Dreamstime has gradually deteriorated over the years. The biggest drop was between 2018 and 2019.

I used to have just under $50 per month there with a good 1,000 images. In 2018, that went down to $22.50. Since 2019, it's only just under $10 a month with approx. 1,400 images. I only upload there because it's extremely fast and without any rejections.

Dreamstime has earned me a total of $4,500 so far. An absolute low earner.

But 123rf has developed much worse. I had double that. In the meantime, nothing is coming in at all - down form more than $100 to $2 per month. I sent an e-mail demanding for my account to be closed immediately. They didn't even respond.

Quote from: Noedelhap on May 31, 2025, 12:17

Why is it that conspiracy theorists always have this annoying habit of latching onto every new disaster or event like they know everything about it...?

Big difference between a conspiracy "theory" and an actual conspiracy.

Thinking would be wise. Automatically calling something a 'conspiracy theory' as ones only 'argument' is the lazy man's way of avoiding doing that.

A "theory" would be like me saying... You were cloned at birth, a basic install disk was inserted into you to parrot "conspiracy theory" whenever you came across something you didn't care to investigate or understand, but wanted the feeling of being smart without actually being smart. That - would simply be a "theory" - because I really don't have any actual evidence of you being like that, except observations. Simply a theory.

Discovering an actual conspiracy, and not just a 'theory' on the other hand - would be, say - upon reading financial reports and filings of corporations - seeing the connections/connecting the dots between... say several corporations conspiring to lowball residents for some land... the residents don't sell... so then "mysteriously" a wildfire erupts... the residents are "forced" to move out because their houses are burned to a crisp... and then the same corporations that lowballed the land, now conveniently happen to be there to get it for pennies on the dollar... and then afterwards - AMAZINGLY - there are no more wildfires in that specific area. Seeing those connections, and realizing that happens, would not be a theory, but an actual conspiracy.

Yes, these things happen. There are real estate speculators and others who will stop at nothing.

Nevertheless, I still find it astonishing that there are people who consider climate change to be a lie. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether climate change is mainly caused by us humans or mainly by natural causes. What matters in the end is that we humans could at least do our bit to prevent or at least delay the worst. After all, the earth is a transient element in the overall system anyway. Nevertheless, it would be nice if we could somehow manage to spare our direct descendants the worst. And doing that requires a change in thinking.

Not many people are prepared to do this. Least of all those who believe that we should continue to consume just as many of our limited resources as before. Or even more resources in order to become even richer - at least in the short term. And if that's what you want, then you can of course present things as if such fires are being set just to support a climate change lie. Personally, I think this theory is absolute nonsense. Just like all the many other false truths you have repeatedly presented here. And when it has been pointed out to you that you have been taken in by complete nonsense, not a single comment has come from you.

Personally, I would therefore be very grateful if you would continue to move around in your algorithm bubble with your nonsense and spare us from it here. Thank you in advance!

You can compare the figures and see whether that seems realistic.
There are certainly deviations in the weekly ranking because it is not calculated in real time. These deviations should not exist in the overall ranking.

So: My lifetime ranking has fallen to 3,090 today.
I've had 45,625 downloads at Adobe so far - I have only images, no videos.
If there is someone who has sold a similar number of images sold, they can post their total downloads.
If there are significant deviations - which I don't believe - then the Adobe statistics would not be correct.

Quote from: Injustice for all on April 01, 2025, 05:35

Quote from: synthetick on March 31, 2025, 16:06

For anyone deleting files from Adobe, note the following clause in your contributor agreement:

"6.2 Managing the Work. You may remove any Work from the Website at any time, provided, however, that you do not remove more than 100 items of Work or 10% of the Work, whichever is greater, in any 90-day period without 90 days' prior written notice to Adobe."

https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20240216.pdf

ok,I missed this one.

anyway I was planning on deleting 500 images,which is less than 10% of my port,if I decide to do so.

thanks!

Please explain how less images and deleting images you already have accepted, will make more money? What's the secret.

I don't think your question can be answered seriously because nobody knows the algorithm.

But: It can be assumed that there is a portfolio ranking that influences where a contributor's newly accepted images are ranked. To put it simply: Poor portfolio ranking = poor classification of new images. And vice versa. And poor ranking of new images can lead to them never being found, which will further worsen the ranking of the entire portfolio. A vicious circle.

And also quite simply put: If you have a lot of images in your portfolio that don't sell at all or have never sold, it could therefore make sense to delete these images (after self-critical analysis) in order to improve the portfolio ranking (the portfolio quality).

This is all a thesis. Nobody can tell you whether this is really the case. But: If you have 10,000 images in your portfolio, of which 9,000 images have never sold, but the remaining 1,000 images are selling very well, such a cleaning action could - theoretically - be advantageous.

Quote from: Wilm on March 19, 2025, 05:14

Income half of February 2024.

How much content did you upload in the last 12 months?

18 files.

Compared to February 2024, revenue in particular has fallen. In terms of downloads, it was also less, but the main problem is a significant drop in RPD compared to February 2024.

Okay, let's discuss the "lottery factor".

Using Steve as an example:
His bestseller on shutterstock should, if only the factors "diligence, image composition/composition, aesthetics, keywords, commercial benefit" would count, also be a bestseller on AS or istock or somewhere else. But this is obviously not the case.

There may be 3 reasons for this:
- The agencies' clients have different tastes.
- The image only ranked well on shutterstock.
- Possibly: The image was only accepted by shutterstock.

From my point of view, it is therefore simply luck if shutterstock ranked the image so well after it was uploaded that it achieved sales right at the beginning and then continued to rise in the ranking.

How high the lottery factor is, as far as the assessment of the agencies is concerned, I simply compare just shutterstock with Adobe Stock based on my images. The ratings obviously were similar for a few images. For a few images, the differences are extreme.


                SS               AS
Image 1:   $ 4,400       $ 240
Image 2:   $ 1,645       $ 808
Image 3:   $ 1,630       $ 1,810
Image 4:   $ 1,190       $ 128
Image 5:   $ 1,130       $ 0 (was never accepted - despite several attempts)
Image 6:   $ 1.000       $ 230
Image 7:   $ 880          $ 307
Image 8:   $ 870          $ 201
Image 9:   $ 850          $ 225
Image 10: $ 760          $ 1.365

I have images that fetched $300 or $500 on AS, but only $3 or $5 on shutterstock - and the other way round. And of course there are images selling quite well on one agency that have no downloads at all on the other agency because of a miserable starting ranking. On istock, lots of my best selling images weren't even accepted (despite several attempts), so I only have about 800 images online there. And I know that the images that weren't accepted would have made thousands of dollars there too. But it's just not meant to be.

Another lottery factor is of course the copy cats.
If you are lucky in the lottery, you will only be copied a little. If you are unlucky, the usually worse copies will overtake the originals in a short time, because the novelty factor naturally also plays a role in the sorting of the images.

Yes - there is a big lottery factor! And it will have more weight because of AI in future.

Quote from: Wilm on March 13, 2025, 07:35

Quote from: alan b traehern on March 13, 2025, 06:18

I learn from what sells and make more. I learn from what doesn't sell and don't make more. I don't need some unscientific study of some other person, to figure that out.

Quote from: Wilm on March 10, 2025, 15:16

What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

This isn't a game of chance, buyers decide what sells, which decides the rank and how the algos place your images. You and others imagine this business is like the lottery, not planning or skill. Steve is a success because he's smart and works hard.

Hmmm,

It's not that simple, Alan.

Sure, once an image has worked its way to the top of the search results, it should sell better and better.

But when you upload an image, it gets a starting ranking. If the image is ranked on pages 1 to 3 for certain search terms, that's great.

If, on the other hand, it lands on page 15 or 20 or even further back, there is a very high probability that it will be "stillborn". Then there is a risk that this image will never be found.

The image (concept, image structure, aesthetics, customer benefit) itself is not so important. What is important is how the selection assesses the value of the image and where the image is initially classified within the mass of other images on the same topic.

Of course, this problem automatically increases the larger an agency's database becomes. It was therefore easier to get a good starting ranking with an image when the database still contained 20 million files. Today, with half a billion, the air automatically becomes thinner.

Or, if things go really badly, the image is even rejected by one agency, while other agencies consider it to be an image with high commercial value.

You can't argue away the "lottery factor". It's part of the game. After 15 years, I can assure every contributor of that. I can also give you countless examples if you like.

I mean Steve's alltime bestsellers were just a plastic bag and a cat on a plain white background. Alan, how you then can even talk about quality and not just the random factor, which is more important.

Where did Steve write about his bestsellers?

What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

Why am I not surprised? 

Quote from: stoker2014 on January 10, 2025, 13:36

Share the link.   

N O !

Exactly!

Quote from: Wilm on January 10, 2025, 11:55

Quote from: stoker2014 on January 10, 2025, 11:15

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 10, 2025, 10:01

Anyway, my lifetime microstock earnings exceeded $430k, and that's amazing for a hobby.

An income of $3,000 a month is not very much for a US resident. In the US, you can earn much more.

At this point I wonder how you know that ZT has an income of USD 3,000.

The way I read it, ZT has written here exclusively about his microstock income... 

It's elementary, Watson. Look at his chart, there are columns in which he indicates his annual income. Divide this number by 12 months and you will get an approximate result. 
But personally, I don�t believe what he writes and draws.
More precisely, to trust his words I need to see his works. But for now these are just words.

I have to laugh about that. What good would it do if you could see the images and videos? You only believe what you want to believe anyway - as we've seen often enough in the past.

At least I know that ZT writes the truth.

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 10, 2025, 10:01

Anyway, my lifetime microstock earnings exceeded $430k, and that's amazing for a hobby.

An income of $3,000 a month is not very much for a US resident. In the US, you can earn much more.

At this point I wonder how you know that ZT has an income of USD 3,000.

The way I read it, ZT has written here exclusively about his microstock income...