I actually do read stuff from world climate scientists.

Is that so?

I want to hear YOUR plan for how climate can be changed. There is lots we can do to clean up earth, but it still won�t change the climate.

Except that it will. The release of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2, but also some other gases like methane) increase the temperature of a planet. Therefore, reductions in the release of greenhouse gases reduce this increase. There are also some gases that can reduce the temperature, like sulphur dioxide, although the side effects of that gas make it unfeasible to use it to control the climate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Have your world climate scientists never mentioned greenhouse gases?

All this discussion is OK, but there are other matters of much higher importance going on these days.
The global warming debate should not divert our attention from the abomination that is the invasion of Ukraine, for example, or from other reasons causing unnecessary deaths TODAY.
These urgent matters should be on the front page today, not problems that may happen 30 years from now.

This is a problem indeed, but a luxury problem.

Let's get our priorities straight.

The war in the Ukraine may be more urgent now, but that does not mean that we can afford to ignore the climate change:

1. It is already happening. The average temperatures have already increased significantly.

2. We cannot decarbonize our economies in a few years. If we want to have near zero CO2 emissions in 30 years, we have to start in earnest now. And even then it will not be easy to manage it in this time frame.

3. There will always be some other crisis that seems more urgent at the moment. Now it is the war in the Ukraine, before it was Corona and next it may be about Taiwan or some other thing. We have to be able to handle the current crisies and still  proceed with the energy transition.

US record: 10 July 1913 , 56.7 �C

So climate changes didn't even manage to break the records from times way before them.

"For ninety years, a former record that was measured in Libya had been in place, until it was decertified in 2012 based on evidence that it was an erroneous reading. This finding has since raised questions about the legitimacy of the 1913 record measured in Death Valley, with several meteorological experts asserting that there were similar irregularities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth

Apart from that: The climate change does not necessarily mean that it is getting hotter everywhere to the same degree. Generally speaking, the polar regions are expected to see higher increases in temperature than tropical regions.

Also places where high temperature readings are the result of extreme micro climate conditions as in the Death Valley may not see an increase in temperature readings to the same degree other places.

Quote from: Wilm on July 15, 2022, 03:21

If I search for images of houses on shutterstock, I get a lot of images that do not show any houses in Germany/middle Europe at first glance. It doesn't matter whether I choose the German or the English language for the search. The results are almost identical. So I have to search much longer at shutterstock to find the right images for my region.

Perhaps learn how to use a search bar on any agency. "house' overall does yield houses in America, at least from where I am sitting. "house germany" yields nothing but houses in Germany.

Common sense.

With "house germany" in Sutterstock, I get indeed predominantly typical houses from Germany, mainly single family homes ranging from postwar to modern. It is roughly comparable to what Adobe yields for "Haus".

However, if I enter "Haus Deutschland", as a German user would most likely do, I get mostly iconic touristic stuff, like views of Rothenburg ob der Tauber with the town gate and half timbered houses and only a few pictures with more typical modern houses interspersed. This is of course not wrong for the search, but it depends on what you want, whether you will be satisfied with the results. This is a bit different from what Wilm reports, as I get drastically different results depending on the language I search in.

If you search for typical German houses, instead of iconic touristic sites, you may have an easier time finding what you are looking for at Adobe, unless for some reason you try to search for German houses in English.

10 days into the month, poll results still don't have any numbers for shutterstock - not to mention the other agencies. Are the numbers for shutterstock in general so bad that nobody posts them anymore?

48 People have voted for Shutterstock so far, so just two more to go. The rating is 21.9 at the moment, so less then half of the rating for AdobeStock. You can see that if you hover with the mouse pointer above the agencies names.

Perhaps it would make sense to reduce the number of voters necessary for the rating to be displayed, perhaps to 25 or 30.

But how do you determine how they are selling with that rating? If an image that has sold 5 times is rated the same way as an image that sold 500 times, as it is now, you have absolutely no clue how they are selling.

It gives me only limited information, but is better than nothing. For example, if there are 100 images of a species in the database and the best rating is "rarely used", then it is unlikely that another image of the same species will sell well, unless the existing images are all mediocre or unless the new image has a quality that makes it interesting for people who did no look specifically for that species. On the other hand, if 20 of the images have high usage or are frequently used, there is a good chance that my image will also sell, if it is of sufficient quality.

Here are example:
This one sold 4 times: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/tropical-colocasia-esculenta-aloha-garden-houseplant-1772506973 That's not "frequenly used"
And here is one with only 2 sales. TWO!! : https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-topical-philodendron-verrucosum-houseplant-dark-1961934799
Usage says "High usage" I have no clue whether "high usage " is supposed to be better or worse than "frequently used", because when you hoover over the usage score it says the categories are "often", "commonly", "rarely" and "not used", so high and frequently shouldn't even be part of the rating. That's how messed up this system is. Regardless, no image with only two sales should be labeled as "frequently used" or "high" usage.

"High usage" is supposed to be better than "frequently used", so the image with two sales is rated higher than the one with four sales. One clue for that is that it is dubbed "Superstar", unlike the other and you will probably notice that all of your images that sell really well have the "high usage" rating. At least that is the case for my port.

As to why the image with two downloads is rated so high, I can only guess. Is it possible that it sold almost directly after you uploaded it and thus got the high rating for selling twice within a short time and then was just never demoted?

For what it's worth: The picture with two downloads is also the second image in your port, at least for me, so the rating for the image regarding the sorting is also yery high, for whatever reason. So your image may be an exception. I think it is not typical for an image to get this rating with two downloads.

Fotolia had a lot of exclusives, at least for photos, I am not sure about video. I think most of them were from Europe, certainly a lot from Germany.

When Adobe aquired Fotolia, the exclusive program was phased out and ended at the very latest when Fotolia was closed.

So obviously Adobe is not interested in exclusives, or they would have hold on to the ones they aquired with Fotolia.