MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Brasilnut on February 03, 2022, 06:20
-
Randomly checking up on how some of my best-sellers on SS rank for certain keywords and was surprised to see that some of those best-sellers have listed to buyers as "Never Used".
Here's an example of one of my best-sellers from Sept 2015. I've randomly checked other best-sellers and have encountered the same issues. How about yours?
Perhaps to entice buyers to use it so that it's more unique to their content, which would be fraud. Or at the very best, just plain old negligence. I'm all for more sales but not if you need to trick buyers to achieve this result.
I'll create a thread on their forum, oh wait, there is no more forum :-X
-
I have wondered the same Alex.
Incompetence or design?
It seems unlikely that such a large company would deliberately mislead if it's illegal in the US, so I suppose that, unbelievably, they still haven't noticed.
Either way it's crap and illustrates their usual 'couldn't care less' attitude.
Food for thought.
-
How about yours?
As far as my portfolio is concerned, that's all correct, Alex.
-
Same experience like you, Alex. Most of my bestsellers are listed as "never used". For others it is correctly stated, I can't really see a rule here, the age of the images doesn't seem to matter. The score is probably diced.
-
I think it simply doesn't work as intended, rather than deliberate fraud.
-
It still doesn't work for me with all the photos. It is better than when this system was introduced.
I think they are still working on improving it.
I wonder how many customers are looking at it. Maybe when in doubt between two similar looking images. Perhaps one chooses the image, which is indicated as the least used.
-
I wonder how much attention customers really pay to it. Do they care? Maybe they know it's meaningless and are they more concerned with finding the right photo for their needs irrespective of how many times it has been used.
My own best seller sold around 140 times last year but is marked as 'never used'. Yet it continues to sell.
-
I wonder how much attention customers really pay to it. Do they care? Maybe they know it's meaningless and are they more concerned with finding the right photo for their needs irrespective of how many times it has been used.
My own best seller sold around 140 times last year but is marked as 'never used'. Yet it continues to sell.
It can already play a certain role. Often, advertising agencies are asked by their clients to use images that are not already in circulation by the thousands. Because there is a risk that the competition could use the same image. In this case, there would be an honorable search for images that have rarely been bought or have not been bought at all. For the contributors, I think it's more of an advantage if it says "Never used". However, the information provided by shutterstock should then also be correct, otherwise the buyer will be misled.
-
I wonder how much attention customers really pay to it. Do they care? Maybe they know it's meaningless and are they more concerned with finding the right photo for their needs irrespective of how many times it has been used.
My own best seller sold around 140 times last year but is marked as 'never used'. Yet it continues to sell.
It can play a certain role. Often, advertising agencies are asked by their clients to use images that are not already in circulation by the thousands. Because there is a risk that the competition could use the same image. In this case, there would be an honorable search for images that have rarely been bought or have not been bought at all. For the contributors, I think it's more of an advantage if it says "Never used". However, the information provided by shutterstock should then also be correct, otherwise the buyer will be misled.
-
With terms like "Make the first move" and "We're seeing significant engagement with this asset," it seems like they hired a psychologist to make up phrases that create demand. Kinda creepy, actually.
-
Looking through my things although the highest sellers do seem to tally the rest of the portfolio really seems to have nothing in common with the SS popularity and usage ratings at all.
As someone says above, the "Get it now while its hot!" style comments look more to be a psychological nudge.
Given they don't actually define what the words or meanings actually are then its probably not illegal.
-
With terms like "Make the first move" and "We're seeing significant engagement with this asset," it seems like they hired a psychologist to make up phrases that create demand. Kinda creepy, actually.
Yes to that.
These ratings are not real and we should ignore them. Kind of the same as "Discoverability" ratings on Alamy.
Looking through my things although the highest sellers do seem to tally the rest of the portfolio really seems to have nothing in common with the SS popularity and usage ratings at all.
Yup
-
All it takes is one or two of their more technical employees to quickly sort out this "bug".
I'll check back in 6 months and probably there will be no changes...who wants to make bet with me?
-
The popularity score was implemented a year ago,if i'm not mistaken...does not record the usage or popularity of an item before implementation.
-
The popularity score was implemented a year ago,if i'm not mistaken...does not record the usage or popularity of an item before implementation.
It does, all my images have popularity scores. Some seem correct, some are completely off, both for older images and newer images.
-
If I remember correctly, in the beginning only the older photos were quite good and the newer ones were not. Now I can no longer find a clear line which are well marked and which are not. Some of my older images are now rated lower than before.
-
The popularity score was implemented a year ago,if i'm not mistaken...does not record the usage or popularity of an item before implementation.
I think that may well be true. I joined Shutterstock less then a year ago and with my photo's all is displayed correctly.
-
All it takes is one or two of their more technical employees to quickly sort out this "bug".
I'll check back in 6 months and probably there will be no changes...who wants to make bet with me?
Am I allowed to bet that you are correct?
The popularity score was implemented a year ago,if i'm not mistaken...does not record the usage or popularity of an item before implementation.
I think that may well be true. I joined Shutterstock less then a year ago and with my photo's all is displayed correctly.
Interesting, but then why would my old image from 2010 show as highly popular and download often, when it has made me under $6 lifetime, and has one 10c download this year?
What I mean is, yes maybe recent files are right, and old files are a closer match. (or possibly only newer artists?) But then, it's still broken and flawed? ;D And buyers are seeing all that misinformation.
-
I wonder how much attention customers really pay to it. Do they care? Maybe they know it's meaningless and are they more concerned with finding the right photo for their needs irrespective of how many times it has been used.
My own best seller sold around 140 times last year but is marked as 'never used'. Yet it continues to sell.
I agree with you. I chalk up the errors to Shutterstock sloth and incompetence. They don't care.
This seems to be a failed experiment SS does not want to immediately remove for fear of causing worse problems.
I don't see how this has any affect on my port. Highly rated images barely sell and low rated ones go like hot cakes.
-
I don't see how this has any affect on my port.
Probably in the same way as that stupid personalization SS wants us to have. Who cares about my profile photo?
-
I don't see how this has any affect on my port.
Probably in the same way as that stupid personalization SS wants us to have. Who cares about my profile photo?
Exactly
-
I wonder how much attention customers really pay to it. Do they care? Maybe they know it's meaningless and are they more concerned with finding the right photo for their needs irrespective of how many times it has been used.
My own best seller sold around 140 times last year but is marked as 'never used'. Yet it continues to sell.
I agree with you. I chalk up the errors to Shutterstock sloth and incompetence. They don't care.
This seems to be a failed experiment SS does not want to immediately remove for fear of causing worse problems.
I don't see how this has any affect on my port. Highly rated images barely sell and low rated ones go like hot cakes.
Yeah. If I were a customer, and find some images that fit my needs, I would probably even go for the one that's "never been used", instead of using the one that everybody else does. I would want to have the content that I create to be unique, supported by rather unique images instead of blurting out generic and all over the place stuff. But that's maybe just me.
-
I wonder how much attention customers really pay to it. Do they care? Maybe they know it's meaningless and are they more concerned with finding the right photo for their needs irrespective of how many times it has been used.
My own best seller sold around 140 times last year but is marked as 'never used'. Yet it continues to sell.
I agree with you. I chalk up the errors to Shutterstock sloth and incompetence. They don't care.
This seems to be a failed experiment SS does not want to immediately remove for fear of causing worse problems.
I don't see how this has any affect on my port. Highly rated images barely sell and low rated ones go like hot cakes.
Yeah. If I were a customer, and find some images that fit my needs, I would probably even go for the one that's "never been used", instead of using the one that everybody else does. I would want to have the content that I create to be unique, supported by rather unique images instead of blurting out generic and all over the place stuff. But that's maybe just me.
So I should be happy when SS says one of my best images has low sales and use? ;D
Personally I don't care either way. The ratings are wrong and irrelevant and I really don't care to spend time worrying at every little detail of how the agency sites are messed up. It's like the search to me. I can't change it, I shouldn't dwell on what happens.
What we need is likes and a popularity score for photos. I like likes... (just kidding)
-
Yeah. If I were a customer, and find some images that fit my needs, I would probably even go for the one that's "never been used", instead of using the one that everybody else does.
In this case SS needs to add an ability to sort images by unpopularity
-
Yeah. If I were a customer, and find some images that fit my needs, I would probably even go for the one that's "never been used", instead of using the one that everybody else does.
In this case SS needs to add an ability to sort images by unpopularity
Adobe Stock has a better solution. There is the filter "undiscovered". And the results are correct.
-
I wonder how much attention customers really pay to it. Do they care? Maybe they know it's meaningless and are they more concerned with finding the right photo for their needs irrespective of how many times it has been used.
My own best seller sold around 140 times last year but is marked as 'never used'. Yet it continues to sell.
I agree with you. I chalk up the errors to Shutterstock sloth and incompetence. They don't care.
This seems to be a failed experiment SS does not want to immediately remove for fear of causing worse problems.
I don't see how this has any affect on my port. Highly rated images barely sell and low rated ones go like hot cakes.
Yeah. If I were a customer, and find some images that fit my needs, I would probably even go for the one that's "never been used", instead of using the one that everybody else does. I would want to have the content that I create to be unique, supported by rather unique images instead of blurting out generic and all over the place stuff. But that's maybe just me.
So I should be happy when SS says one of my best images has low sales and use? ;D
Personally I don't care either way. The ratings are wrong and irrelevant and I really don't care to spend time worrying at every little detail of how the agency sites are messed up. It's like the search to me. I can't change it, I shouldn't dwell on what happens.
What we need is likes and a popularity score for photos. I like likes... (just kidding)
You should be happy that your best image is probably ranking high for it's main keywords, and indeed, all the rest like popularity score is irrelevant. I really don't care either, just as I don't care about "befriended photographers scratching each other's back" likes on social media or photography platforms. Regarding popularity score I think it can work both ways: some customers probably want a popular image, others would want a rather unique one.
Just had a look on how the search options look like at Shutterstock. Besides "Most Popular" and "Fresh", they also have "Random" and "Most Relevant". I remember they removed "Most Relevant" in the past, and now it seems to be back. This gives customers some more options again, and might enable buried images to sell every once in a while again.
But, as you said, worrying too much about all of that is wasted energy.
I usually go for fire and forget tactics.
-
You should be happy that your best image is probably ranking high for it's main keywords, and indeed, all the rest like popularity score is irrelevant. I really don't care either, just as I don't care about "befriended photographers scratching each other's back" likes on social media or photography platforms. Regarding popularity score I think it can work both ways: some customers probably want a popular image, others would want a rather unique one.
Just had a look on how the search options look like at Shutterstock. Besides "Most Popular" and "Fresh", they also have "Random" and "Most Relevant". I remember they removed "Most Relevant" in the past, and now it seems to be back. This gives customers some more options again, and might enable buried images to sell every once in a while again.
But, as you said, worrying too much about all of that is wasted energy.
I usually go for fire and forget tactics.
Interesting as I don't see - "Most Popular" and "Fresh", they also have "Random" and "Most Relevant" - Oops, now I do. Wasn't like that in the past.
I think the idea of unpopular would favor some of mine? ;)
I don't care about how they list mine or what kind of rating, just send money.
-
All it takes is one or two of their more technical employees to quickly sort out this "bug".
I'll check back in 6 months and probably there will be no changes...who wants to make bet with me?
I should have made a bet with you, Alex! :)
Some that were incorrectly listed (like this photo https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/netherlands-alkmaar-january-25-2021-petrol-1904107591 (https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/netherlands-alkmaar-january-25-2021-petrol-1904107591) ) as never used have now been changed.
-
All it takes is one or two of their more technical employees to quickly sort out this "bug".
I'll check back in 6 months and probably there will be no changes...who wants to make bet with me?
I should have made a bet with you, Alex! :)
Some that were incorrectly listed (like this photo https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/netherlands-alkmaar-january-25-2021-petrol-1904107591 (https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/netherlands-alkmaar-january-25-2021-petrol-1904107591) ) as never used have now been changed.
Changed is one thing, but who are they fooling and what does it mean is something else. For example:
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYSLyc5z/SS-popular-usage-score.jpg)
1.3 downloads per year, and it did get one this month, which makes pretty much one a year? That doesn't strike me as High or Frequently used. No, the drop down doesn't list Frequently Used. I'd say it still has some flaws. ;D
In text instead of screen capture, for the record.
'Popularity' measures the community's interest in an asset based on activities such as views and saves. Measurements: High, Medium, Low and None.
"The 'Usage' of the asset relative to other assets in Shutterstock's catalog, based on download activity. Measurements: Often used, Commonly used, Rarely used and Not used yet.
"Usage and Popularity show how the Shutterstock community is engaging with this asset."
powerhouse "We're seeing significant engagement with this asset." rare gem "There’s a lot of interest in this image but it hasn’t been licensed much. Be among the first and start a trend!" rising star "This asset has some traction but few have discovered it yet." superstar "Shutterstock customers love this asset!"
The 'Usage' of the asset relative to other assets in Shutterstock's catalog, based on download activity.
And some other coded tags: "High","Low","Medium","None","Frequently used","Never used","High usage","Rarely used" also show as: Often used, Commonly used, Rarely used and Not used yet?
I'm missing this part? "This score is an AI-based prediction of the rating a group of people would give this image for its visual appeal","This image will likely resonate with people interested in:" "See how your image resonates with your audience:",Top audiences this asset resonates with:" How do I see that? Might be I just didn't look in the right section.
-
All it takes is one or two of their more technical employees to quickly sort out this "bug".
I'll check back in 6 months and probably there will be no changes...who wants to make bet with me?
I should have made a bet with you, Alex! :)
Some that were incorrectly listed (like this photo https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/netherlands-alkmaar-january-25-2021-petrol-1904107591 (https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/netherlands-alkmaar-january-25-2021-petrol-1904107591) ) as never used have now been changed.
Changed is one thing, but who are they fooling and what does it mean is something else. For example:
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYSLyc5z/SS-popular-usage-score.jpg)
1.3 downloads per year, and it did get one this month, which makes pretty much one a year? That doesn't strike me as High or Frequently used. No, the drop down doesn't list Frequently Used. I'd say it still has some flaws. ;D
In text instead of screen capture, for the record.
'Popularity' measures the community's interest in an asset based on activities such as views and saves. Measurements: High, Medium, Low and None.
"The 'Usage' of the asset relative to other assets in Shutterstock's catalog, based on download activity. Measurements: Often used, Commonly used, Rarely used and Not used yet.
"Usage and Popularity show how the Shutterstock community is engaging with this asset."
powerhouse "We're seeing significant engagement with this asset." rare gem "There’s a lot of interest in this image but it hasn’t been licensed much. Be among the first and start a trend!" rising star "This asset has some traction but few have discovered it yet." superstar "Shutterstock customers love this asset!"
The 'Usage' of the asset relative to other assets in Shutterstock's catalog, based on download activity.
And some other coded tags: "High","Low","Medium","None","Frequently used","Never used","High usage","Rarely used" also show as: Often used, Commonly used, Rarely used and Not used yet?
I'm missing this part? "This score is an AI-based prediction of the rating a group of people would give this image for its visual appeal","This image will likely resonate with people interested in:" "See how your image resonates with your audience:",Top audiences this asset resonates with:" How do I see that? Might be I just didn't look in the right section.
I'm not saying everything is great now Pete. Just that I could have won a nice amount (or bottle of wine?) with a bet with Alex. Because there are definitely changes when I look at some photos, which were previously underrated.
Not that this nonsense is now wonderfully arranged at Shutterstock.
-
All it takes is one or two of their more technical employees to quickly sort out this "bug".
I'll check back in 6 months and probably there will be no changes...who wants to make bet with me?
I should have made a bet with you, Alex! :)
Some that were incorrectly listed (like this photo https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/netherlands-alkmaar-january-25-2021-petrol-1904107591 (https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/netherlands-alkmaar-january-25-2021-petrol-1904107591) ) as never used have now been changed.
There goes my left brasilnut! :D
-
I'm not saying everything is great now Pete. Just that I could have won a nice amount (or bottle of wine?) with a bet with Alex. Because there are definitely changes when I look at some photos, which were previously underrated.
Not that this nonsense is now wonderfully arranged at Shutterstock.
Right I was thinking in terms of "fixed" not "no changes". :) It changed, or at least updated some of yours, so you're right. And now it has one of mine with 4 sales in 4 years as a high usage Trendsetter. So still broken, but yes it is updating.
All it takes is one or two of their more technical employees to quickly sort out this "bug".
I'll check back in 6 months and probably there will be no changes...who wants to make bet with me?
I was the one who bet with you, meaning in agreement.