pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another identical week at SS!  (Read 7934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

derek

    This user is banned.
« on: April 22, 2017, 00:46 »
+4
Well people here is another weirdo week at SS. See what you say about this one.

Monday.  43.56
Tuesday.  41.91
Wednesday. 43.11
Thursday.  43.88
Friday. 42.56

Considering I am down the usual 40% not bad I suppose but Oh dear its just so identical to the past 12 weeks. ;D


« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2017, 00:58 »
+1
I'd be happy with that personally!

Although I do only have about 135 images online so far....

dpimborough

« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2017, 01:19 »
+13
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

I've been tracking sales data for 5 years and it is definitely become more apparent since 2014.

They are probably trying to share the "wealth" to encourage contributors to hang around.

I also get such odd sales for old files of really common subjects that have sold when they should have been drowned out long ago yet when I search for the same image it's no where to be seen anywhere in the results.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2017, 01:29 »
+3
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

I've been tracking sales data for 5 years and it is definitely become more apparent since 2014.

They are probably trying to share the "wealth" to encourage contributors to hang around.

I also get such odd sales for old files of really common subjects that have sold when they should have been drowned out long ago yet when I search for the same image it's no where to be seen anywhere in the results.

I know but this is a joke isnt it? I mean this has been going on since new year and really I mean its so obvious isnt it. How they do it I do not know but there you go. :)

« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2017, 02:24 »
+1
Similar thing here.
What is more, I have a portfolio of nearly 2,000 clips, but this year 95% of my sales have come from one single file (!).
Not that I am complaining because sales are decent, but it is really strange.
Last year I had weeks where sales come from just this file, but also other weeks where I was selling a very broad selection of files, even recent ones. And then every month there was always 10 days without any sales at all.
There is certainly a huge manipulation, but it is not necessarily a bad thing.
I am talking about video only. I also have a tiny portfolio of still images and things there so far look normal, I have sales even when the image has just been posted

« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2017, 04:21 »
0
things are truly strange in video sales last month almost best month ever and as for now this month worst month ever how does it work? very very strange


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2017, 04:40 »
0
Brightontl  And how many monthly downloads do you have with 2000 movies besides this one good movie?

I on videohive as exlusiv I have 1000 movies and downloads for 150 ~ 200 months

I do not know if it is worth to resign from Exlusiv and send to Shutterstock. If I had 50 downloads a month. I think only a few downloads. If they manipulate sales

« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2017, 04:42 »
+1
things are truly strange in video sales last month almost best month ever and as for now this month worst month ever how does it work? very very strange


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Same for me: March BME and April absolutely horrible.
I believe it has to do with Easter holidays

« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2017, 04:44 »
0
Brightontl  And how many monthly downloads do you have with 2000 movies besides this one good movie?

I on videohive as exlusiv I have 1000 movies and downloads for 150 ~ 200 months

I do not know if it is worth to resign from Exlusiv and send to Shutterstock. If I had 50 downloads a month. I think only a few downloads. If they manipulate sales
Sorry I do not understand.
Are you saying you have 150 to 200 files downloaded per month at VB?
I did not even know one could exclusive there

« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2017, 04:51 »
0
I do not know English well.

Yes I have 150 ~ 200 per month Videohive.

And how much do you give Shutterstock for a month besides a hit movie?

« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2017, 05:30 »
0
I do not know English well.

Yes I have 150 ~ 200 per month Videohive.

And how much do you give Shutterstock for a month besides a hit movie?
I think that 150-200 downloads per month is very good. I certainly don't have that many at SS (not even close)

« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2017, 05:36 »
0
I understand. But for the video is low price on videohive. Is it possible to have 30 downloads per month on Shutter with 1000 videos

dpimborough

« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2017, 12:10 »
+3
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

I've been tracking sales data for 5 years and it is definitely become more apparent since 2014.

They are probably trying to share the "wealth" to encourage contributors to hang around.

I also get such odd sales for old files of really common subjects that have sold when they should have been drowned out long ago yet when I search for the same image it's no where to be seen anywhere in the results.

I know but this is a joke isnt it? I mean this has been going on since new year and really I mean its so obvious isnt it. How they do it I do not know but there you go. :)

It's even more evident if you track the moving average over a period of time.  The daily moving average is just straight forward manipulated with the same figures and little variance.

I reckon thats why SS removed the ability to see weekly sales data so contributors couldn't see what was going on so easily.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2017, 12:52 »
+1
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

I've been tracking sales data for 5 years and it is definitely become more apparent since 2014.

They are probably trying to share the "wealth" to encourage contributors to hang around.

I also get such odd sales for old files of really common subjects that have sold when they should have been drowned out long ago yet when I search for the same image it's no where to be seen anywhere in the results.

I know but this is a joke isnt it? I mean this has been going on since new year and really I mean its so obvious isnt it. How they do it I do not know but there you go. :)

It's even more evident if you track the moving average over a period of time.  The daily moving average is just straight forward manipulated with the same figures and little variance.

I reckon thats why SS removed the ability to see weekly sales data so contributors couldn't see what was going on so easily.

 youre right! manipulation of earnings and tampering with figures. Sounds a bit dodgy actually and how about the legalities of this? can they do this?

dpimborough

« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2017, 14:53 »
+2
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

I've been tracking sales data for 5 years and it is definitely become more apparent since 2014.

They are probably trying to share the "wealth" to encourage contributors to hang around.

I also get such odd sales for old files of really common subjects that have sold when they should have been drowned out long ago yet when I search for the same image it's no where to be seen anywhere in the results.

I know but this is a joke isnt it? I mean this has been going on since new year and really I mean its so obvious isnt it. How they do it I do not know but there you go. :)

It's even more evident if you track the moving average over a period of time.  The daily moving average is just straight forward manipulated with the same figures and little variance.

I reckon thats why SS removed the ability to see weekly sales data so contributors couldn't see what was going on so easily.

 youre right! manipulation of earnings and tampering with figures. Sounds a bit dodgy actually and how about the legalities of this? can they do this?

I guess they are not breaking any laws or even their own terms of service it's just disappointing that they feel it necessary to do it :(

« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2017, 19:49 »
+4
This topic comes up every 3 months. I still don't think there is any truth in it. My numbers fluctuate daily, not by just a few percent, but by over 20% sometimes. I think it's just a coincidence that some people see consistent numbers.

Historically, April has always been a lousy month (for many industries) because of Spring Break and Tax Season. Kids get off school for a week and some parents take off work with them to go on a trip. For taxes, some people like us are saving up to pay the government instead of getting a refund.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 19:55 by Minsc »

« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2017, 20:43 »
+2
This topic comes up every 3 months. I still don't think there is any truth in it. My numbers fluctuate daily, not by just a few percent, but by over 20% sometimes. I think it's just a coincidence that some people see consistent numbers.

Historically, April has always been a lousy month (for many industries) because of Spring Break and Tax Season. Kids get off school for a week and some parents take off work with them to go on a trip. For taxes, some people like us are saving up to pay the government instead of getting a refund.

People will see what they want to see. Ghosts, UFOs, bigfoot, sea monsters, face on mars or accusations of tampering or illegal allegations for microstock earnings. The more it's written doesn't make it more true.

March on SS was BME and I'm well over ten years at this. Shouldn't I be on some limit and it's not the newbie insulting claim to discount anything that doesn't fit the conspiracy. IS has dropped like a lead balloon. Easy to see why. But like the rest, there's no reason for agencies to tamper with earnings or sales, they want the most and the biggest. There's no hiding good files from buyers when the goal is sell the most, make the most.


« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2017, 21:04 »
+1
Well people here is another weirdo week at SS. See what you say about this one.

Monday.  43.56
Tuesday.  41.91
Wednesday. 43.11
Thursday.  43.88
Friday. 42.56

Considering I am down the usual 40% not bad I suppose but Oh dear its just so identical to the past 12 weeks. ;D

Those numbers don't look so bad.  I have 6k images and make about the same.  This last few weeks even less.  No evidence of tampering tho.  This last week I had a 110.00 weekday, a 22.00 weekday, and the rest in the $30-40 range.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 21:10 by PixelBytes »

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2017, 21:06 »
+3
SS is crashing and burning for me this month ... I'm testing the waters in macro but it is hard, it take time ...

« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2017, 00:17 »
+1
This topic comes up every 3 months. I still don't think there is any truth in it. My numbers fluctuate daily, not by just a few percent, but by over 20% sometimes. I think it's just a coincidence that some people see consistent numbers.

Historically, April has always been a lousy month (for many industries) because of Spring Break and Tax Season. Kids get off school for a week and some parents take off work with them to go on a trip. For taxes, some people like us are saving up to pay the government instead of getting a refund.

I too agree, there is no any conspiracy here, my numbers too fluctuate daily, last week, I too had a 2 figure and 3 figure earn. As said, this is a coincidence for some people.
People seeing increase and down sales coz SS is now shuffling the things up. They are also doing heavy marketing with introduction of new plans.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2017, 00:58 »
+2
This topic comes up every 3 months. I still don't think there is any truth in it. My numbers fluctuate daily, not by just a few percent, but by over 20% sometimes. I think it's just a coincidence that some people see consistent numbers.

Historically, April has always been a lousy month (for many industries) because of Spring Break and Tax Season. Kids get off school for a week and some parents take off work with them to go on a trip. For taxes, some people like us are saving up to pay the government instead of getting a refund.

I too agree, there is no any conspiracy here, my numbers too fluctuate daily, last week, I too had a 2 figure and 3 figure earn. As said, this is a coincidence for some people.
People seeing increase and down sales coz SS is now shuffling the things up. They are also doing heavy marketing with introduction of new plans.

Haha! no there is no conspiracy and yes they fluctuate but hey! in my case they fluctuate in cents and for the past ten-twelve weeks thats one heck of a microscopic-fluctuating game wouldnt you agree.

« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2017, 01:31 »
+2
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

Really? 
So how do they do it? Seriously. What method could they use to manipulate sales?

dpimborough

« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2017, 03:42 »
+2
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

Really? 
So how do they do it? Seriously. What method could they use to manipulate sales?


How on earth would I know how they do it?

All I can say is if it looks like a duck walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's a duck!

Dreamstime do it as we all know

But some simple statistical analysis shows to much of a pattern of 1 to 2 cent differences and even without analysis the same quantities show up at the same periods day in day out week in week out.

I can now predict half way through the month how much I'll make at the end of the month within plus or minus a few bucks.

« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2017, 05:16 »
0
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

Really? 
So how do they do it? Seriously. What method could they use to manipulate sales?
I experience constantly manipulation and not only by SS.
I am not saying it is necessarily a bad thing and I am not complaining about because I have decent sales and maybe this manipulation is useful for us.
I do video only (very few still images and I only started it very recently).
As I said previously out of 2,000 clips in my portfolio, this year (last 4 months) over 90% of sales come from a single file. I have been in this game less than two years, so I have only one file very well positioned in SS (over 100 downloads), artists with a longer track record probably have sales coming from several well established files when the algorithm is in this mode.
Also every months I have about 10 days in a row when I do not get one single sale, then in the other 20 I get plenty.
Last year I used to get a few weeks like now, when only one file sells, but then some other weeks I was selling a very broad number of files, including new ones.

Why they would do it?
They have often said that they do not want customers to find constantly the sames files on top of the popular search, and maybe they are right.

How would they do it?
Extremely easy: in the algorithm put something like:
IF artist(x) has > x sales in the last x days THEN shut door

I do not pay much attention to still image sales, but now that I checked it tend to be the same amount every week day, but it is too soon to tell, as my portfolio is very small for photos

« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2017, 06:00 »
+1
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

Really? 
So how do they do it? Seriously. What method could they use to manipulate sales?
I experience constantly manipulation and not only by SS.
I am not saying it is necessarily a bad thing and I am not complaining about because I have decent sales and maybe this manipulation is useful for us.
I do video only (very few still images and I only started it very recently).
As I said previously out of 2,000 clips in my portfolio, this year (last 4 months) over 90% of sales come from a single file. I have been in this game less than two years, so I have only one file very well positioned in SS (over 100 downloads), artists with a longer track record probably have sales coming from several well established files when the algorithm is in this mode.
Also every months I have about 10 days in a row when I do not get one single sale, then in the other 20 I get plenty.
Last year I used to get a few weeks like now, when only one file sells, but then some other weeks I was selling a very broad number of files, including new ones.

Why they would do it?
They have often said that they do not want customers to find constantly the sames files on top of the popular search, and maybe they are right.

How would they do it?
Extremely easy: in the algorithm put something like:
IF artist(x) has > x sales in the last x days THEN shut door

I do not pay much attention to still image sales, but now that I checked it tend to be the same amount every week day, but it is too soon to tell, as my portfolio is very small for photos
So is this file disappearing from search results when sales drop or what?

« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2017, 06:17 »
+4
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

Really? 
So how do they do it? Seriously. What method could they use to manipulate sales?


How on earth would I know how they do it?


Well, there are  two ways, aren't there? Constantly change the search (which is not happening) so that buyers see files from the people whose turn it is to have a sale, or simply not to report sales that have happened once the individual target is reached -- which is fraud.

Since people all seem to have different numbers that crop up repeatedly I suppose that someone there is going through the contributor list one-by-one to give everyone a different ceiling. Ridiculous idea, isn't it?

Or it could be that probability is levelling things off a bit, given the search ranking of various people, and the human tendency to see a pattern where none exists accounts for the rest.

« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2017, 06:47 »
0


How would they do it?
Extremely easy: in the algorithm put something like:
IF artist(x) has > x sales in the last x days THEN shut door


In this case, i'm very happy not to be artist number one.  :P


derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2017, 07:40 »
+1
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

Really? 
So how do they do it? Seriously. What method could they use to manipulate sales?


How on earth would I know how they do it?


Well, there are  two ways, aren't there? Constantly change the search (which is not happening) so that buyers see files from the people whose turn it is to have a sale, or simply not to report sales that have happened once the individual target is reached -- which is fraud.

Since people all seem to have different numbers that crop up repeatedly I suppose that someone there is going through the contributor list one-by-one to give everyone a different ceiling. Ridiculous idea, isn't it?

Or it could be that probability is levelling things off a bit, given the search ranking of various people, and the human tendency to see a pattern where none exists accounts for the rest.

yes but have a long good look at my stats in the OP!  and this reflects the similarity of a period of three months. It differs in cents!  wouldnt you agree that the odds of this being coincidence are astroniomical, just astronomical. I mean you have to dig really, really deep to come up with some logical mathematical explanation.

« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2017, 09:50 »
+3
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

Really? 
So how do they do it? Seriously. What method could they use to manipulate sales?


How on earth would I know how they do it?


Well, there are  two ways, aren't there? Constantly change the search (which is not happening) so that buyers see files from the people whose turn it is to have a sale, or simply not to report sales that have happened once the individual target is reached -- which is fraud.

Since people all seem to have different numbers that crop up repeatedly I suppose that someone there is going through the contributor list one-by-one to give everyone a different ceiling. Ridiculous idea, isn't it?

Or it could be that probability is levelling things off a bit, given the search ranking of various people, and the human tendency to see a pattern where none exists accounts for the rest.

yes but have a long good look at my stats in the OP!  and this reflects the similarity of a period of three months. It differs in cents!  wouldnt you agree that the odds of this being coincidence are astroniomical, just astronomical. I mean you have to dig really, really deep to come up with some logical mathematical explanation.

I assume your weekday figures fall in a range of say $20 to $60 and that 40-ish is somewhere near the middle and so has a fairly high frequency in your stats. It's not as if there is an infinite range of numbers you could get, so the chances of this coincidence probably aren't astronomical at all, maybe somewhere in the range of rather unlikely - and rather unlikely things do happen.
Added to which the difference in the figures you cite isn't a matter of mere cents, it's a matter of a couple of dollars from top to bottom over five days, which is something like variation within a 5% range.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 09:54 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2017, 10:28 »
+2
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

Really? 
So how do they do it? Seriously. What method could they use to manipulate sales?


How on earth would I know how they do it?


Well, there are  two ways, aren't there? Constantly change the search (which is not happening) so that buyers see files from the people whose turn it is to have a sale, or simply not to report sales that have happened once the individual target is reached -- which is fraud.

Since people all seem to have different numbers that crop up repeatedly I suppose that someone there is going through the contributor list one-by-one to give everyone a different ceiling. Ridiculous idea, isn't it?

Or it could be that probability is levelling things off a bit, given the search ranking of various people, and the human tendency to see a pattern where none exists accounts for the rest.

yes but have a long good look at my stats in the OP!  and this reflects the similarity of a period of three months. It differs in cents!  wouldnt you agree that the odds of this being coincidence are astroniomical, just astronomical. I mean you have to dig really, really deep to come up with some logical mathematical explanation.

If everyone was seeing the same thing, I would agree there is probably some manipulation going on.  And if I had your stats I would be pretty suspicious,  but there don't seem to be a lot of people reporting making about the same amount every day.  If there was intentional manipulation by SS I would think most or all of us would be seeing it in our stats.

  For those of us with large, diverse portfolios who've been at this a long time,  it only makes sense that our sales would be somewhat predictable.  I average roughly the same amount per month on each of the bigger sites, accounting for seasonal fluctiations.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 10:34 by PixelBytes »

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2017, 11:46 »
0
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

Really? 
So how do they do it? Seriously. What method could they use to manipulate sales?


How on earth would I know how they do it?


Well, there are  two ways, aren't there? Constantly change the search (which is not happening) so that buyers see files from the people whose turn it is to have a sale, or simply not to report sales that have happened once the individual target is reached -- which is fraud.

Since people all seem to have different numbers that crop up repeatedly I suppose that someone there is going through the contributor list one-by-one to give everyone a different ceiling. Ridiculous idea, isn't it?

Or it could be that probability is levelling things off a bit, given the search ranking of various people, and the human tendency to see a pattern where none exists accounts for the rest.

yes but have a long good look at my stats in the OP!  and this reflects the similarity of a period of three months. It differs in cents!  wouldnt you agree that the odds of this being coincidence are astroniomical, just astronomical. I mean you have to dig really, really deep to come up with some logical mathematical explanation.

I assume your weekday figures fall in a range of say $20 to $60 and that 40-ish is somewhere near the middle and so has a fairly high frequency in your stats. It's not as if there is an infinite range of numbers you could get, so the chances of this coincidence probably aren't astronomical at all, maybe somewhere in the range of rather unlikely - and rather unlikely things do happen.
Added to which the difference in the figures you cite isn't a matter of mere cents, it's a matter of a couple of dollars from top to bottom over five days, which is something like variation within a 5% range.


Well jeez! bit far fetched and I dont buy it but anyway like many other oldies I am also down by about 40% but before the cuts I was having quite different stats weekdays.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 11:49 by derek »

« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2017, 13:44 »
+1
Well jeez! bit far fetched and I dont buy it but anyway like many other oldies I am also down by about 40% but before the cuts I was having quite different stats weekdays.

Are you really saying that every weekday for 12 weeks has been between $39 and $41, or do you just get that for a few days in a row every now and again and a broader spread at other times? Last time you posted about this you only listed four consecutive days, not five.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2017, 14:21 »
+1
Well jeez! bit far fetched and I dont buy it but anyway like many other oldies I am also down by about 40% but before the cuts I was having quite different stats weekdays.

Are you really saying that every weekday for 12 weeks has been between $39 and $41, or do you just get that for a few days in a row every now and again and a broader spread at other times? Last time you posted about this you only listed four consecutive days, not five.

More or less it fluctuates between lets say 39-45 or something like that and for the past three months but I have a couple of friends and its exactly the same. I mean although I'm down its still a healthy sum I just find it strange thats all.

« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2017, 15:00 »
+2
Well, I'll agree that's odd. I've had three successive days this month with quite good sales where the earnings were within 1% of each other (achieved in an assortment of ways) - but that's exceptional, I've had days with four times that amount and days with a third of that, it's generally all over the place. Your sales are better than mine, though, and the higher the sales volume the less variation you will see, you'll start hitting a statistical average.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2017, 15:06 »
+1
Well, I'll agree that's odd. I've had three successive days this month with quite good sales where the earnings were within 1% of each other (achieved in an assortment of ways) - but that's exceptional, I've had days with four times that amount and days with a third of that, it's generally all over the place. Your sales are better than mine, though, and the higher the sales volume the less variation you will see, you'll start hitting a statistical average.

Youre right and that could of course be whats happened here!  I also have some really strange single-sales I've never seen before like $ 1.37, 0.58, 0.99 etc. Just strange dont you agree.

dpimborough

« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2017, 16:35 »
+1
OK lets flip this on it's head with say a few thousand photos in a portfolio out of 135million then statistically you should have zero days during the week in fact quite frequently.

The real problem is that that rarely ever happens.

The odds of it happening are as Derek puts it also astronomical.

The real sales are taking place behind closed doors in SS Premier and who knows how images are being presented to those giant consumers of images.

« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2017, 16:49 »
+4
There's plenty of evidence of sales manipulation on SS.

I've been tracking sales data for 5 years and it is definitely become more apparent since 2014.

They are probably trying to share the "wealth" to encourage contributors to hang around.

I also get such odd sales for old files of really common subjects that have sold when they should have been drowned out long ago yet when I search for the same image it's no where to be seen anywhere in the results.

I think that they are manipulating Search Result to give each contributor a standard earning based some contributors porfolio parameters...


derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2017, 01:13 »
0
Sammy!  I tend to agree but why SS Premier that seems to be exactly the same blaha blaha as the ordinary SS?  only they do pretend its for ad agencies and corporations and so on.
Content wise its almost a carbon copy of the SS main agency.

« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2017, 01:53 »
0
I think that they are manipulating Search Result to give each contributor a standard earning based some contributors porfolio parameters...

That's the only way to control the portfolios buyers go to - and even that would be a bit hit and miss - the thing is, there are people who watch the search results like hawks and they don't report a constant shuffling to distribute sales in a certain way.

It's also worth asking why SS would bother to take the trouble to try to control submitters' earnings. There doesn't seem to be much in it for them.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2017, 02:46 »
+1
I think that they are manipulating Search Result to give each contributor a standard earning based some contributors porfolio parameters...

That's the only way to control the portfolios buyers go to - and even that would be a bit hit and miss - the thing is, there are people who watch the search results like hawks and they don't report a constant shuffling to distribute sales in a certain way.

It's also worth asking why SS would bother to take the trouble to try to control submitters' earnings. There doesn't seem to be much in it for them.

I dont know but if they could control the search results which in fact can not be too difficult that would in effect mean they could also control in which direction they like the money to go.
I know quite a few being with Offset and they are certainly not happy with present earnings and Premier I know nothing about but lets say they like to feed what ( somebody else mentioned) poorer countries or factories?

« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2017, 03:50 »
+2
I think that they are manipulating Search Result to give each contributor a standard earning based some contributors porfolio parameters...

That's the only way to control the portfolios buyers go to - and even that would be a bit hit and miss - the thing is, there are people who watch the search results like hawks and they don't report a constant shuffling to distribute sales in a certain way.

It's also worth asking why SS would bother to take the trouble to try to control submitters' earnings. There doesn't seem to be much in it for them.

I dont know but if they could control the search results which in fact can not be too difficult that would in effect mean they could also control in which direction they like the money to go.
I know quite a few being with Offset and they are certainly not happy with present earnings and Premier I know nothing about but lets say they like to feed what ( somebody else mentioned) poorer countries or factories?
Yes, it should be easy enough to weight a portfolio so it gets a better (or worse) ranking. After all, iStock did it with exclusives. But they couldn't do it to a large number of suppliers because there are only so many front-page slots. Right now, there seems to be a heavy weighting in favour of new material, which will, I suppose, favour factories that constantly upload. But that's hardly sinister.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4181 Views
Last post March 01, 2009, 13:02
by davey_rocket
17 Replies
3183 Views
Last post August 24, 2013, 13:04
by roede-orm
15 Replies
3130 Views
Last post September 30, 2013, 13:56
by wiser
12 Replies
5360 Views
Last post September 18, 2016, 02:10
by SpaceStockFootage
18 Replies
1406 Views
Last post December 02, 2021, 09:49
by Lowls

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle