MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Unamas on November 17, 2021, 14:06
-
Take a look https://www.shutterstock.com/g/knelson20?searchterm=drain&sort=newest (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/knelson20?searchterm=drain&sort=newest) First 20 images are identical for me.
-
Ok, it seems that someone has a fetish for manhole covers in autumn ;).
The only explanation I have is that the pictures were submitted one after the other.
In my experience, that works for such images as well.
-
Take a look https://www.shutterstock.com/g/knelson20?searchterm=drain&sort=newest (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/knelson20?searchterm=drain&sort=newest) First 20 images are identical for me.
Indeed. We also had a topic on the shutterstock forum, which contained many examples. They were, I thought, old photos when Shutterstock was much less strict.
-
agree. I try not to show other's portfolio's-- only my own. Don't take too many images of just one scenario is my personal rule. I might do an overhead view with copy space and a macro of a single object from that overhead.
-
agree. I try not to show other's portfolio's-- only my own. Don't take too many images of just one scenario is my personal rule. I might do an overhead view with copy space and a macro of a single object from that overhead.
Here is well earned on a pizza. Many are marked as high. ;D https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/g/bestv?searchterm=pizza&sort=popular (https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/g/bestv?searchterm=pizza&sort=popular)
-
Ok, it seems that someone has a fetish for manhole covers in autumn ;).
The only explanation I have is that the pictures were submitted one after the other.
In my experience, that works for such images as well.
Could be, and AI is pretty stupid and looks for a defined pattern than issues the rejection. Maybe the leaves are random enough to confuse it? Considering how we get rejections for water and grass and sand, for focus, the AI is pretty dumb.
-
Ok, it seems that someone has a fetish for manhole covers in autumn ;).
The only explanation I have is that the pictures were submitted one after the other.
In my experience, that works for such images as well.
Could be, and AI is pretty stupid and looks for a defined pattern than issues the rejection. Maybe the leaves are random enough to confuse it? Considering how we get rejections for water and grass and sand, for focus, the AI is pretty dumb.
Pete, I have my doubts that the review will be done exclusively by an AI anymore.
I rather think that this was the case a year ago, when the review worked several times a day and on weekends.
I also don't think that the AI has a break on weekends now.
I think there are now people sitting AI supported, who roll the dice on a whim ;)
-
The only explanation I have is that the pictures were submitted one after the other.
Based on ID numbers they were submitted in one batch.
-
The only explanation I have is that the pictures were submitted one after the other.
Based on ID numbers they were submitted in one batch.
But how old? In the thread on the Shutter forum, which I mentioned, it turned out to be all old photos. Someone could see that, but I can't remember how. (By the ID numbers??)
The reason given by the old Shutterstockers was that Shutterstock did not look at it then.
-
Based on id numbers, they were taking/uploaded this autumn
-
Take a look https://www.shutterstock.com/g/knelson20?searchterm=drain&sort=newest (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/knelson20?searchterm=drain&sort=newest) First 20 images are identical for me.
I'd be more interested in why people seem to think multiple images of the same old garbage constitutes "art" and deserves to be bought by anyone ;D
-
Is there a market for drains at fall images ? :-\
-
Is there a market for drains at fall images ? :-\
Small market I suspect. I have some pictures. So far I have earned the most with this photo. :)
-
Is there a market for drains at fall images ? :-\
Small market I suspect. I have some pictures. So far I have earned the most with this photo. :)
Good work when they sell.
-
Is there a market for drains at fall images ? :-\
Everything has a market, but it's hard to compete when you have one photo of something vs https://www.shutterstock.com/g/knelson20?searchterm=Vibrant+fall+colors+in+the+foliage+of+vines+growing+on+a+wall&sort=newest (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/knelson20?searchterm=Vibrant+fall+colors+in+the+foliage+of+vines+growing+on+a+wall&sort=newest)
How it's getting approved by SS?!
-
Ok, it seems that someone has a fetish for manhole covers in autumn ;).
The only explanation I have is that the pictures were submitted one after the other.
In my experience, that works for such images as well.
Could be, and AI is pretty stupid and looks for a defined pattern than issues the rejection. Maybe the leaves are random enough to confuse it? Considering how we get rejections for water and grass and sand, for focus, the AI is pretty dumb.
Pete, I have my doubts that the review will be done exclusively by an AI anymore.
I rather think that this was the case a year ago, when the review worked several times a day and on weekends.
I also don't think that the AI has a break on weekends now.
I think there are now people sitting AI supported, who roll the dice on a whim ;)
I have similar doubts that ALL are machine checked, however not that the machines are bad and stupid.
But images are probably checked by AI before they eventually get to a human, if ever. So lets say, "Focus: The main subject is out of focus or is not in focus due to camera shake, motion blur, overuse of noise reduction, or technical limitations of the equipment used (e.g. autofocus searching, camera sensor quality, etc)."
Is probably an AI rejection that no human saw, because the AI or BOT or whatever, a machine learning system decided this image was out of focus, In Error.
This is the image that's out of focus:
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/04/69/47/29/500_F_469472919_pRk99aWdP3Ed4H7SQVXHoNkogsuCOHLf.jpg)
While: "Intellectual Property: Content contains subject matter that potentially infringes on intellectual property rights (e.g. artwork, writing, sheet music, isolated modern architecture, or other objects protected by copyright).
Title / Keyword Trademark: Title and/or keywords contain trademark issues (e.g. brand name, company name, etc).
Visible Trademark: Content contains visible brand names or logos."
Could also be machine, because the AI can read the keywords, find logos, even if it doesn't know what those logos actually are, it thinks it sees a logo.
On the other side, if an image passes initial machine review, then a human looks at them. The whole idea and where this is flawed, is when images get rejected, that shouldn't be, because they never get to the eyes of a human.
So yes, I agree, everything isn't 100% machine. Weekend where, in India, where they outsourced the reviews? Of course the humans are random, or have whims, and can reject something, for an inappropriate reason, because they are lazy and want to make their quota of reviews. But I still contend that AI is stupid. ;D Can be fooled into wrong rejections as well as passing images that should have been rejected. This isn't a one way street "rejections only", we just see it that way more often.
I found some documented evidence of weekend reviewers! This came in an unmarked envelope, dropped in my mail slot, from an anonymous source.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MTx6Hccv/weekend_reviewer_girl.jpg)
-
I found some documented evidence of weekend reviewers! This came in an unmarked envelope, dropped in my mail slot, from an anonymous source.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MTx6Hccv/weekend_reviewer_girl.jpg)
Thanks Pete, that explains it all. The review always seemed like kindergarten to me. ;)
-
I found some documented evidence of weekend reviewers! This came in an unmarked envelope, dropped in my mail slot, from an anonymous source.
Thanks Pete, that explains it all. The review always seemed like kindergarten to me. ;)
I'm still shocked, I mean SHOCKED at the drains and leaves collection. ;D They must have that specific niche and subject totally dominated. I bet that lady makes all kinds of money from those many drains and leaves in the gutters. Or maybe not?
Here's another version of the top secret official reviewer decision device.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RCY0kNLT/SS-lucky-wheel-of-review.jpg)
I'm on page one of pizza if you use the right three words... oh and there is only one page of that search. 8)
-
Similars on SS explained.
1.30 on.
https://youtu.be/eN8hBiQBrJM
-
Is anyone looking at images in SS? I just got again a rejection for similar. One is a background and the other photos falls in the food category. That's two completely different categories. One image is a autumn leaves background and the other photo is a food photo with cookies and autumn leaves. How do I avoid these rejections? Now I have nearly every time rejections. A vertical version of a food photo showed opened corn with leaves and a horizontal photo showed completely closed corn with leaves. The vertical version was rejected for being similar. They are not similar. SS itself had once said that we should make a vertical version for magazines and a horizontal version for websites. However, both images are different. Only the background is the same. Do I wait and upload both rejected images in a month or two or what do I do? They are costing me money. This can't go on like this. No other agency does that not even Bigstock who are also obsessed with similar photos. I have never ever put up similar photos like other people have. Is there anything we can do about it? Is it worth it writing to SS?
-
The similarity checks did get totally strict lately, beyond reasonable the way I see it. The way I avoid problems is to never submit anything even remotely related, say two pictures of two completely different cats (hey, it's till a cat! Similar!) in the same batch. Seems to work nicely, although it obviously slow things down a lot.
I submit the first cat, wait for it to be approved, and only then submit the second cat.
-
The similarity checks did get totally strict lately, beyond reasonable the way I see it. The way I avoid problems is to never submit anything even remotely related, say two pictures of two completely different cats (hey, it's till a cat! Similar!) in the same batch. Seems to work nicely, although it obviously slow things down a lot.
I submit the first cat, wait for it to be approved, and only then submit the second cat.
Yes, that's how I do it too. That works, but it indeed does take time.
-
reviews very liberal wrt similars - i submit images from same shoot all the time - eg, recently, views of Dubrovnik with different pov, vert/horiz, etc. even individual images + a stitched panorama w only occ'l similar rejection. check my port below to see others
same bkgd is likely getting rejected by AI by comparing % of image it sees as 'same'. i have seen that, rarely, w h/v and just change one enough to pass
-
Yesterday I got these 2 accepted:
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/scenic-vertical-landscape-view-iconic-600w-2089447336.jpg)
and
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/scenic-landscape-view-iconic-cathedral-600w-2089446415.jpg)
Taken from same spot, 10 seconds apart. Could have been a crop of same image easily, but it's not. Am quite surprised both went through
-
The similarity checks did get totally strict lately, beyond reasonable the way I see it. The way I avoid problems is to never submit anything even remotely related, say two pictures of two completely different cats (hey, it's till a cat! Similar!) in the same batch. Seems to work nicely, although it obviously slow things down a lot.
I submit the first cat, wait for it to be approved, and only then submit the second cat.
Yes, that's how I do it too. That works, but it indeed does take time.
Thank you very, very much. That helps. Good idea. It really slows things down. I don't have that problem with other agencies and never ever took similar photos. Only one vertical version and one horizontal version but in my case the last 2 images of corn and autumn leaves were completely different. I have written to SS yesterday that they care costing me money and that this nonsense has to stop. I was soooooooooo angry. Now I have to make a separate folder just for SS. Great. But thank you for letting me know that that works. I was worried that their AI will remember it even if I wait for one year to upload the next image. I have seen so many images being so similar that I couldn't even see the difference straight away. I do understand that they don't want that. Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. Very much appreciated.
-
The similarity checks did get totally strict lately, beyond reasonable the way I see it. The way I avoid problems is to never submit anything even remotely related, say two pictures of two completely different cats (hey, it's till a cat! Similar!) in the same batch. Seems to work nicely, although it obviously slow things down a lot.
I submit the first cat, wait for it to be approved, and only then submit the second cat.
Yes, that's how I do it too. That works, but it indeed does take time.
Thank you very, very much. That helps. Good idea. It really slows things down. I don't have that problem with other agencies and never ever took similar photos. Only one vertical version and one horizontal version but in my case the last 2 images of corn and autumn leaves were completely different. I have written to SS yesterday that they care costing me money and that this nonsense has to stop. I was soooooooooo angry. Now I have to make a separate folder just for SS. Great. But thank you for letting me know that that works. I was worried that their AI will remember it even if I wait for one year to upload the next image. I have seen so many images being so similar that I couldn't even see the difference straight away. I do understand that they don't want that. Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. Very much appreciated.
Well, that is astonishing but on the other hand I watched a training video from SS years ago and they said to make a vertical version for the magazines and a horizontal one for the websites. That's why I was very astonished that the vertical version of my corn image was rejected and it's not even identical to the horizontal version. I am still speechless and really angry.
-
Well, that is astonishing but on the other hand I watched a training video from SS years ago and they said to make a vertical version for the magazines and a horizontal one for the websites. That's why I was very astonished that the vertical version of my corn image was rejected and it's not even identical to the horizontal version. I am still speechless and really angry.
Years ago is the answer, they changed with the new "stricter" (ha ha) standards. And the fact that some sort of software is detecting the similar. I don't know how some sets get past, but from reading here, the reviews have clamped down on similar elements in images, to the point that fairly different images, can get rejected as similar, because of a identical prop in the images, or same model.
Example of what SS sees as similar images, in a search:
(https://i.postimg.cc/kMQTLckh/ss-these-are-similar-black-wallet-camera-purse.jpg)
Anyone want to guess what the search was? Purse, Wallet, Box Camera, or one of the various others?
-
Something grey :)
-
Something grey :)
Yeah, and the point is, however they determine similar, it's by way of some strange analytical software and not something that you are doing wrong. Looking at the images I thing someone could start to guess it's the metallic dot, the general black shape and all are isolated images.
Then we ask, how does this happen, and pass? I think the guy with the obvious similar images, has this for everything he has up, and over 276,000 images listed. I'll guess he just waits a month and uploads another and the software misses it. Looking at his portfolio by age, there are no duplicates, but click on any image and he has many of everything.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xBL0gMN/SS-similar-food-orange.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Fz3prSg9/ss-pork-knuckle.jpg)
Whatever it is, he's got raw pork knuckle covered?
That's my guess: How do people manage to avoid the rejection for Identical Submissions?
-
I had once been stupid enough to upload two pictures of different gooseberries in different bushes at once. Of course, one photo was rejected for similar. Both photos were approved by Alamy and Adobe. Once every few months I upload the photo again (mainly out of curiosity if I succeed) but it is always rejected. As if they're thinking: Äh... He's trying again!"
-
I did a small experiment today, with a smartphone image of a forest:
-> 3 crops of the same image and a 4th image with only some lightbeams on it
-> all 4 images were accepted in 2 submissions (2 images accepted each submission)
It seems some very similar images just get through...
-
Once every few months I upload the photo again (mainly out of curiosity if I succeed) but it is always rejected. As if they're thinking: Äh... He's trying again!"
make some tiny changes to the photo :)
-
Whatever it is, he's got raw pork knuckle covered?
Oy way
-
I had once been stupid enough to upload two pictures of different gooseberries in different bushes at once. Of course, one photo was rejected for similar. Both photos were approved by Alamy and Adobe. Once every few months I upload the photo again (mainly out of curiosity if I succeed) but it is always rejected. As if they're thinking: Äh... He's trying again!"
they do track previous submissions; the instructions say to indicate it's a re-sub to get a different reviewer (not clear whether initial reviewer would see it anyway)
-
Once every few months I upload the photo again (mainly out of curiosity if I succeed) but it is always rejected. As if they're thinking: Äh... He's trying again!"
make some tiny changes to the photo :)
Good idea.
[/quote]I had once been stupid enough to upload two pictures of different gooseberries in different bushes at once. Of course, one photo was rejected for similar. Both photos were approved by Alamy and Adobe. Once every few months I upload the photo again (mainly out of curiosity if I succeed) but it is always rejected. As if they're thinking: Äh... He's trying again!"
they do track previous submissions; the instructions say to indicate it's a re-sub to get a different reviewer (not clear whether initial reviewer would see it anyway)
I think so too. I'll give it a try with some changes. Not because this photo sells so well, but I think it would be interesting to see if it works.
-
I had once been stupid enough to upload two pictures of different gooseberries in different bushes at once. Of course, one photo was rejected for similar. Both photos were approved by Alamy and Adobe. Once every few months I upload the photo again (mainly out of curiosity if I succeed) but it is always rejected. As if they're thinking: Äh... He's trying again!"
I cut it vertically. Now it was no problem at all. Approved within half an hour. https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/ripening-gooseberries-shrub-gooseberry-european-ribes-2092123630 (https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/ripening-gooseberries-shrub-gooseberry-european-ribes-2092123630)
-
Yes to all of that. I was just watching the similar rejections that people posted and sometimes there's one model (distinctive face recognition?) or a distinctive prop or part of a design, and they get rejected for similar, when they really aren't so much.
Who knows how far back the reviewers can see? But that guy I posted just up the thread has 7-10 of many food shots, all of them micro adjustments and then some identical with just the background changed.
After reading, it can be a reviewer, but I'm sticking to my theory that there's some pre-review software and when it misses, then things can get past, and when the Bot sees similar, the image is dead and never gets to a reviewer. Someone just told me he got a 20 minute rejection. Yet most of the time we are seeing accepted images take a day or two.
I'll bet that something with a distinctive subject, and I'll crop portrait and landscape, one of them will get rejected for similar. But the colors and the main point have to be standing out enough for the Bots to recognize them. :) Another entertaining challenge would be get a rejection for similar when the shots are completely different subjects, but similar composition and colors.
I mean more than Gooseberries, on two different plants, something like a green striped ball and a gooseberry. Only if I'm in the mood to waste time, for nothing?
-
...
Who knows how far back the reviewers can see? But that guy I posted just up the thread has 7-10 of many food shots, all of them micro adjustments and then some identical with just the background changed.
...
they've re-activated the way-back machine. i recently reworked a number of images from 10 years ago, using current apps to reduce noise,sharpen, etc - most were accepted, but a few were tossed as similar as they'd been accepted long ago, and the ai/reviewer didnt consider there were improvements
-
...
Who knows how far back the reviewers can see? But that guy I posted just up the thread has 7-10 of many food shots, all of them micro adjustments and then some identical with just the background changed.
...
they've re-activated the way-back machine. i recently reworked a number of images from 10 years ago, using current apps to reduce noise,sharpen, etc - most were accepted, but a few were tossed as similar as they'd been accepted long ago, and the ai/reviewer didnt consider there were improvements
So they are now searching through "377,304,034 stock photos, vectors, and illustrations" ? That machine must be working hard to create identifications by major features, colors and shapes. I was always amazed when I used Shazam at how fast it can identify a popular song. Funny also is how many older songs aren't in the database. It must use the key first, to start the elimination... and without going on about that, I can imagine the SS duplicate finder, or similar analysis, does the same, starting with (for example) major color, then shapes, and so on down whatever hierarchy they have devised.
A few years ago, I added some backgrounds, like wood or a solid color, to old isolated images, to make them better. They aren't, they don't sell but they were accepted.
-
interesting rejection today:
-- similar
-- non-licensable
the 'similar' was in the same batch!
-
Amazing variety! Had to scroll down to get it all...
(http://kinkyspot.com/assets/images/variety.jpg)
(http://kinkyspot.com/assets/images/variety2.jpg)
-
Suspect they're using AI to make a hash of the image and using that to judge a similar and nothing more.
That in theory would also be REALLY fast to search the whole catalogue once generated.
Im far less convinced a real person reviewer looks at any of the images outside that batch in question.
-
...
So they are now searching through "377,304,034 stock photos, vectors, and illustrations" ? That machine must be working hard to create identifications by major features, colors and shapes
..
rejection for similars is only against the artist's portfolio, so a much smaller set - a couple of quick google reverse image searches took about .5" each, against an enormous dataset (not including time to upload the image); so, checking 300K images/week at that rate would take only about 2 hrs/day. a search for 'similars' on a buyer's search otoh uses metadata
-
I recently got a photo of two totally different mountains rejected as beeing "too similar" *sigh*
It wasn´t on shutterstock since I closed my account with them in 2020 and I forgot which agency it was- but I submitted lately two pictures of two different mountains in the italian dolomites (and properly put the different names in the titles) and one got rejected for beeing "too similar" to the other....
Come on - sure a mountain is a mountain and they sometimes look alike, but those were two different mountains in two different places ??? And I don´t shoot them for plainly beeing a nice mountain but to be that specific mountain....
-
...
So they are now searching through "377,304,034 stock photos, vectors, and illustrations" ? That machine must be working hard to create identifications by major features, colors and shapes
..
rejection for similars is only against the artist's portfolio, so a much smaller set - a couple of quick google reverse image searches took about .5" each, against an enormous dataset (not including time to upload the image); so, checking 300K images/week at that rate would take only about 2 hrs/day. a search for 'similars' on a buyer's search otoh uses metadata
Yes, I understand the time factor. I'm still surprised that they are checking back, yours against yours. And I never bought the keywords were a trigger because I know that I have events with the same words, except the drivers name (as one example) and they don't get rejected for similar, but the same car at a similar angle, in a different place, where obvious colors and shapes match will get rejected. The AI is reading colors, open spaces and shapes.
I recently got a photo of two totally different mountains rejected as beeing "too similar" *sigh*
It wasn´t on shutterstock since I closed my account with them in 2020 and I forgot which agency it was- but I submitted lately two pictures of two different mountains in the italian dolomites (and properly put the different names in the titles) and one got rejected for beeing "too similar" to the other....
Come on - sure a mountain is a mountain and they sometimes look alike, but those were two different mountains in two different places ??? And I don´t shoot them for plainly beeing a nice mountain but to be that specific mountain....
Yup, that's how the machines see similar, shapes, open spaces and colors. I can imagine you could upload a mountain in Italy and another in Scotland, and if they are close to the same peaks and valleys, it would get rejected for similar.
Now about the Pork Knuckle Guy?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Fz3prSg9/ss_pork_knuckle.jpg)
How does he get away with this? But you get rejections.
-
Now about the Pork Knuckle Guy?
47 of the same red ripe big juicy tomato isolated!
-
Now about the Pork Knuckle Guy?
47 of the same red ripe big juicy tomato isolated!
Yes, but other people including Cascoly get rejections for "similar" years later, with a variation of an image. I looked at the collection of Mr Pork Knuckle and his are not all from one upload, the file numbers, or if anyone cares to look, are spread out overs years. I'm guessing he does a session, then uploads one. Does another session, uploads one... Etc. but saves the series and then dribbles them in, one at a time at a later date. He has many repeating images, that are uploaded over a long period of time. I didn't see the descriptions being different either.
Yes, some day I'm going to make the perfect sliced tomato image and take over the top of page one! I'm still working on the most perfect cheeseburger and fries (they are a better combination?) and some days I add fried eggs, Plop and Shoot. ;D
910,053 sliced tomato
120,447 cheeseburger and fries
555,458 fried eggs
These are things that anyone serious should actually avoid and not waste their time, but people keep shooting and shooting and wonder why their RPI isn't so good?
And seriously buyers don't do a search like that, if they have any sense at all. More than one or two words is a more realistic way to find your placement.
Example:
1,474 fried eggs bacon muffin (page 3)
"fried eggs bacon muffin overhead" (page 1)
50,171 big chicken - both of mine on page 1. https://www.shutterstock.com/search/big+chicken (https://www.shutterstock.com/search/big+chicken)
-
Anyway it's easy to shoot "sliced tomato". You could borrow title and key words from Mr Pork Knuckle and upload one photo every other week hoping to strike gold.
These are things that anyone serious should actually avoid and not waste their time, but people keep shooting and shooting and wonder why their RPI isn't so good?
Isn't it the newest SS plan about? I mean resetting the level every new year and asking people for a new photos of "sliced tomato"
-
...
Yup, that's how the machines see similar, shapes, open spaces and colors. I can imagine you could upload a mountain in Italy and another in Scotland, and if they are close to the same peaks and valleys, it would get rejected for similar.
Now about the Pork Knuckle Guy?...
on the shape & color theory - most of those have large areas of different colors - otoh, i had similars rejects for a series of whimbrels on the coast - obviously different - # of birds, positions, etc - BUT background of surf & sand similar
afa 2 mtns, i've never seen that - perhaps there's2 steps -1st find similar colors, etc, then check if keywords are same? (Could still get rejected if they have 50 tags mostly duplicated
-
Yesterday I uploaded two photos of "raw pork knuckle" with a completely different backgrounds. One approved and another rejected for "Similar Content". The background is completely deferent, anyway they caught as similar. Keywords for backgrounds are different.
-
Anyway it's easy to shoot "sliced tomato". You could borrow title and key words from Mr Pork Knuckle and upload one photo every other week hoping to strike gold.
These are things that anyone serious should actually avoid and not waste their time, but people keep shooting and shooting and wonder why their RPI isn't so good?
Isn't it the newest SS plan about? I mean resetting the level every new year and asking people for a new photos of "sliced tomato"
I think maybe? If the idea is, More Photos = More Money, then let those people beat their fingers, burn out their lights and cameras, and waste time shooting more "Sliced Tomatoes"
If someone is smarter, they will shoot something that actually has a chance, or at the least, not shoot things that there are hundreds of thousands already with little new demand and little existing demand.
Sliced Tomato is just a example of things that are senseless to bother shooting and uploading. But for some reason, they keep getting made, uploaded and accepted.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNN4wKTg/manhamp.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W13jCg36/don-quixote-200-BW.jpg)
-
248,690 sliced tomatoes isolated stock photos. Today. 2/1/2022
-
248,690 sliced tomatoes isolated stock photos. Today. 2/1/2022
but mine will blow all the others away!
-
Sliced tomatoes like this :) https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-shot-baked-focaccia-rosemary-isolated-2115915128 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-shot-baked-focaccia-rosemary-isolated-2115915128) or https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/soft-sliced-cheese-sandwich-toast-use-2115694643 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/soft-sliced-cheese-sandwich-toast-use-2115694643)
I wish SS had something for the wrong keywords.
-
Yesterday I uploaded two photos of "raw pork knuckle" with a completely different backgrounds. One approved and another rejected for "Similar Content". The background is completely deferent, anyway they caught as similar. Keywords for backgrounds are different.
While Shutterstock's rejections for similar content are often not justified and don't follow their own rules, their Similar Content FAQ says that the same content with just different background is too similar and will not be accepted.
https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Similar-Content?language=en_US
-
248,690 sliced tomatoes isolated stock photos. Today. 2/1/2022
248,751 sliced tomatoes isolated stock photos. Today. 2/2/2022
-
248,690 sliced tomatoes isolated stock photos. Today. 2/1/2022
That's just the isolated!
but mine will blow all the others away!
Yes like the best ever perfect cheeseburger? I remember that quest from probably 2009.
268,149 cheeseburger
But still one word searches aren't realistic for what any intelligent buyer would actually enter. Someone reasonably smart would use at least three words to narrow down what they wanted.
67,723 cheeseburger and fries with lettuce and tomato - which is still 67,000 results for the same thing, and makes it not worth shooting.
Cooking a little better - 2,383 double bacon cheeseburger (everyone loves bacon and it's a hot item now?)
1,491 double bacon cheeseburger with fries - but over half the images have NO FRIES!
To add something that's actually of use to this, the words "and" or "with" make no difference in the search results.
Have fun finding good subjects that someone might actually want and then making something with a 3 or 4 word description and keywords that make yours stand out.
Not that it means this one will every make me rich or get many sales:
1 purple basil eggplant and tofu with sauce
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/plate-festive-purple-eggplant-tofu-600w-73022416.jpg)
-
Keywords are killing everything. Could you guess what's on photo below based on description and keywords?
"Korea buffet dessert food table"
"breads, buffet, bulgogi, cake, chinese new year, cookies, culinary, dessert, dim sum, food, fried, fruit, galbijjim, grape, ice cream, japanese, jokbal, kiwi, korea buffet, korea pancake, korean, korean traditional food, orange, pineapple, rib, salad, stewardess, tiramisu cake, tofu, tofu sandwich, tomato sauce bottle, trotter, vanilla, vegetable, yogurt"
Hint: only two keywords are related to the photo :)
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/korea-buffet-dessert-food-table-1892796508 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/korea-buffet-dessert-food-table-1892796508)
-
purple basil eggplant and tofu with sauce
Popularity: score High, Usage score: High usage! Someone is getting rich!
-
- - -
-
purple basil eggplant and tofu with sauce
Popularity: score High, Usage score: High usage! Someone is getting rich!
Don't believe anything the image ranks show. We can see that when people have better images, that make more, and show, No Sales. Here are the real numbers on SS for my Tofu with purple eggplant topped with basil and garlic sauce. 14 $5.97 3/12/11 Yes that's it, since 2011 $5.97 which is less than the order of food would cost at the Indonesian restaurant.
It probably ranks high because, it's the only one? Or maybe because people who searched for some of the words, later bought the image. I suspect (no proof, just a WAG) that when an image gets a DL for words, matching the search words, the rank goes up. It makes sense. Words + DL = rank improves.
Keywords are killing everything. Could you guess what's on photo below based on description and keywords?
"Korea buffet dessert food table"
"breads, buffet, bulgogi, cake, chinese new year, cookies, culinary, dessert, dim sum, food, fried, fruit, galbijjim, grape, ice cream, japanese, jokbal, kiwi, korea buffet, korea pancake, korean, korean traditional food, orange, pineapple, rib, salad, stewardess, tiramisu cake, tofu, tofu sandwich, tomato sauce bottle, trotter, vanilla, vegetable, yogurt"
Hint: only two keywords are related to the photo :)
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/korea-buffet-dessert-food-table-1892796508 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/korea-buffet-dessert-food-table-1892796508)
There are some funny ones in there like tiramisu cake along with the many that are nothing in the photo. But funny thing, they left out colander? Sometimes, and I know I've done it, when tagging a group of photos, one can get the words from something else, and it's all terribly wrong. Without looking the same person should have a real photo or a number of them of the Korea Buffet Dessert Table?
Now if it's totally wrong and spam? Yeah that happens too.
-
1 purple basil eggplant and tofu with sauce
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/plate-festive-purple-eggplant-tofu-600w-73022416.jpg)
eggplant with yuxiang sauce? one of my alltime favorites! I make it with lamb or pork. (we had a neighbor named yuxiang)
-
1 purple basil eggplant and tofu with sauce
eggplant with yuxiang sauce? one of my alltime favorites! I make it with lamb or pork. (we had a neighbor named yuxiang)
I don't have a clue, I just eat things, and often it was "Here eat this..." What is it? "You'll like it!" Tofu and tripe, hot chicken knuckles, the things that the cooks and kitchen help had, that was left over from making the food for the paying customers. Menu only says Vegetarian Tofu in Garlic sauce. Indonesian restaurant that is now sold.
I still wonder how you get rejected for similar after years and someone else, obviously dribbles his uploads in, same angles, same cut of meat or basic elements and his get passed?
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xBL0gMN/SS-similar-food-orange.jpg)
The old, old, early years, (poor image) chicken Marsala is mine. SS image recognition sees all those others as similar. It's just not very smart.
How did the 7 + 4 around mine get passed? Looks like the garnish moved. ::)
-
Well, my 10 cents from the video side of things...
As someone who worked with editors for many years now, there is a lot of sense behind the "series" concept.
Many times the right movement, the tiny expression on the model face, the right angle - that will make one clip good and the other - not as good.
I try to give at least 2-3 good variations on every clip, which brings my batches to an average of 20-40 clips.
This makes them fall right into the "similar content" trap.
My workaround - 2-3 submissions at least a few days apart (which probably pass through different reviewers)
This usually ends up with 80-90% of the clips accepted.
-
Well, my 10 cents from the video side of things...
...
I try to give at least 2-3 good variations on every clip, which brings my batches to an average of 20-40 clips.
This makes them fall right into the "similar content" trap.
My workaround - 2-3 submissions at least a few days apart (which probably pass through different reviewers)
This usually ends up with 80-90% of the clips accepted.
unfortunately, that won't work with images -- the AI(?) checks against your entire portfolio before a reviewer sees it.
-
Back when I cared about uploading to SS and SS cared about paying me I had a folder of SS rejects that I didn't agree with. Every submission I would include a few from that folder that it had been a while (at least a month) and they almost always were accepted. That was probably before the AI that would reject a speaker and floppy disk because they looked like a wallet...
If you could get on page one of the 1 word popular searches it would be worthy. But fighting the sliced tomato fight now is probably not worth it (and yes, I had isolated sliced tomatoes in my port, and they did sell).
Keyword spam is another issue entirely, I am amazed none of the sites have even made half-hearted attempts to fix it. For eg- look at the top page of the top 1000 search terms and drop the hammer on any obvious spammed pics.
-
funniest one i've seen in awhile -- none of the similars are remotely related to a prehistoric site (except for the triscuit found in Tut's tomb)
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hunting-scenes-neolithic-paintings-catalhoyuk-6500-508200409 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hunting-scenes-neolithic-paintings-catalhoyuk-6500-508200409)
and pizza? tree bark would be more similar
-
STOP the Whining! Improve your food photos https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/instagrammable-food-photo-tips (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/instagrammable-food-photo-tips)
-
STOP the Whining! Improve your food photos https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/instagrammable-food-photo-tips (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/instagrammable-food-photo-tips)
Trouble with some parts of that article are.............."4. Shoot in Natural Light
Lighting can make or break a food photo—or any photo for that matter—and it’s not something that can be fixed in Photoshop. Artificial light can make your food look unappealing and unappetizing, so it’s typically best to avoid it when possible. That includes using a flash. "
Clearly, the author has never taken the trouble to learn how to use 'flash'/'strobe'. I think I can count on the fingers of one hand how many good-selling food shots I've taken using natural light! My food photography clients don't have windows facing the right direction...so I use artificial light and that's usually strobe! SS often has articles giving junk advice.
-
funniest one i've seen in awhile -- none of the similars are remotely related to a prehistoric site (except for the triscuit found in Tut's tomb)
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hunting-scenes-neolithic-paintings-catalhoyuk-6500-508200409 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hunting-scenes-neolithic-paintings-catalhoyuk-6500-508200409)
and pizza? tree bark would be more similar
That is a good example of how the recognition is flawed and what it looks at is shapes and colors, not keywords.
I had to click to see what that horrid red thing with worms crawling on it actually was. Rye Bread. Oh that's just nasty.
It's till odd that you get rejections for similar and it seems like others can wait and upload and they go through. Maybe your account is flagged and held to higher standards?
Remember this set? But they are all different users.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vDRkKBH4/ss-copies-waves-sunset.jpg)
-
Remember this set? But they are all different users.
I'm sure I have a photo like this. Let me upload it.