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 - BD
26
« on: October 04, 2016, 00:16 »
Hi all,
I would like to know if anyone of you ever reported the ports with spammy titles and if so, has anything been done about it by SS? Does Shutterstock react to these reports?
One of my images used to be #1 under the keyword "Honduras" (don't laugh at me) for almost a year, a few other images of mine were in the first lines and sold a lot, then lately I noticed more and more illustrations coming to the top of the search with spam in the titles, like this portfolio, for instance: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Aquir
I'm not looking who to blame for lower sales I'm just thinking whether it makes sense to report the spammers? And do you think they really make their way up the search because of the spammy titles?
Thanks
All you have to do is look at "best match" to see it helps the spammers. Check out "Halloween" and "Christmas." The best match looks different on SS vs other sites because of this (in a bad way for Shutterstock). "Halloween" is the best example of this. I think SS will see more and more spammers messing with their search unless they do something (right now the spammers are being rewarded with good search placement). Some of the spammers have also started to put the spammy words below one or two normal sentences so if you are in the main search you won't see the spammy words (you have to actually click on the photo and go to that photo's page).
Edit: BTW the titles on IS are not searchable and do not affect search placement, but they are searchable and affect search placement on SS.
27
« on: October 04, 2016, 00:05 »
Hi all,
I would like to know if anyone of you ever reported the ports with spammy titles and if so, has anything been done about it by SS? Does Shutterstock react to these reports?
One of my images used to be #1 under the keyword "Honduras" (don't laugh at me) for almost a year, a few other images of mine were in the first lines and sold a lot, then lately I noticed more and more illustrations coming to the top of the search with spam in the titles, like this portfolio, for instance: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Aquir
I'm not looking who to blame for lower sales I'm just thinking whether it makes sense to report the spammers? And do you think they really make their way up the search because of the spammy titles?
Thanks
All you have to do is look at "best match" to see it helps the spammers. Check out "Halloween" and "Christmas." The best match looks different on SS vs other sites because of this (in a bad way for Shutterstock). "Halloween" is the best example of this. I think SS will see more and more spammers messing with their search unless they do something (right now the spammers are being rewarded with good search placement). Some of the spammers have also started to put the spammy words below one or two normal sentences so if you are in the main search you won't see the spammy words (you have to actually click on the photo and go to that photo's page).
28
« on: October 01, 2016, 22:04 »
Its when you do the search, click on the image, click on "view image," then hit the + symbol that you see the full size image. The website is not displaying it like this so why is google images? This makes super easy fast access to this size of imagery (just a few clicks) without visiting the website (where they can't even get that size anyway). This is, I believe, what people are talking about.
Jayne, but who is watching Google to make sure they don't cross lines from search engine to something more? Increasing usability could mean, as in this case, disregarding the protection of copyright.
I don't like Getty either and think they are hypocrites. I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
Getty provides all the images that Google are displaying. If you have worked with HTML, you'd know that you can display a high resolution image in a small space, but it's still a high resolution image. Or you can make an image display at 200%, but that doesn't make it a high res image. Getty provides everything. Google isn't going behind a paywall and displaying those images.
Getty can choose to provide which images Google can index and they haven't done anything to prevent Google from indexing their images in different resolutions. They want Google to index it. Getty has been really vague on the details on purpose, because they know they can't win the PR battle if everyone knew the details.
Getty is as close to an 'evil' company as you can get. They're predatory and they intentionally harm people in the name of profit. If they really care about the livelihood of contributors, they would stop ****ing them over.
Yes, I know how HTML works. Those high resolution images were not indexed as such until 2013. You had to go to the website and then click on the image on the website. If you had read the letters it explains much better than I tried to. Getty does not provide all the images google is displaying (I'm assuming you are talking about stock images). People who have licensed them put them on their websites. These used to only be the thumbnails you see now. However, now when you click on the image in the search, you can make it to the high resolution version without ever visiting the website and seeing copyright information (really, no one is going to pay attention to the tiny disclaimer at the bottom that the image may be copyrighted). This video they put out explains what I was trying to say: http://wherewestand.gettyimages.com/advocacy/?esource=2016_09_21_google_SEG&elqTrackId=862BB4F2CDD0B186A9CCDD8A5839F6F0&elq=20e255f2d6fe4f9880cb2095ef0cba77&elqaid=7512&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=3499This also hurts the customers of stock images. They lose search traffic to their websites (why visit it when you can already see the image at the size you want?) Anyway, I'm done trying to explain. Anyone who describes a company "as close to an 'evil' company as you can get" has already made of their mind everything the company does is 'bad.' Most of the stock sites have made at least some decisions that have hurt contributors in favor of their own profits (they are businesses so of course they will do so). Getty has probably made more that others. I agree, Getty has done some predatory actions, such as Shelma1 posted. I don't consider them as close to 'evil' as you can get though. When I think of an 'evil' company I think of Enron. Getty isn't even as bad as Walmart yet as far as hurting suppliers.
29
« on: October 01, 2016, 18:06 »
I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
i was thinking, in some sites it provides you to opt out on * your images being searchable by 3rd parties*. would it work if getty, ss, etc provide us with this option? then those of us who is not good with google motives, can choose not to be searchable by google.
would that work as a prevention??? i think flickr provides their portfolio holders with this... so opt out will mean only those in flickr can find your images. i assume that means google can't find it then.
am i correct???
Google will still be showing all of your images that people have licensed and placed on their websites (this is actually where the large unwatermarked sizes usually come from). Customers don't always know to downsize their image for the web. By this I mean that the customer might place it on the website and it will look like a regular web-sized version (like the customer intended), but google will pick up and display your full size/resolution in the manner I described in my last post because the customer just uploaded the full size without first downsizing to the appropriate size (but whatever website/etc. they are using "places" it in the website in a smaller size appropriate for the page). The customer did not intend it to be displayed in full size because on their website it is not displayed that way, but Google is still able to pull the full size image. The customer does not even realize this has happened. Does that make sense? FYI this is the manner I described in my last post: Its when you do the search, click on the image, click on "view image," then hit the + symbol that you see the full size image. The website is not displaying it like this so why is google images? This makes super easy fast access to this size of imagery (just a few clicks) without visiting the website (which isn't displaying the image at that size).
30
« on: October 01, 2016, 16:10 »
What they want from Google is to fundamentally change the design of the image search to not show anything more than a tiny thumbnail and force the user to go to the original website to see a high res watermarked image. This will cause a usability nightmare and the chance of it happening is extremely low.
When I do a search for websites all I see in the search results is a short link and brief description of the website. I don't see a huge preview of the page when I click on the link. It takes me straight to the website when I click on the link. This hasn't caused me any usability nightmare. Why should it be different for images? Further, they are currently allowing users to click on an image and see the full resolution image even if the image is only displayed as a small size on the website (Any website, like if someone licenses your image and then puts it onto their website. However, it doesn't take you to the website. They show you the image in their search engine). There was a discussion on these changes when they happened in 2013 here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-images-we-are-so-screwed/
Other search engines have implemented these changes as well, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not saying Getty doesn't have selfish reasons, just that I agree that search engines have started to become more than search engines (for example by displaying images at high resolution instead of how they appear on the website).
Because mobile traffic makes up close to 60% of all web searches and most of us are data plans. This number will continue to increase. And since mobile phones have retina displays or 1080p displays, you can't simply show a tiny thumbnail anymore and force the user to go to another website. It must be a decent size resolution picture that doesn't look like crap. And I don't want any search engine to take me to any website that eats up data. If I'm interested in the source, I'll click on the provided link to the source.
Shutterstock, FT has seen increased exposure and downloads over the last few years. And I see their images rank very high on all the image searches. Many agencies are benefiting from this. Getty is the only one complaining because the world doesn't want to stand still for the status quo. The search engines are not going to roll back usability or technology for one company.
Its when you do the search, click on the image, click on "view image," then hit the + symbol that you see the full size image. The website is not displaying it like this so why is google images? This makes super easy fast access to this size of imagery (just a few clicks) without visiting the website (where they can't even get that size anyway). This is, I believe, what people are talking about. "Shutterstock, FT has seen increased exposure and downloads over the last few years. And I see their images rank very high on all the image searches. Many agencies are benefiting from this." You have no data, and more importantly, a way of proving cause and effect. For instance, their increased exposure and downloads could be for completely unrelated changes (increased marketing, etc.). "The search engines are not going to roll back usability or technology for one company." Maybe, but who is watching Google to make sure they don't cross lines from search engine to something more? Increasing usability could mean, as in this case, disregarding the protection of copyright. I don't like Getty either and think they are hypocrites. I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
31
« on: October 01, 2016, 13:01 »
What they want from Google is to fundamentally change the design of the image search to not show anything more than a tiny thumbnail and force the user to go to the original website to see a high res watermarked image. This will cause a usability nightmare and the chance of it happening is extremely low.
When I do a search for websites all I see in the search results is a short link and brief description of the website. I don't see a huge preview of the page when I click on the link. It takes me straight to the website when I click on the link. This hasn't caused me any usability nightmare. Why should it be different for images? Further, they are currently allowing users to click on an image and see the full resolution image even if the image is only displayed as a small size on the website (Any website, like if someone licenses your image and then puts it onto their website. However, it doesn't take you to the website. They show you the image in their search engine). There was a discussion on these changes when they happened in 2013 here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-images-we-are-so-screwed/Other search engines have implemented these changes as well, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not saying Getty doesn't have selfish reasons, just that I agree that search engines have started to become more than search engines (for example by displaying images at high resolution instead of how they appear on the website).
32
« on: September 28, 2016, 13:12 »
I signed it and family members/friends have signed it.
33
« on: September 24, 2016, 23:27 »
Hi Mat, Thanks for staying in contact with us and answering our questions. However, I am very concerned about this issue: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/be-careful-to-an-illegal-free-stock/msg465076/All of Adobe/Fotolia licenses restrict sharing the purchased files with any other person or entity or post the Work online in a downloadable format whether it is for sale or for free. I was about to email Fotolia legal because I saw my image on this site giving away our images for free, but someone posted that they are using Fotolia API. Is there any way you could pass this along? I'm sure Fotolia/Adobe isn't knowingly allowing this. Thank you
35
« on: September 23, 2016, 16:02 »
Does anyone have a link to a generic DMCA or info about writing one? On the first search I did I found one of my images ):
Thank you
Edit: Looks like mine came from Fotolia so I will probably email them first.
36
« on: May 24, 2016, 14:37 »
Thanks! I will pass this along to my friend
37
« on: May 22, 2016, 19:27 »
One of my friends is a musician and would like to sell audio stock. I only do photography. Which are the best sites for audio? Thank you!
38
« on: April 13, 2016, 16:04 »
I hope we are getting paid for all the free images
39
« on: March 10, 2016, 14:50 »
I opted out
40
« on: February 27, 2016, 18:49 »
... I'm more bothered about a Chinese company having them without my permission.
But a Chinese company does have them if you have work on Getty (via anywhere else other than Veer) - VCG is Getty's distributor in China and has been for a number of years now.
Yes, but that is with permission. I don't think sending a DMCA to Getty/iStock is a good idea if one does not want them to dump the iStock/Getty portfolio. I am trying to get my images off of Veer as well, but not Getty/iStock.
41
« on: February 26, 2016, 17:54 »
This may be a year old thread, but I'm having the same problem. For two months I've been trying to have my images deleted and account closed. As of today, everything is still live and on-line. E-mails go unanswered and/or ignored. What does it take to get Veer to do what they are legally obligated to do?
I am having the same issue.
42
« on: February 22, 2016, 15:43 »
I have been unable to upload vectors for 3 days now, just returns to the upload page.
I am having the same problem with images
43
« on: February 03, 2016, 15:48 »
I submit to CanStock, but did not get an email. What does it say?
44
« on: August 31, 2015, 10:53 »
Does anyone know if they are done deleting images? I thought they were going to send out an email with an explanation, but I have not received one.
In reply to a support ticket I sent, Lee said there'd be an explanation of new requirements and standards in the next newsletter. That was months ago and I haven't received anything either.
My portfolio size has been steady for several weeks, but the last time I thought they were done they went on a new culling spree. I'm not uploading at the moment - until we get some new guidelines - as they have deleted many of the images that were selling well at Canva and are proven bestsellers elsewhere; I have no clue, literally, as to what they want. Even if I compare what they kept vs. what they culled I can't see any pattern or logic.
YMMV
Thanks! I'm not going to upload either for the same reasons. Hopefully they will send something out soon.
45
« on: August 30, 2015, 12:57 »
Does anyone know if they are done deleting images? I thought they were going to send out an email with an explanation, but I have not received one.
46
« on: June 08, 2015, 17:35 »
@BD, yes that is correct. If the images are approved for the standard collection they will not be added to the free section as one of the 3 images of the week.
Only images that are declined for the standard collection have the potential to be added to the free section.
-Mat
Thank you!
47
« on: June 07, 2015, 21:52 »
Hi all,
FYI, out of the entire collection of images that are approved for the free section only 3 images are made available to download each week (that's 3 total, not 3 of yours). Even if you mistakenly submit an image with the free section option set to yes and find that the image is refused for the standard collection but then approved for the free section the odds of it being downloaded are pretty low.
That being said, it is important that you check the settings before you submit. If you are concerned that you have a batch of images that were submitted to the free section shoot me an email and I'll be happy to have the tech team remove them all.
-Mat
Hi Mat I had some images accepted for sale to the main collection and did not realize that they were set to "yes" for the free section. Since they were approved for sale does this mean they will not be offered for free? Is it only the refused files that have the possibility of being offered for free? Thanks for your response.
48
« on: June 06, 2015, 13:37 »
I'm confused...several of the last files I had accepted into the main collection say "yes" next to the free section. Does this mean they can later transfer it to the free section? Some of these files already sold. Unless I missed it, I don't see anything about this explained in the "sell images". Could I email them and ask them to switch it to "no." I think it happened when they changed the design. Thanks for your answers.
49
« on: June 06, 2015, 00:37 »
I just started uploading to Fotolia recently. I had changed the option when uploading for refused files to go to the free section to "no" as I do not want my images offered for free. I just noticed that it is showing "yes" again. I have no idea how long it has been switched back to "yes." How does one know if Fotolia placed a refused image in the free section?
Thank you.
50
« on: May 01, 2015, 01:22 »
Hi all, just a quick note to let you know that you can still upload images with a maximum of 50 keywords. It's been determined that the sweet spot for keywords is between 20-30 so the number 30 you have read on the site is a recommendation and not a mandate or change. The language will be changed on the site asap.
-Mat
Thanks for the info!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|