The "similar" thing they've brought in appears massively flawed.  A lot of people are finding images flagged with no similar ones in the collection and no real theme or hint.
Suspicion is they've introduced some flawed AI thats making these random decisions based on incorrect data or training.

Good answer. I have only had minimal rejections for similar, but I know others that have had more. One of my rejections was nothing like anything I ever did or uploaded.

Adobe people have said, it's not just our images, it can be for being similar to other images, for the same subject. For all I know, it could be, too many images like that, and the similar is like the "Quality Issues" which is just a generic rejection.

now 6800

I seem to move up in increments of 20, like every week or 10 days

Good to see that you are passing people. I re-joined about ten years ago. Seems like it wasn't that long back. But by 2015, the market and activity was already slowing and dropping. My theory is, I'm just starting to pass people who quit ten years ago, but had sales on FT for the good times. If they closed their account, that means, they won't be improving, maybe they aren't counted? But for what's probably many more, people just stopped adding new, stopped participating and they have whatever residual income from the early years.

I'll look at the end of the year and see if I crept up any. I suppose, the limited number of new people, who work harder could be passing me, but that's the AI boom, which will eventually level off. More people producing means less individual gains.

Coming back to cameras ... I bought a new camera and lens just last week. Nothing to do with tariffs and very much a planned purchase. But, if I got in before prices rise, then that's a nice bonus.

I hope the tariffs raise the value of my used gear. I'm downsizing and selling the 300mm Canon f/2.8



Don't miss the facts or let them get in the way of distorted news and views.

Sad that some people have so much hate for Trump, that anything he does is terrible, before it happens. Meanwhile they have been drinking the Left Cool-Aid for years and can't get past the lies and propaganda of that side.

Let me make my position clear, one more time, they are all a bunch of crooks, don't become a sheep and follow party politics, because you are loyal to one side or the other. Learn to think for yourself and recognize that both sides have good and bad policies and agendas.

Since I'm against the socialist states of America, of course I'm more right leaning. Tax and spend, cradle to grave control, government that invades every aspect of our being with nibbling away at freedom and our rights. Do we really need to take out the hydro-electric dams? Should we be forced to drive electric cars. Seems a contradiction. Why do liberals want to ban natural gas stoves, ICE lawnmowers, and charcoal barbecues. To name just a few of the stupid lefty regulations, that have already been started in California.

Yes, I'm for women's choice and the right to control ones own body. But men aren't women, just because they have internal mental issues and conflicts. Who would fight for Men in women's sports, if they have any sense of fairness and protection for real born women's rights? But the left hangs their hat on that illogical defense. The alphabet people have every right to be what they want to be and live as they wish, in freedom. But they have no right to demand that I believe in, accept or support their fantasy. I have freedom of choice too.

Maybe you can not fight progress, but real question is:  Is AI a progress?

Not in the sense of things like, refrigeration instead of ice chests, or flying instead of railroads, but AI in many fields, may be able to simulate or discover things, that are useful, from data. I think too many comments here are using AI and a catch-all for computer generated images, when the whole field of machine leaning, goes much deeper and further.

We will be overwhelmed by a tsunami of content of all kinds, but our human attention span remains the same. Who will watch all this content?

There are already bots created by AI that increase the engagement of social profiles ... made by AI. 

Sorry the human attention span, is not the same. It's much shorter now. Go watch any old B&W movie from the classic era and start to see how people want everything right now and fast. There's no drawn out, slow development and sub-plots, most of the time. Go to a website and try to read content, text. You are assaulted by pop up ads, videos that self start with noise and audio. What ever happened to reading? 

Instead of a few network TV stations and some movie houses, we have streaming services and networks upon networks. New movies every month from places, that are churning out made for TV content. I sure can't watch all of that, and I don't want to. That's not AI, it's just making more and more, faster than ever.

The Facebook and other social media places, didn't call them AI, but since the start, we are led to believe that people with like minds, are posting what we agree with, and we are fed that, to keep us satisfied and interested. If your tendency is towards nature and the environment (as a simple example) and you are a liberal, you will get news that follows that and agrees. If someone is a conservative, and wants less government spending and waste, or a better protected border, they will get more stories supporting that. We are being programmed to think that the Internet, agrees and supports, our personal views, while opposing views are filtered out.

Sure I'd rather take my own photos, created by my hands and eyes. As amusement, artificially generated images are entertaining. The problem is, just like hand knit was replaced by machines, or any other craft that has been altered by machines, assembly that's done by robots, not humans. Machine made goods have replaced hand made, mostly. Clerical services that were done by people, have been replaced by computers.

AI isn't going to replace human made art and designs, it's just a new way to create easy and fast solutions for simple uses. Sure it's a killer for some crowdsourced images and will replace the need for many types or stock image. But AI can't replace, real photos of events, or real objects that need to be accurate, and can't cover the news. AI is too stupid to understand how things work and function.

The scary thing about GPT-4o image generation is that it really enables people with no knowledge of graphic design to create the exact image in their mind—just by putting it into words. In seconds.

The problem with photography is, it enables people to make an exact image, without having the skills or knowledge to draw or paint. Just by pushing a button on a box.

I don't like AI and I don't use it to make things, except humor or quick fun, but I also recognize that just like computers and cameras and other technology, you can't fight progress or or stop change.

As long as you want a six fingered person with three arms and half a leg sitting in a chair that is floating in a room with two sources of sunlight.... ok, I exaggerate... they might have one full leg.

That too. And three legged chairs or impossible mechanical features.

@alan b traehern:I don't think that deleting content causes any kind of problem,whether it's the approval percentage or something else,simply by deleting a content it is no longer for sale,I don't think there are any other consequences.

maybe i'll start deleting some content,probably 400/500 to start,but i haven't decided yet,for now i'm focusing on creating new videos.

Well if you don't think so, then it can't be true? 

There are people who believe and say that deleting images from Adobe, will harm your image rank and acceptance ratio. There are others that say, that it makes no sense and should change anything. I don't know. I don't claim to know.

But the place this started was, years ago people would delete images and re-submit them, so they would be new again. All kind of silly, wasted time, trying to game the system. Then the subject came up when the reviews got terribly slow, and people would delete and re-send the same images.

Someone else said that Mat told us this was a fact, but no one has quoted Mat's message or provided a link, so it's the same as knowing that Bigfoot is real, because someone, knows someone, who says they saw one.

My basic point is, if you don't know if this will harm your rank or acceptance percentage, and you are deleting images, why are you deleting images? How will less images for sale, make more sales? You just wrote that you uploaded many new images and sales are lower, you make less. Wouldn't less images, logically, make even less?

So if you buy a SS share at 19 dollars, getty will pay you 28 dollars for the merger per share?

hm

If yes, then why is 28 dollars not a stable floor?

This looks like somebody knows something negative.

Exactly! I suspect that investors aren't high on Getty, who will be the new controller, even if this is called a merger. Shutterstock’s sales grew at a tiny, 6.5% compounded annual growth rate, over the last three years. That's slow and unimpressive.

Assuming that the merger is set and being big business, not a popcorn stand, the offer is in writing and not at the whim of, "we changed our mind". Also before these tenders are made, the companies and attorneys make deep, due diligence investigations. That can take over a year, of going through everything, in detail and proof of what's there or not.

Keep in mind, that Getty is looking at future value, long term. Whether it's ROI or amortizing the investment, this isn't like a used car. Getty wants to own and control the market, and for years has been buying collections, archives and agencies. This pretty well completes that. Maybe there are archives, still out there, but as far as buying stock agencies, Microstock, high numbers of contents, I think it's pretty much the end.

But, yes, that's the proposal. For every share of SSTK, Getty in effect is offering around $28, even though it's selling for $19.35 right now. Some people may want the Getty stock in trade. Whatever it is, people aren't ining up to buy SSTK for the gains they expect when the merger is done.

You're 100% right. Something the insiders know, says this isn't right.

I still haven't had any images removed even though I received the email

I did it the easy way and checked the number of "Not Accepted" as soon as I got the email. The number has not changed.

... a few weeks ago i uploaded them again, a 3rd time but wrote the minimum number of words in the metadata fields.  they have been reviewed and approved.  my suspicion was metadata caused some of these files to get flagged and put in the "we'll get to it in 10 years" pile.  in this particular case i used specific name places (like the name of the county, etc) that this bridge is located in.  if you have images stuck forever try re uploading with minimal metadata and fill it all in once they get reviewed.  as for the original images... it seems i will soon find out what comes after "1 year ago."

If this theory is true, good point. We need more people to test. Maybe mixed upload, a couple with the full data, Dateline, location all that, and a coupe with simple descriptive words. Sure would be nice.

Interesting that one of mine that went into Never Never Land, was a bridge and a news headline. Problem is, I uploaded more than one, and all but one got accepted in a reasonable time, only one, and they had the same type caption, if not identical, only that one went over six months.

So someone test the theory, and lets see. That sure would help. 

If it crashes even more, they might renegotiate the merger.

Otherwise buying the shares will add free money.

I'm not sure that it's as easy as changing their mind about the offer. Getty made the offer, they are pretty well obligated to stick to that, unless some legal problem or disclosure of false information, or anti-trust issues, would change things.

On the other hand, the reason the SSTK stock is dropping, may be, just because Getty is taking over. Consider that possibility. Getty is in debt and doesn't earn as much as the interest on the loans. That's not a good financial situation.

The price is driven by buyers and sellers. If people are only offering $19 a share and the asking price is $20 a share, the people holding the stock have two choices. 1) Lower the price or 2) Sit with what they own and hope. 

This isn't about people like us, who could own hundreds of shares. The big investors with SSTK in a number of cases, are holding 1 Million shares. When their price changes $1 that means, $1,000,000 gained or lost. Shutterstock has 34.89 million shares outstanding.

I would say you can rather be successful, or let's better say increasing your chances by analyzing demanded niches, which you can't get from analyzing your own or some one's portfolio. But that's not hard work, rather smart work.

Thank You!



Sometimes, analyzing from what sells on my own, from testing niches, does lead me to making more of the similar kind of content. But still you said the magic answer. Work smarter, not harder. Find not only demand niches but also areas that are not represented with enough good quality or enough variation, that can be fulling a need.

Reading Alamy search results, is like checking a schedule, after after the train already left the station. Go look at recent sales, and see how many are specialty subjects or locations, which someone needed for a project. They won't be searching for those again. Like a dog chasing it's own tail, following what was searched and sold, sometimes, is just running in circles for no good reason.

Where did Steve write about his bestsellers?

Just in case it's not obvious or you didn't already know, or someone else is reading this?  https://backyardsilver.com/

I think this is the "Plastic Bag" and a cat, best seller which is a bag of ice, if I see it right?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 13, 2025, 12:12

All this time, I thought it was about the subject, composition, colors, keywords, descriptions, and finding areas/ideas that are under supplied, to fill a need. Images that buyers want and need. But apparently (according to some people here) it's all about luck, the search placement and random chance.

Then I'll say, worrying about analyzing what has sold, then making more of what sells, or "Learning from 16 years of stock photos that didn't sell", is a waste of time. It's just all about luck. 

It's not all about luck, it is of course selling what customers want, but (and I can only speak for iS) algorithm certainly has its part to play. I've twice had files which were good sellers (by my standards, i.e. sold almost every day) disappear overnight and I discovered that they had dropped in the Best Match algorithm for their 'most likely to be searched' keywords, whereas they were previously near the top of page one. One of these got no sales for a couple of years, and now gets occasional sales, not enough to take it onto the first page: the second hasn't have one sale since it dropped (a common subject, so away down below page 20 on the best match search now).

So is that LUCK or is that the way the agency programs their search?    Luck is random chance. I tend to think that as artists and creators, most of our good fortune is based on how we work and what we make, not some magic, outside forces. And if someone wants to argue that it's luck, then, I hope they also credit their success and sales, to luck, and not their skills and effort.

Oh I see. When things are "the way the ought to be" then it's me. When they aren't and sales are down, it's luck and something the agency did. Of course for my image to move down to page 2 or 3, that means someone else, moved up to page 1!

I will agree that things change and we have no control over how our work is displayed, what page, how the search finds things, or any of that. But that's still not luck, it's just the way it is. Everyone works with the same rules, the same system and the way the agency designed their search to operate.

Recently I spent 6 weeks trekking in Spain, last 2 on Canary Islands.  Had a chance to visit spectacular place - Roque de los Muchachos Astrophysics Laboratory on La Palma.  Nearby is "Monumento al Infinito" or Monument to Infinity -- more details

Can anyone comment, should these be Editorial or non-Editorial images?   Judging on above, I don't think Reviewers really know and it depends who you run into

I hope you had a wonderful trip. Nice photos. Being a work of art, I believe it's not Public Domain, the artist retains the rights to his or her work, even when they are paid or commissioned. You are right of course about varied reviews, and that comes from different reviewers who don't always know all the minor technicalities. Also every agency seems to have their own views of what's allowed or not and what's editorial. The laws are clear, but an agency can make it's own rules about what's acceptable into their collection.

Nice photos.