.
So, if you change the keywords on a poorly selling images for example a year old, does its rank reset to zero and it gets 30 days to adjust or does it stay deranked and therefore the change isn't going to affect much?

On a related note, does editing a hosted image (keywords or anything else) reset the rank/search as above or not?  Because if so, its a little dangerous to edit anything on an image thats already selling as it'd lose its score and potentially die off as a result.

For me at least currently it seems to be if you submit a few videos, they'll all get accepted.
If you submit a larger number at once, most will get rejected,usually with noise/artefacts regardless of subject,camera type, settings or anything at all.  Its like a catch-all reject for submitting too many clips at once.

If you resubmit the same clips later, they invariably all get accepted.

There is no way to check is there? I'm sure I met the criteria months ago but have not heard anything. My current subscription is ending in a week, so I'm a bit worried about waiting and not getting it.

Just contact them via the link on the portal.  I had a reply within hours and all resolved.

Im using a CC code from last year with no problem and have just received a new code for the next year.

My question is, if i redeem that code *now* will it extend my subscription by a further 12 months automatically (in which case i may as well do it) OR will it run in parallel so i'll effectively lose it (in which case, im better off waiting).

Its for an identical package (CC all apps).

I emailed and got a reply about 2 hours later with the code.
No idea where i didnt get the automated codes when sent but in fairness to support, it was a quick response.

Semi offtopic, i have read an article that declared that those random generated passwords GFRVhjknhG432b2#e$3 for example are useless because nobody writes them down or remembers and just store in browser and shares through all devices laptop, tablet phone etc. adding vunerability issues.

Instead, using phrase variations eg george19loves@anna03! as a random example of course, is better sometimes. Easier to write down on a list or remember as variations for a few bunch of everyday used payment including sites. No reason to store in browser after typing them some times, they become a habit

A good long random password is designed to not be remembered.  The security boost comes with combining a unique,non predictable password for every site with a proper password manager.
That way the user only needs to remember 1 long, complicated password.  Obviously if that get THAT compromised they have big issues but trying to remember 1 is a lot better than 30 or 40. Or sharing between sites.

Its not impossible that BS and SS share the same backend authentication or storage systems so there could be a common fault there.

But ultimately nobody can nail down what the cause is.

It could be:

(i) the user has been hacked or has a trojan or a brute force possible password
(ii) the user is reusing passwords on sites that are compromised
(iii) Insecure authentication like FTP combined with an untrusted network
(iv) Shutterstock/BS was hacked previously and people are drip-feeding credentials every month to get money
(v) SS is still currently compromised and they're unaware of it leading to fresh thefts every month.

Any of those are possible along with others.  All we know is SS and BS seem to get some people every month having the same issue and its been going on a while.

Available after the event would be nice.  Or a transcript or something anyway.

For now at keywording stock photos. Though it already beats the best human players on chess, checkers, go, etc.

As seen below.  Another one of the aircraft produced "black woman in hospital bed, Africa".  This is google reverse image.  If anything SS and AS suggestions are worse.

"Over 293,187,520 royalty-free images with 1,180,191 new stock images added weekly."

Im sure that was roughly 1.5M recently so they maybe 20% or so down.  Thats not as big a change as i'd expected.

Not seeing it here.  Maybe its new and not rolled out to others yet.

From a *customer* and business point of view, if it were possible for me to get an image or video of a required topic with an acceptable quality for no money vs paying for it you'd be mad to not do so.
So yes, we all dislike sites like unsplash etc but you really cant blame the buyers here.

These days everyone has a phone with a camera of the quality that would require a big, bulky ILC along with technical knowledge to execute.  So a lot of things that previously meant that was in short supply and required buying is now easily recreated by normal people with phones and available free of charge.
More and more things can be done in-house for specific projects and free libraries providing the same stuff as paid agencies.

So it seems now really to get around that the things being sold have to be of things that CANT be recreated by someone on the street with a phone.  Different locations, different topics, different techniques etc.  *something* has to be done to differentiate it.

I do think along the line lots of us (me included) have gotten lazy and just taking the easy option that used to work.

That said, the extra effort required to get new techniques, locations, topics may not be worth it if you sell an image for $0.20 or a video for $0.6.

Nowhere microstock wise is stable from a contributor point of view.
As well as competition and so on you're at the mercy of the algorithm.
If SS decides it'll make more money by slightly tweaking the algorithm so $0.25c sub contributors are prioritised over $0.38 in searches for example you can instantly see massive drops in earnings.  This can happen with no warning or no admission at all.  Ultimately it depends how cynical a company wants to be and what they think they can get away with without too much push back.