Author Topic: How is this possible? (Read 24452 times)

jonbull · « **on:** July 13, 2019, 07:11 »

we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

then i read this indian miracle

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97689-are-people-really-earning-from-the-shutter-stock/

one dollar and he cannot believe why only one dollar?

can somebody explain why ss is accepting this stufff if not they want only sell images paying 0,25 cent instead 0,38?
personally i m getting ashamed to collaborate to a company who accept this stuff.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2019, 08:20 »

Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11

we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

then i read this indian miracle

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97689-are-people-really-earning-from-the-shutter-stock/

one dollar and he cannot believe why only one dollar?

can somebody explain why ss is accepting this stufff if not they want only sell images paying 0,25 cent instead 0,38?
personally i m getting ashamed to collaborate to a company who accept this stuff.

The Indian guy, just over 700 photos, most look to be of little interest to any buyer. Four downloads. Maybe some people will finally see this and realize, they can't just upload pages and pages of snapshots and make money. We need to have content that has some use or attractions to buyers. The rest think it's some game or easy money, and will never make anything. Then they will leave.

We've seen the same on the forum here, over and over. Someone new, who claims to know photography, but they can't make money from stock. Easy enough, they are not making what buyers want or need. I started that way, watched and listened, and changed my attitude. This isn't about taking pictures or photography skills as much as content, subjects and meeting buyers needs.

Why is SS accepting just about everything and anything? I don't know. We've been through this for years, I can't come up with a reasonable answer. Well maybe. "We have more photos than anyone else", which is hardly a way to sell quality or useful images? Why did IS drop their standards? Of the top and middle listed with numbers, it seems that only AS has held up their head and demanded better quality.

Grossinger has set a personal goal and a mission, which is far better than someone shooting family gatherings, pets, flowers or whatever, and wondering why they only made a dollar in six months.

I stand behind him and his personal project. Let me be clear, I don't think that 10,000 images means he will make any sizable income, but I like his effort much better than people who have no clue, upload snapshots and expect to make money.

I also predict that he's going to see what sells, and start taking more of that kind of content. Unlike others who are close minded and stubborn, someone who goes out and works and learns, will become better a Microstock. That's the big difference.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2019, 08:34 »

The only explanation as far as I can see is they want to boast the largest portfolio and number of contributors. I think their strategy is wrong but I don't own shares and am a mere supplier and supply other agencies.

I actually feel sorry for those people desperate to earn money who are lured into submitting under the impression they will earn big money for their snaps.

Clair Voyant · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2019, 14:48 »

Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11

ashamed to collaborate to a company who accept this stuff.

sounds like what i said circa 2007 about IS and microstock in general. i have to keep reminding myself that the generation of having your work edited by an editor and rejected because it was not good enough is totally different from work inspected by an inspector generation and having nothing rejected is night and day.

the stock industry is a complete shame these days.

georgep7 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2019, 15:39 »

Having done a pass from Youtube madness and forums, I can justify the "easy money fever" and hordes of people with a camera in hand waiting to be the next Casey or something and only say this "lucky that there is the age and legal limitations in stock agencies and the whole stock forums and world is not flooded by 12 yrs old asking everyday the same and same crap on how to bypass by any means everything and everyone and be the next Stock Master.

:/

charged · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2019, 16:12 »

Why is Shutterstock accepting everything?

My first guess is that boasting the largest library is a good way to acquire new customers and keep existing ones. It seems to work for them, we just have to look at the monthly Microstock Poll to see that Shutterstock is the biggest earner for most contributors here, unless you are iStock exclusive.

My second guess is that even the crappiest photos will 'sometimes' find a buyer, not many buyers, but since the cost of photo storage is close to zero, why not accept the photo and get that sale. If we each look into our own portfolios, my guess is that we all have some crap photos from our early days that have sold a few times. Some people call this 'the long tail'.

My third guess is that the ultimate way to determine if an image will sell is by doing A/B testing. The search engine will constantly rotate new images into the front page of search results to see if attracts clicks and sales. If it does, it stays for a while. If it doesn't, it gets pushed down the rankings. This method removes the subjectivity and error prone opinions of human inspectors.

My fourth guess might be that it might actually be cheaper for Shutterstock to accept almost everything. Taking the time to analyze million of new submissions and decided if they fit some pre-determined standards can be costly on human time, thus labor costs. To accept almost everything, sort of cost almost nothing in human labor. Also Shutterstock no doubt knows that in the past some contributors will resubmit rejected images, because likely a different inspector will look at it and approve it second time around. So the net effect is that those files have cost Shutterstock twice as much labor cost to review.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 14, 2019, 00:28 »

Quote from: charged on July 13, 2019, 16:12

Why is Shutterstock accepting everything?

My first guess is that boasting the largest library is a good way to acquire new customers and keep existing ones. It seems to work for them, we just have to look at the monthly Microstock Poll to see that Shutterstock is the biggest earner for most contributors here, unless you are iStock exclusive.

My second guess is that even the crappiest photos will 'sometimes' find a buyer, not many buyers, but since the cost of photo storage is close to zero, why not accept the photo and get that sale. If we each look into our own portfolios, my guess is that we all have some crap photos from our early days that have sold a few times. Some people call this 'the long tail'.

My third guess is that the ultimate way to determine if an image will sell is by doing A/B testing. The search engine will constantly rotate new images into the front page of search results to see if attracts clicks and sales. If it does, it stays for a while. If it doesn't, it gets pushed down the rankings. This method removes the subjectivity and error prone opinions of human inspectors.

My fourth guess might be that it might actually be cheaper for Shutterstock to accept almost everything. Taking the time to analyze million of new submissions and decided if they fit some pre-determined standards can be costly on human time, thus labor costs. To accept almost everything, sort of cost almost nothing in human labor. Also Shutterstock no doubt knows that in the past some contributors will resubmit rejected images, because likely a different inspector will look at it and approve it second time around. So the net effect is that those files have cost Shutterstock twice as much labor cost to review.

I think that a good analysis of Shutterstock's thinking. The reasons. I think they are wrong is the cost of providing support to a huge number of contributors who generate little or no sales is huge which is why the are forced into outsourcing the service and crucially the belief that AI/search technology will ensure the buyers will have a good experience and not have to wade through the poor quality irrelevant images is mistaken.

I also believe that Shutterstock don't see their "bottom end" microstock business as where the growth is coming from. They see this in the large corporates who often pay a big premium not to have to wade through the site. Things like "offset" have a rigorous inspection/membership regime and a price to match.

Oringer is considerably richer than me...perhaps they are right but a few years back I thought SS had a great business now I see one full of holes and failing to deliver its growth targets.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2019, 08:47 »

It's probably something to fall back on at the shareholders meeting if other metrics aren't looking as rosy... "sure, we didn't quite hit our financial growth figures, but hey... we have 42 billion more images than we did last year!"

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2019, 09:51 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 13, 2019, 08:34

The only explanation as far as I can see is they want to boast the largest portfolio and number of contributors. I think their strategy is wrong but I don't own shares and am a mere supplier and supply other agencies.

I actually feel sorry for those people desperate to earn money who are lured into submitting under the impression they will earn big money for their snaps.

Yes to both.

I will say though, most people were and are lured in, not by SS or other agencies, but by other artists and people seeking to earn from referrals. That's the way it started. Now maybe social media, where people find "make money selling your photos" sound like it's going to be easy.

Years ago, some customer said, "why don't you start a blog, those people make good money?" Ha Ha, no different than a YouTube channel now. Many try only a small number succeed, yet the news and forums make it all look so easy. In the early years of Internet, you could actually make money on clicks, just having people look at your page or click an ad.

Times change, Microstock is not what it was. It is still difficult and content needs to be suitable and interesting. Yes as pretty much everyone here will have seen, week after week, there's someone new on this forum or some agency forum asking the same questions. (probably the same as I did in some form?)

How many photos do I need to make money? What should I shoot, what's best selling? What camera do I need. What agency is best... On and on. We can and do give basic answers, but in the end, each one of us, had to find our particular special interest or area that we found best. None of us can be everything.

If new people refuse to listen or study, that's where the agency should have monitored and limited access or at least poor quality Crapstock. That would have discouraged the wasted time and space for junk that will never make money. As a result support has been cut back, limited, inefficient because it's inundated with questions or complaints, from new people, who never took the time to see past "make money with your photos"!

New on SS, I think everyone here personally understand this.

All Images Must Meet Shutterstock Standards

Let’s get straight to the point- we are not looking for the selfies on your phone. We’re looking for content that customers around the world want to download and use for a wide variety of purposes. Before you upload an image, ask yourself “Can I see this being used by a company?” and “Where would this image be most likely to be used?” Every image that you submit should have a clear purpose and obvious use-case. My Bold

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/earning-money-stock-photography

Snapshots of the family, snaps of pets looking cute, most flower shots, or a goat in a field, are not something that has a clear purpose or obvious use. Staged or informative, documentary images of nature or animals, do meet the standards.

Something that there are already hundreds of thousands of that subject or concept, have little chance of breaking through and making money. Unless they stand out, are different, or exceptional. Same as the other 200 million images, the good ones = what makes money, needs to be above and beyond the usual and common.

SS must know this, I don't know why they accept filler. I don't think the scraps and terrible shots compete with mine. (even my own filler, doesn't compete with my own better images?) Every good image has a buyer, every trash Crapstock image, is destined to sit pages back in the search, wither and earn nothing.

Lets stop saying stockholders, do this or that, I own plenty of stock and have, I never once had a company ask me anything. Yes there are stockholder reports, but that's just numbers, earnings, projections. Stockholders didn't do any of this! Someone up top at SS did it. Just like someone or group at IS makes decisions, that aren't in our best interest, and sometimes seem like they are totally clueless.

They are a business, about making money and yes about stock value. They want to please customers and the last on the list after that and other factors is the artists. We are now down to producing a common commodity, and competition for the best images has gone to special agencies or premium collections. Not the general subscription portfolios.

Video has followed photos, which were followed by illustrations and vectors being good, but eventually dropping. Devalued, and over supplied, yet people around the world are still trying to make money, as the values and returns drop, year after year.

Next year will not be better than this year for most of us. Next June could be the worst June ever for many more people. The market is not growing for artists and earnings.

How is this possible? Photography, art, vectors, audio, video, many more parts have become a volume business, not a quality business for the agencies that distribute the same. They keep paying us less and still get supplied with too much content.

This is not a growth business for artists, it's is not something with long term return on our investment as many of us thought. It's not going to get better!

I'd say stop worrying about how the agencies do their business, or why. Forget figuring out how the search is biased, what other people upload, or who's entering the market with hopeless collections. Don't be distracted by imaginary caps, maps, placement, or other conspiracy leaning claims, which may or may not exist!

Maybe start thinking about how to deal with falling value and income and what we as individuals can do for ourselves. I'm no longer concerned or interested in areas and conditions that I can't alter or control. My job is work on what's best for myself and what might improve returns.

Or a least keep sales from falling off to absolutely unsustainable nothing.

alexandersr · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2019, 17:38 »

Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11

we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

then i read this indian miracle

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97689-are-people-really-earning-from-the-shutter-stock/

one dollar and he cannot believe why only one dollar?

can somebody explain why ss is accepting this stufff if not they want only sell images paying 0,25 cent instead 0,38?
personally i m getting ashamed to collaborate to a company who accept this stuff.

People believe to earn money from microstock is easy.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2019, 18:41 »

Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11

we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger's port is improving and have to admire his work-ethic. He'll realise soon that quality beats quantity any-day...but he's on a mission so there's no stopping this guy!

alexandersr · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2019, 20:10 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 14, 2019, 18:41

Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger's port is improving and have to admire his work-ethic. He'll realise soon that quality beats quantity any-day...but he's on a mission so there's no stopping this guy!

Who is Grossinger ? i saw the link above, and that man is not humble, he believes he is a rock star. Ten thousands of image like he has, that an easy task for everyone, just snapshots.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 15, 2019, 03:40 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 14, 2019, 18:41

Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger's port is improving and have to admire his work-ethic. He'll realise soon that quality beats quantity any-day...but he's on a mission so there's no stopping this guy!

I doubt he will realise anything as hes made his mind up already.

DavidK · « **Reply #13 on:** July 15, 2019, 05:55 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 15, 2019, 03:40

Quote from: Brasilnut on July 14, 2019, 18:41
Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger's port is improving and have to admire his work-ethic. He'll realise soon that quality beats quantity any-day...but he's on a mission so there's no stopping this guy!
I doubt he will realise anything as hes made his mind up already.

I don't know. I think I see a chink in the armour in his latest thread. He mentions he's going to assess things in December to see if it's worthwhile to continue. Could it be that 6 months into his marathon of futility sales are not exactly what he was hoping for? I think we all know the answer to that.

Alexadersr is right. This guy is not humble. Downright arrogant actually. He thinks he's a rockstar because people treat him like one. He even has groupies who act as surrogates defending his right to post whatever rubbish he wants to about others while not accepting any valid criticism of him or his approach. Most are newbies of course who don't know any better, but there are a handful of old timers claiming to admire his tenacity and maverick devil be damned attitude. Personally I think deep down most of them just want the very entertaining show to continue.

John Maria Meyer · « **Reply #14 on:** July 15, 2019, 07:05 »

Quote

Maybe start thinking about how to deal with falling value and income and what we as individuals can do for ourselves. I'm no longer concerned or interested in areas and conditions that I can't alter or control. My job is work on what's best for myself and what might improve returns.

I don't wanna hijack this thread, but what Uncle Pete said opens up this whole discussion as it seems so valid for many other sectors and professions. It's actually super ironic in this context but the massive decline of income in my family's sector (they are farmers) is what brought me to stock footage. (We wanna produce some good and not so used up farm footage together and split the income.)

I agree very much on what Uncle Pete says about the necessity to think about ways to handle valing value and income (outside the box of usual "coping mechanism", obviously). However, I don't know if it's wise to stop being concerned about the professional, "market" or company made conditions influencing one's respective work environment and income situation.

Also:

Quote

Snapshots of the family, snaps of pets looking cute

Guess I should change my avatar then. Not to speak from the first few clips I'm currently uploading

Pauws99 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 15, 2019, 07:38 »

I think you can be concerned. But in the end you need to decide if you can change, it accept it or look at other ways of earning a crust. To bang on about the injustice for years doesn't really help.

In the UK the successful farmers have diversified into direct retail (farm shops), using their land for fishing, shooting etc. If a were a professional doing this for a living I would be looking elsewhere. For example, in the UK and I guess many other wealthy countries people are prepared to pay what I consider silly amounts to be taught how to use a simple camera. Stock photography started as a back up for the lean times when more valuable commissioned work couldn't be found. The last 15 years were the anomaly.

Clair Voyant · « **Reply #16 on:** July 15, 2019, 09:07 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 15, 2019, 07:38

Stock photography started as a back up for the lean times when more valuable commissioned work couldn't be found. The last 15 years were the anomaly.

My recollection is quiet different... I have been shooting stock pre Getty Images for what were once really great agencies. Back in the days of photography when you actually had usage fees based on print runs, space rate, and rights granted. Oh hang on here, that even preceeds Royalty Free... Not to get nostalgic but if my memory serves me correct if you actually had a honed craft and were techincally proficient in photography there were hardly days without commissioned work, it was really all based on your skill level... unlike today. Stock was also very much the same, you could make extra income from an image that you still retained the rights for and/or commissioned yourself, and the buyers would pay a very handsome fee for usage in lieu of paying for a commissioned shoot, and again it was all based on rights granted etc. If you were seriously good at what you did, you could make a very good living at shooting stock, and if you were not quite that good yet, and editor would reject you. The standard back then were rigid as can be in a generation that rejection was normal.

I look at what stock has become and the rates paid for usage of images is not sustainable at all. These days it is not even worth to upload anything to any agency unless it is an incidental photograph, and even then that is barely worth it. Even Getty Images in nothing more than a microstock agency with the crap rates paid from Premium Access.

dragonblade · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2019, 10:17 »

Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11

can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger has a strong work ethic with over 3000 photos in his port in such a short space of time. It would have taken me much longer to build up a port of that size.

jonbull · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2019, 10:28 »

Quote from: dragonblade on July 15, 2019, 10:17

Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11
can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...

Grossinger once admitted on the SS forum that when he had over 3000 photos in his port, he had made less than $100. I wouldn't exactly call that impressive for a port of that size.

this guy is a joke of nature...and those who admire hm have portfolio even more mediocre and probably not even manage to reach 10 dollar a months. those people probably suffer off solitude...they need those joke forum to fill their day because really i cannot understand spending time to earn a bunch of dollar and complaint that their 400 hundreds terrible photos don't sell everyday...another to follow is the desperate marbury king of doom and gloom thread,

sometimes i ask myself if they troll or really are surprised not to sell andy photos.
but the problem i m feeling ashamed to contribute to the same agency of those people. it's really depressing.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #19 on:** July 15, 2019, 10:54 »

Quote from: Amelie on July 15, 2019, 07:05

Quote
Maybe start thinking about how to deal with falling value and income and what we as individuals can do for ourselves. I'm no longer concerned or interested in areas and conditions that I can't alter or control. My job is work on what's best for myself and what might improve returns.

I don't wanna hijack this thread, but what Uncle Pete said opens up this whole discussion as it seems so valid for many other sectors and professions. It's actually super ironic in this context but the massive decline of income in my family's sector (they are farmers) is what brought me to stock footage. (We wanna produce some good and not so used up farm footage together and split the income.)

I agree very much on what Uncle Pete says about the necessity to think about ways to handle valing value and income (outside the box of usual "coping mechanism", obviously). However, I don't know if it's wise to stop being concerned about the professional, "market" or company made conditions influencing one's respective work environment and income situation.

Also:

Quote
Snapshots of the family, snaps of pets looking cute

Guess I should change my avatar then. Not to speak from the first few clips I'm currently uploading

You can do anything you want, for whatever reasons you think are best, I'm just observing and rambling.

Mostly answering the reasons why I think, SS and the rest have lost their minds, and are accepting anything.

I'm not doing this for the income, although what I make, I do use for equipment. I also have found the challenge and getting my images out, for profit, to be rewarding. Lucky me I have multiple other sources of income. I'd hate to depend on Microstock, it's just so unreliable and always changing and returns are lower every year.

I also had my own business. Like farm producers, the market is tougher with competition growing and expanding. Some are just cutting prices which also hurts. My former business, which I keep alive, but is hardly producing income, relied on manufacturing plants as customers. They left the sate, moved South, some left the country, wen't offshore, and others went out of business. Overall, my problem is, almost no customer left in my territory.

To Others:

Yes I defended Grossinger for having a commitment and working towards his personal goal. I've already written back and forth to him and he understands the views of others who have said (roughly) number of images won't make you money. He's decided what he's going to do, and how and, that long freight train has left the station and is full steam ahead. Don't stand in the way?

Also just because one of us experts says, "you're wrong" doesn't mean he can't decide he wants to find out for himself. For that reason, I now support him, instead of trying to beat him down, like some others can't seem to get over their way or no way?

A person can take advice, even when they aren't asking for it, or ignore that advice. All any of us can do is be honest and give a person the facts as we see them and let them decide on their own. I don't tell other people how to run their business or life, I have enough to do, working on my own. But I will speak out and give my opinions. Take em or leave them, I don't care.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #20 on:** July 15, 2019, 11:18 »

Quote from: jonbull on July 15, 2019, 10:28

this guy is a joke of nature...and those who admire hm have portfolio even more mediocre and probably not even manage to reach 10 dollar a months. those people probably suffer off solitude...they need those joke forum to fill their day because really i cannot understand spending time to earn a bunch of dollar and complaint that their 400 hundreds terrible photos don't sell everyday...another to follow is the desperate marbury king of doom and gloom thread,

sometimes i ask myself if they troll or really are surprised not to sell andy photos.
but the problem i m feeling ashamed to contribute to the same agency of those people. it's really depressing.

I think you would be surprised at how wrong you are with you personal insult and attacks. on some people who support and are friends with Grossinger. You might want to look again at who his friends are and what they shoot and sell.

Yeah, to the last part I wasn't ever going to mention him by name. (he's got a different name here) There are so many others like him, who just suffer and can't see what buyers want is not what they shoot. Like the guy with 700 photos and $1 in DLs. WOW! I thought I was terrible.

I think the problem is, new people come and think this is easy money, or upload and someone will buy them, or buyers want "art". All are wrong. I'm repeating this, not for you, but the legion of Doom and gloom. If an image doesn't have a clear use, message or is of something that a buyer wants or can use to illustrate... it's probably never going to make any sales. EVER!

If someone shoots what sells best, same as the other 10 thousand of the same subject, it's probably going to get buried and never make a sale. The subject is covered.

If you are shooting natural light with a cell phone or walking around with a P&S or pocket camera, snapping whatever, you probably aren't going to make much at all, because the competition is planning, thinking and using better equipment to make bigger, better, sharper and smarter images.

That and the market is still falling, for us the contributors and artists.

Quote from: dragonblade on July 15, 2019, 10:17

Grossinger once admitted on the SS forum that when he had over 3000 photos in his port, he had made less than $100. I wouldn't exactly call that impressive for a port of that size.

Old old, he's over 6,000 now, photos and video, as in 1,000 new images a month. I have no information on earnings, not my business. I want to see what happens after a year, so until then...

Quote from: Clair Voyant on July 15, 2019, 09:07

Oh hang on here, that even preceeds Royalty Free... Not to get nostalgic but if my memory serves me correct if you actually had a honed craft and were techincally proficient in photography there were hardly days without commissioned work, it was really all based on your skill level... unlike today.

I look at what stock has become and the rates paid for usage of images is not sustainable at all. These days it is not even worth to upload anything to any agency unless it is an incidental photograph, and even then that is barely worth it.

So true and was a closed shop. But more than subscriptions, Royality Free killed the market for us. Also global market, Internet and computers.

Now anyone with a camera can sell what they shoot and get piss poor licensing, which cuts into more professional photographers, paid income from their hard work and skills. Photos are no longer a skilled production or art, they are a commodity.

Clair Voyant · « **Reply #21 on:** July 15, 2019, 11:43 »

^^^^^^

Uncle Pete... It was never a closed shop, ever. You either passed a jury of editors or you did not, but closed it never was. You either had the goods or you did not. And if you did not have the goods, they rejected you - simple as that. I got rejected a few times and finally got my quality up and got accepted. All it took was a lot of hard work, skill, ability in ones craft etc. Simply put, they did not just take anybody unless you had game. Is the NHL or NFL or PGA a closed shop? Nope.

John Maria Meyer · « **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2019, 12:27 »

Quote

I think you can be concerned. But in the end you need to decide if you can change, it accept it or look at other ways of earning a crust. To bang on about the injustice for years doesn't really help.

@Pauws99: So true. I guess I was implying to be / get active when talking about being concerned. In whatever way.

Quote from: Clair Voyant on July 15, 2019, 11:43

You either had the goods or you did not. And if you did not have the goods, they rejected you - simple as that. I got rejected a few times and finally got my quality up and got accepted. All it took was a lot of hard work, skill, ability in ones craft etc. Simply put, they did not just take anybody unless you had game.

@Clair Voyant: But in a way, this is still valid today, no? Though it's not the platforms anymore who reject producers with low quality products but the customers themselves. By just not buying the products. Unless they (the products) are good and relevant and as Uncle Pete put it, have a clear message. The problem I see (as a Newbie with hardly no experience, whoopsie) seems rather to become visible with good stuff in this flood of images and footage. So even if one puts hard work into it, it doesn't mean (anymore?) that it pays off. Cause it won't be seen, literally.

EDIT: Ah, just understood sth... the reason for good work having hard times becoming visible is cause platforms are accepting everything. Yes yes yes, here we are again at the beginning of this thread.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 15, 2019, 13:47 »

Quote from: Amelie on July 15, 2019, 12:27

Quote
@Clair Voyant: But in a way, this is still valid today, no? Though it's not the platforms anymore who reject producers with low quality products but the customers themselves. By just not buying the products. Unless they (the products) are good and relevant and as Uncle Pete put it, have a clear message. The problem I see (as a Newbie with hardly no experience, whoopsie) seems rather to become visible with good stuff in this flood of images and footage. So even if one puts hard work into it, it doesn't mean (anymore?) that it pays off. Cause it won't be seen, literally.

To make money at Microstock now you still have to be very good...the difference being the skills needed are in marketing and business being an excellent photographer not so much.

csm · « **Reply #24 on:** July 15, 2019, 15:36 »

Makes me laugh, what most people submit, and what agents put on their front page or social media pages are two different things.

I think a prerequisite of whether an image being accepted would be whether it could be shown on an agents social media page.

How different would an agents Instagram feed look like if it was filled with images like the ones from this contributor or ones like it?

cascoly · « **Reply #25 on:** July 15, 2019, 19:13 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 15, 2019, 10:54

….
I'm not doing this for the income, although what I make, I do use for equipment. I also have found the challenge and getting my images out, for profit, to be rewarding. Lucky me I have multiple other sources of income. I'd hate to depend on Microstock, it's just so unreliable and always changing and returns are lower every year.

I also had my own business. Like farm producers, the market is tougher with competition growing and expanding. …

similar to my experience - shareware of the 80s-90s was overtaken by MS windows providing many of the special features our work covered (eg a multitasking app for DOS that let you copy part of your text screen and merge into another doc). I designed multiplayer online games for 15-20 years before being overtaken by Hollywood blockbusters with budgets in the millions.

I've been active in stock since the 70's and had some of the first CD royalty free products, soon overtaken by microstock.

I've always made my living by dancing among the elephants - finding my niche while preserving my life choices - retired, now, MS provides for several 4 wk foreign trips each year

John Maria Meyer · « **Reply #26 on:** July 16, 2019, 10:34 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 15, 2019, 13:47

Quote from: Amelie on July 15, 2019, 12:27
Quote
@Clair Voyant: But in a way, this is still valid today, no? Though it's not the platforms anymore who reject producers with low quality products but the customers themselves. By just not buying the products. Unless they (the products) are good and relevant and as Uncle Pete put it, have a clear message. The problem I see (as a Newbie with hardly no experience, whoopsie) seems rather to become visible with good stuff in this flood of images and footage. So even if one puts hard work into it, it doesn't mean (anymore?) that it pays off. Cause it won't be seen, literally.

To make money at Microstock now you still have to be very good...the difference being the skills needed are in marketing and business being an excellent photographer not so much.

Hm...I don't quite get this. Can u explain?

As a contributor on SS, Pond5, wherever, I'm one of many. How could I market my portfolio to customers who are buying there? If not by providing good quality footage or images with good keywording to show up fast in the search results - at least when looking for "best match" stuff. Showing up in the "popular" search is harder to influence, I suppose.

Don't think customers are following any contributors' facebook pages so it hardly makes sense to me to follow eg. Pond5's advice and "share my Artist Page on social media, forums, and personal websites". Or is anyone doing that and having (more) sales bc of that?

The only fee marketing strategies to draw the attention of customers to my port (I can think of rn) are all platform related. Like showing up in the staff picks. Or writing a blog post for a platform.

That's why I'm wondering: if the skill of a business / marketing person in the stock world is more needed than the skill of a photographer or videographer, how and where to apply that skill?

DavidK · « **Reply #27 on:** July 16, 2019, 11:24 »

Marketing and business skills are essential in knowing what and how to shoot rather than just shooting something well. The poke and hope approach just won't cut it anymore. Gone are the days of one or two good RM sales covering the cost of a shoot and then some. Nowadays with returns so low it's all about volume, and to maintain volume you need to understand what marketers want today and also be able to anticipate what they might need tomorrow. You have to stay not just on top of trends but also ahead of them. That takes business savvy, not lighting skills.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #28 on:** July 16, 2019, 13:41 »

Quote from: Clair Voyant on July 15, 2019, 11:43

^^^^^^

Uncle Pete... It was never a closed shop, ever. You either passed a jury of editors or you did not, but closed it never was. You either had the goods or you did not. And if you did not have the goods, they rejected you - simple as that. I got rejected a few times and finally got my quality up and got accepted. All it took was a lot of hard work, skill, ability in ones craft etc. Simply put, they did not just take anybody unless you had game. Is the NHL or NFL or PGA a closed shop? Nope.

When the reply is, "We are not accepting any new photographers with this type of material." That's as good as closed to me.

When some places required 500 slides to be considered, that's pretty closed.

Let me say, I would rather have Microstock, or the good sites, at least hold the standards of before 2010. But that's history and we can't expect any change. RF is a degrading kind of license.

I think the lower standards make the collections look terrible and lower the buyers and public impression of what we do. Thus the perceived value. This low standard might make finding our images more difficult, but I don't see weak and horrid images as competition, just a distraction.

Quote from: cascoly on July 15, 2019, 19:13

I've always made my living by dancing among the elephants - finding my niche while preserving my life choices - retired, now, MS provides for several 4 wk foreign trips each year

Right, find a niche, do something different. I decided to shoot what I enjoyed the most. I admit that others who depend on the income or feel that earnings are the measure of their value, will have a different viewpoint.

Last I checked, I will never be retired, but working four jobs or more doesn't mean I have no time for doing what I like. I bought a Macgregor 25 sailboat last year, it has yet to be in the water. I think I should have started smaller? My latest camera and lenses cost more than the boat... photos at least make some returns.

A day at the races, is a working vacation for me.

georgep7 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 16, 2019, 13:59 »

...and saiboats do great returns!

...a few days later....

..returning...

...to the harbour...

...if you put them into water...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #30 on:** July 16, 2019, 18:28 »

Marketing is about more than selling and publicising. In particular for contributors its about market research and placing your product where it will generate most income. Producing fantastic images if there is no demand for them or you are trying to sell them in the wrong place is pointless. From the wider business perspective one of the key things is understanding and controlling costs.

John Maria Meyer · « **Reply #31 on:** July 17, 2019, 02:43 »

Thanks @Pauws99 and DavidK for your thoughts on marketing. That helps, I really had a different perpective on it and didn't think about marketing this way. Guess it's actually saying a lot about my background but let's not psychologize this

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 16, 2019, 13:41

Right, find a niche, do something different. I decided to shoot what I enjoyed the most. I admit that others who depend on the income or feel that earnings are the measure of their value, will have a different viewpoint. [...]

Sounds like a good plan to me. The hard part here is to manage doing sth different AND meeting a market demand at the same time. Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income, it's definitely a factor. Like when the milk price in Europe was so low that farmers spilled their milk on their fields rather than selling it. They didn't only protest against dumping wages but also fought for their self confidence that they felt was under attack by those low prices.

Sorry for the farming interlude, just thought it might be a good example that fit the Stock World, too...? Hard to spill images and footage on fields, though.

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 16, 2019, 18:28

[...] In particular for contributors its about market research and placing your product where it will generate most income. Producing fantastic images if there is no demand for them or you are trying to sell them in the wrong place is pointless.[...]

Where would you do market research? It obviously will depend on your products, but like - watching ads on social media and following the trends in your specific niche...is that marketing research already? What else are you doing? Like contacting companies about what images they need? Or even YouTuber-style "Hello, sponsor me"...??

Pauws99 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 17, 2019, 03:04 »

Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-). I only do this for fun. If I was looking to earn a full living I would look on myself as an "image creator" I think these days "stock photographer" is too narrow a focus to make a living for most.

" Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income". Its not the only measure but if you are in this as a business its essential otherwise its a hobby which it is for me. As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #33 on:** July 17, 2019, 15:01 »

Quote from: georgep7 on July 16, 2019, 13:59

...and saiboats do great returns!

...a few days later....

..returning...

...to the harbour...

...if you put them into water...

AKA a floating hole in the water that you pour money into.

Two happiest days for a boat owner, the day they buy it and the best is the day they sell it.

I still think I can make some skyline shots from the water? And maybe lighthouses. HA HA, dreamer.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #34 on:** July 17, 2019, 15:17 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 17, 2019, 03:04

Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-). I only do this for fun. If I was looking to earn a full living I would look on myself as an "image creator" I think these days "stock photographer" is too narrow a focus to make a living for most.

" Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income". Its not the only measure but if you are in this as a business its essential otherwise its a hobby which it is for me. As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.

Expenses, since you asked, I don't sell enough on Microstock to pay for the gas or hotel room for a weekend shooting at the races. I do make more on scenery or historic sites going and coming, than I do from sports photos.

I know this is kind of avoiding the true financial side, but I'd have all this gear, cameras and lenses, even if I never uploaded one stock photo. I can rationalize that expense which is actually ignoring that it's still a real expense?

For someone who's in this for the money, the perspective is different. Every cost fee and expense is deducted from earnings to find real profit. I'm not doing this for recognition or an ego boost. That leaves hobby. I thinkproducing Microstock images costs me more than I get back.

Time... that's a cost of doing business? Editing, keywording, data, uploading, submitting.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 17, 2019, 15:57 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 17, 2019, 15:17

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 17, 2019, 03:04
Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-). I only do this for fun. If I was looking to earn a full living I would look on myself as an "image creator" I think these days "stock photographer" is too narrow a focus to make a living for most.

" Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income". Its not the only measure but if you are in this as a business its essential otherwise its a hobby which it is for me. As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.

Expenses, since you asked, I don't sell enough on Microstock to pay for the gas or hotel room for a weekend shooting at the races. I do make more on scenery or historic sites going and coming, than I do from sports photos.

I know this is kind of avoiding the true financial side, but I'd have all this gear, cameras and lenses, even if I never uploaded one stock photo. I can rationalize that expense which is actually ignoring that it's still a real expense?

For someone who's in this for the money, the perspective is different. Every cost fee and expense is deducted from earnings to find real profit. I'm not doing this for recognition or an ego boost. That leaves hobby. I thinkproducing Microstock images costs me more than I get back.

Time... that's a cost of doing business? Editing, keywording, data, uploading, submitting.

The cost of your time is really about "opportunity cost" what activity are you forgoing to do that work. If its lying in bed, writing on discussion boards ;-). Its zero. It may be negative if its avoiding on line gaming, visiting bars etc. Or the cost of giving up a career.

John Maria Meyer · « **Reply #36 on:** July 18, 2019, 02:37 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 17, 2019, 03:04

Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-) [...]

Ha, congrats to the canvas story, really like that

One more question on marketing strategies - so your advice above mainly refers to stock images. I guess it's applicable to stock footage, too? At least to some extend. Videos is art galleries hardly sell... Anything else you'd do when talking about marketing strategies specificly for stock footage?

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 17, 2019, 03:04

[...] As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.

Thanks for sharing this! Actually, the question of work costs that are not properly covered by the work's income is what brought me to stock footage. Let's see how that goes for me. Or rather for us - I'm not doing this alone which helps reducing the costs.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 17, 2019, 15:17

Time... that's a cost of doing business? Editing, keywording, data, uploading, submitting.

I'd say, yes, it's a cost

The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!

rodmacpherson · « **Reply #37 on:** July 21, 2019, 15:02 »

The explanation I think fits for the fellow from India is that India is a market where SS is still learning what will sell and what won't.

I think that it has only been fairly recently that very many people from India started contributing to SS and they are still hungry for anything.

memakephoto · « **Reply #38 on:** July 22, 2019, 21:22 »

Quote from: rodmacpherson on July 21, 2019, 15:02

The explanation I think fits for the fellow from India is that India is a market where SS is still learning what will sell and what won't.

I think that it has only been fairly recently that very many people from India started contributing to SS and they are still hungry for anything.

I don't know if I believe that but for the sake of argument let's say not many from India are contributing. So? Would you eat garbage if you were hungry? If I was stuck in the desert for 2 weeks I might eat anything, but that's desperation. Why would SS be so desperate they would take such obviously low quality images?

Bottom line is this is not how you compete long term.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 23, 2019, 10:26 »

Quote from: rodmacpherson on July 21, 2019, 15:02

The explanation I think fits for the fellow from India is that India is a market where SS is still learning what will sell and what won't.

I think that it has only been fairly recently that very many people from India started contributing to SS and they are still hungry for anything.

I suspect that there is little demand in India for images and a very rapidly growing supply so its going to be hard to earn from "indian" focused images. Potentially its a big market and maybe someone who really understands it could do well.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 29, 2019, 10:41 »

Quote from: jonbull on July 15, 2019, 10:28

Quote from: dragonblade on July 15, 2019, 10:17
Quote from: jonbull on July 13, 2019, 07:11
can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...
Grossinger once admitted on the SS forum that when he had over 3000 photos in his port, he had made less than $100. I wouldn't exactly call that impressive for a port of that size.

this guy is a joke of nature...and those who admire hm have portfolio even more mediocre and probably not even manage to reach 10 dollar a months. those people probably suffer off solitude...they need those joke forum to fill their day because really i cannot understand spending time to earn a bunch of dollar and complaint that their 400 hundreds terrible photos don't sell everyday...another to follow is the desperate marbury king of doom and gloom thread,

sometimes i ask myself if they troll or really are surprised not to sell andy photos.
but the problem i m feeling ashamed to contribute to the same agency of those people. it's really depressing.

Take a look at his most recent post. I think hes beginning to realise the futility of what hes doing.

jonbull · « **Reply #41 on:** July 29, 2019, 16:43 »

yes i was reading today and he wrote that has not even reached the 500 dollar threshold...probably in october end...so it's probably not even near 350dollar in near a year uploading with 7000 files...and most of his sale are from the wall story between mexico env usa....so when those photos will not be so important the rest of his portfolio is worth like the paper i clean my a....s....after popo.

what make m laugh it's that he is not even humble to say i'm sorry my experiment is a complete failure...he say he's selling something,...ahahah....the problem this zillions of portfolio like that are that they hide good content especially new.

jonbull · « **Reply #42 on:** July 29, 2019, 16:49 »

At the risk of starting another argument because people can't read, don't want to understand or whatever I feel that stock photography is not art photography, that to make money you have to be fast and above all you have to produce many images. Now watch a bunch of rubes come along and argue this point.
The great and most excellent photographer Phil Lowe himself states that he does not do stock photography. Why he peddles his masterpieces at 33 cents a copy I don't understand but to each his or her own.
I do stock. I'm learning to quickly produce images that sell. They are not art. They are stock.
People with piddly ports of less than 1000 images, especially less than 500 images should not even comment. How do they know anything about stock? Well, the fact that they have small ports proves they don't know stock.
So, yeah, I'm not taking those kinds of pictures anymore because they are too hard to do, take too much time and maybe bring in a quarter and maybe not. Like your pictures geogif. Good work.

one that wrote this idiot stuff should be put in siberian jail....not only he is a miserable failure..he stil thinks to be on the right track...

he should ask what this guy tell about his word

https://it.fotolia.com/p/202483008

a guy that has sold only in fotolia more than 250000 images and probably much much more,....with only 2000 images...ok he started when the golden era was at its peak...but still selling like crazy and uploading probably not even 100 foot per year.

cascoly · « **Reply #43 on:** July 29, 2019, 16:51 »

Quote from: Amelie on July 18, 2019, 02:37

I'd say, yes, it's a cost The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!

another name for it is net present value, used in finance https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv.asp

for stock we each have to decide what our time is worth

Pauws99 · « **Reply #44 on:** July 30, 2019, 01:37 »

Quote from: cascoly on July 29, 2019, 16:51

Quote from: Amelie on July 18, 2019, 02:37

I'd say, yes, it's a cost The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!

another name for it is net present value, used in finance https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv.asp

for stock we each have to decide what our time is worth

Related but not the same thing NPV is a way of measuring the value of an investment taking into account interest rates (or cost of capital). ie if you give me £100 now its worth more than giving me, say 110 in 5 years as I could stick it in an interest bearing account and get more. Its a more sophisticated method than the "payback period" i.e If I spend $3000 on a camera how many years will it be before I earn it back (I wish). One of the difficulties in stock is knowing what the future value of our Port is. Personally I think anyone thinking it will fund their retirement for more than 5 years at best is being optimistic.

BalkanskiMacak · « **Reply #45 on:** July 30, 2019, 08:35 »

TBH, I don't even see why we should be preoccupied by such mediocre examples, because they are not really a threat to people doing stock seriously.

On one side, the guy complaining about the sales is very likely to abandon pretty fast. Most of his pictures, due to his low skills in photo taking, editing and keywording, won't even be visible.

On the other side, that dear Grossinger seems to miss a lot of points about stock and algorithm. He's focused on volume, on which he's partially true. You need a lot of pictures, indeed, it is a major parameter. In the end, however, he does not understand that he's drowning his statistics and that most of his pictures will go down the rankings pretty fast, once they won't be anymore that "fresh". We can see pretty easily that he's not doing very well: when I search the query "grossinger shutterstock" on Google for last week's results, I can find only two uses of his pictures. It's just a sample, as many websites won't credit photographers nor agencies. In the same time, when I perform the same query for my Shutterstock name, I find three times more uses, while my portfolio on SS is two to three times smaller.

So, to summarize, he's pretty irritating, because he pretends to know everything on stock while being on purpose on a single platform (he posted somewhere else: "Yep, I'm taking and submitting as many images as I can and have little time for other activity. So I don't waste my time on other agencies when I can use that time right here on Shutterstock to submit more images."), offering uninteresting pictures and missing out essential points of market strategy. However, I don't see him as a threat, given he doesn't seem to question himself.

These kind of contributors, however, are much more a threat to Shutterstock, that is hosting non valuable assets on its servers, but I will gladly let these corporate vultures (SS) deal with it, given that, in the end, such examples of newbies won't do me real harm.

trek · « **Reply #46 on:** July 30, 2019, 10:37 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 30, 2019, 01:37

Quote from: cascoly on July 29, 2019, 16:51
Quote from: Amelie on July 18, 2019, 02:37

I'd say, yes, it's a cost The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!

another name for it is net present value, used in finance https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv.asp

for stock we each have to decide what our time is worth
Related but not the same thing NPV is a way of measuring the value of an investment taking into account interest rates (or cost of capital). ie if you give me £100 now its worth more than giving me, say 110 in 5 years as I could stick it in an interest bearing account and get more. Its a more sophisticated method than the "payback period" i.e If I spend $3000 on a camera how many years will it be before I earn it back (I wish). One of the difficulties in stock is knowing what the future value of our Port is. Personally I think anyone thinking it will fund their retirement for more than 5 years at best is being optimistic.

My portfolio's return per shot is half what it was three years ago. I don't see anything on the horizon that will stop the overall decline in the "commodity price" of photography. Portfolio size growth helps but in the end... Wanna be retirees and full timers need to factor a steep angle of decline into future plans.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #47 on:** July 30, 2019, 23:02 »

Quote from: trek on July 30, 2019, 10:37

My portfolio's return per shot is half what it was three years ago. I don't see anything on the horizon that will stop the overall decline in the "commodity price" of photography. Portfolio size growth helps but in the end... Wanna be retirees and full timers need to factor a steep angle of decline into future plans.

1) Don't quit your day job quite yet?
2) Don't bank on Microstock income having a long term profitable future.
3) When someone is selling a commodity, price is more important than quality. (that's sad, but true, many of us work very hard at this and we are paid insulting low prices)
4) You are correct, the decline hasn't stopped. Things will get much worse, before they go flat. I keep hoping the decline will stop soon. There is no better.
5) More agencies need to drop out, before we see a leveling off of the market and values.

Quote from: jonbull on July 29, 2019, 16:49

At the risk of starting another argument because people can't read, don't want to understand or whatever I feel that stock photography is not art photography, that to make money you have to be fast and above all you have to produce many images. Now watch a bunch of rubes come along and argue this point.

I can read and your argument ends with, anyone who disagrees is some kind of rube, as you insult any disagreement. Oh you are so wonderful, in your own mind?

Trying to put people down, so they won't disagree? Rather insulting for someone of your highest caliber and super intelligence above all the rest of us? Can you write without unnecessary preemptive personal attacks?

Right, stock is not an art, it's stock. Making images that buyers want is the game. Niche market, stand out, different, expressive, I agree, and there are so many other ways to say the same. But yes, this is not art, except for the art of making descriptive, useful, or visual statements in images.

I don't know what your cause is, or why you must attack Grossinger, but your arrogance and attitude is totally self serving. He's doing his "thing" you do yours. You don't get to tell me or anyone else how we should run our own business or what we should be doing. If he finds out that numbers aren't the answer, let him figure that out on his own, just like others who shoot goats or ducks or junk yards and haven't discovered, they don't make any sales, because there's no demand.

It's not your job or privileged to be hounding someone you disagree with, he's doing you no harm.

By the way, you miss that many people here and there, took far more than 10 months, even in the "good old days" to make $500. I seem to recall some that are forum regulars on SS that took years. Your constant picking at Grossinger suggests there's some other motivation, because you don't use the same standards for anyone else.

What's the point of your targeted attack and picking at one specific person?

jonbull · « **Reply #48 on:** July 31, 2019, 04:58 »

Its ana rrogant man who doesnt have a clue what ge’is talking avout... serial spammer the worar sanple of whwre thisnindustrybhas gone nowadays. And indoubt he’is even near 500 dollar. A lot of people in the beginning had very few images in 10’months considering the 10 week limit.... he has 7000 images and doesnt sell practicalky nothing despite he thought he is tactic would have made himnprobably much much more

DavidK · « **Reply #49 on:** July 31, 2019, 05:01 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 30, 2019, 23:02

Quote from: trek on July 30, 2019, 10:37
My portfolio's return per shot is half what it was three years ago. I don't see anything on the horizon that will stop the overall decline in the "commodity price" of photography. Portfolio size growth helps but in the end... Wanna be retirees and full timers need to factor a steep angle of decline into future plans.

1) Don't quit your day job quite yet?
2) Don't bank on Microstock income having a long term profitable future.
3) When someone is selling a commodity, price is more important than quality. (that's sad, but true, many of us work very hard at this and we are paid insulting low prices)
4) You are correct, the decline hasn't stopped. Things will get much worse, before they go flat. I keep hoping the decline will stop soon. There is no better.
5) More agencies need to drop out, before we see a leveling off of the market and values.

Quote from: jonbull on July 29, 2019, 16:49
At the risk of starting another argument because people can't read, don't want to understand or whatever I feel that stock photography is not art photography, that to make money you have to be fast and above all you have to produce many images. Now watch a bunch of rubes come along and argue this point.

I can read and your argument ends with, anyone who disagrees is some kind of rube, as you insult any disagreement. Oh you are so wonderful, in your own mind? Trying to put people down, so they won't disagree? Rather insulting for someone of your highest caliber and super intelligence above all the rest of us? Can you write without unnecessary preemptive personal attacks?

Right, stock is not an art, it's stock. Making images that buyers want is the game. Niche market, stand out, different, expressive, I agree, and there are so many other ways to say the same. But yes, this is not art, except for the art of making descriptive, useful, or visual statements in images.

I don't know what your cause is, or why you must attack Grossinger, but your arrogance and attitude is totally self serving. He's doing his "thing" you do yours. You don't get to tell me or anyone else how we should run our own business or what we should be doing. If he finds out that numbers aren't the answer, let him figure that out on his own, just like others who shoot goats or ducks or junk yards and haven't discovered, they don't make any sales, because there's no demand.

It's not your job or privileged to be hounding someone you disagree with, he's doing you no harm.

By the way, you miss that many people here and there, took far more than 10 months, even in the "good old days" to make $500. I seem to recall some that are forum regulars on SS that took years. Your constant picking at Grossinger suggests there's some other motivation, because you don't use the same standards for anyone else.

What's the point of your targeted attack and picking at one specific person?

Funny. The irony here is that is a quote from wonderboy himself, not jonbull. So if you ask me you've already answered your own question. Grossinger deserves it.

Hopefully your little hiccup will open your eyes to what Joe is really about.

ShadySue · « **Reply #50 on:** July 31, 2019, 06:07 »

I can't see that it's worth wasting any energy worrying about that bloke who will sink or swim according to the market. And I've seen much worse.

Though I don't care a fig about SS, I do find it worrying that 'owenr¹ osemarie' is still rapidly uploading stolen images with false captions.

A recent example:
"Tokyo/JAPAN- 06/25/2019 Tokyo 2020, Olympic site construction in process"
https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/tokyojapan-06252019-tokyo-2020-olympic-site-1458093296?src=44wCe6aCMzHL4z_jRXBESg-1-80

Seems to be lifted from Getty:
"MONTREAL, QC - NOVEMBER 18: An aerial view of Olympic Stadium and the Biodome and Saputo Stadium and Olympic Park and Olympic Village are seen from above on November 18, 2012 in Montreal, Quebec. (Photo by Tom Szczerbowski/Getty Images)"
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/an-aerial-view-of-olympic-stadium-and-the-biodome-and-news-photo/156799098

I've reported it to Getty, but as I'm not the original author, it'll be informative to see if they'll take any action. Except that we'll never know.

¹ Do you think owenr is a coded indication that he's not the owner?
(More likely it's a typo for Rosemarie Owen)

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #51 on:** July 31, 2019, 09:36 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 31, 2019, 06:07

I can't see that it's worth wasting any energy worrying about that bloke who will sink or swim according to the market. And I've seen much worse.

Though I don't care a fig about SS, I do find it worrying that 'owenr¹ osemarie' is still rapidly uploading stolen images with false captions.

A recent example:
"Tokyo/JAPAN- 06/25/2019 Tokyo 2020, Olympic site construction in process"
https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/tokyojapan-06252019-tokyo-2020-olympic-site-1458093296?src=44wCe6aCMzHL4z_jRXBESg-1-80

Seems to be lifted from Getty:
"MONTREAL, QC - NOVEMBER 18: An aerial view of Olympic Stadium and the Biodome and Saputo Stadium and Olympic Park and Olympic Village are seen from above on November 18, 2012 in Montreal, Quebec. (Photo by Tom Szczerbowski/Getty Images)"
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/an-aerial-view-of-olympic-stadium-and-the-biodome-and-news-photo/156799098

I've reported it to Getty, but as I'm not the original author, it'll be informative to see if they'll take any action. Except that we'll never know.

¹ Do you think owenr is a coded indication that he's not the owner?
(More likely it's a typo for Rosemarie Owen)

Ditto to all that. Thief is still there one more day to win the bet. I don't know why jonbull has a hard on for attacking Joe?

ShadySue · « **Reply #52 on:** July 31, 2019, 10:17 »

I've also emailled the author of that Getty image, who is a pro sports tog.

Brazilnut wins the prize, and SS have sunk even lower in my estimation.

gnirtS · « **Reply #53 on:** August 01, 2019, 08:11 »

Alamy were notified by someone from MSG last week of some of the images too.

Utterly stunned this is still active. It really isnt a good PR look for SS.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #54 on:** August 01, 2019, 08:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 31, 2019, 10:17

I've also emailled the author of that Getty image, who is a pro sports tog.

Brazilnut wins the prize, and SS have sunk even lower in my estimation.

Nobody took my $10 bet that the port would still be up after 1 week.

Indeed, so sad they are so slow to act...

Mcrstckfllw · « **Reply #55 on:** August 02, 2019, 05:46 »

Quote from: jonbull on August 01, 2019, 17:02

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/75295-doom-gloom-2/?do=findComment&comment=1778707

the more i read what he tells the more idiot i consider this guy.
he calls somebody with very good portfolio as somebody who doesn't have a clue while he consider himself expert...he @ dare @ to say that another takes better photograph...of course he takes!! even my cat takes better photograph!!
this is where we are aiming at and ss is aiming at if it doesn't stop this bs....only mediocre amateur will be interested in producing content for them

A pussycat is demonstrating his skill on how to roar... in front of a tiger. LoLz

JAFO · « **Reply #56 on:** August 02, 2019, 09:08 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 31, 2019, 06:07

I can't see that it's worth wasting any energy worrying about that bloke who will sink or swim according to the market. And I've seen much worse.

Though I don't care a fig about SS, I do find it worrying that 'owenr¹ osemarie' is still rapidly uploading stolen images with false captions.

A recent example:
"Tokyo/JAPAN- 06/25/2019 Tokyo 2020, Olympic site construction in process"
https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/tokyojapan-06252019-tokyo-2020-olympic-site-1458093296?src=44wCe6aCMzHL4z_jRXBESg-1-80

Seems to be lifted from Getty:
"MONTREAL, QC - NOVEMBER 18: An aerial view of Olympic Stadium and the Biodome and Saputo Stadium and Olympic Park and Olympic Village are seen from above on November 18, 2012 in Montreal, Quebec. (Photo by Tom Szczerbowski/Getty Images)"
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/an-aerial-view-of-olympic-stadium-and-the-biodome-and-news-photo/156799098

I've reported it to Getty, but as I'm not the original author, it'll be informative to see if they'll take any action. Except that we'll never know.

¹ Do you think owenr is a coded indication that he's not the owner?
(More likely it's a typo for Rosemarie Owen)

Makes you wonder why jonbull is so concerned with what somebody new uploads.
Owenr looks like Owen, R the thief hasn't been shut down yet. I wonder if Getty will write to SS and get some action. Getty is known for suing.

jonbull · « **Reply #57 on:** August 02, 2019, 10:56 »

Quote from: JAFO on August 02, 2019, 09:08

Quote from: ShadySue on July 31, 2019, 06:07
I can't see that it's worth wasting any energy worrying about that bloke who will sink or swim according to the market. And I've seen much worse.

Though I don't care a fig about SS, I do find it worrying that 'owenr¹ osemarie' is still rapidly uploading stolen images with false captions.

A recent example:
"Tokyo/JAPAN- 06/25/2019 Tokyo 2020, Olympic site construction in process"
https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/tokyojapan-06252019-tokyo-2020-olympic-site-1458093296?src=44wCe6aCMzHL4z_jRXBESg-1-80

Seems to be lifted from Getty:
"MONTREAL, QC - NOVEMBER 18: An aerial view of Olympic Stadium and the Biodome and Saputo Stadium and Olympic Park and Olympic Village are seen from above on November 18, 2012 in Montreal, Quebec. (Photo by Tom Szczerbowski/Getty Images)"
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/an-aerial-view-of-olympic-stadium-and-the-biodome-and-news-photo/156799098

I've reported it to Getty, but as I'm not the original author, it'll be informative to see if they'll take any action. Except that we'll never know.

¹ Do you think owenr is a coded indication that he's not the owner?
(More likely it's a typo for Rosemarie Owen)

Makes you wonder why jonbull is so concerned with what somebody new uploads.
Owenr looks like Owen, R the thief hasn't been shut down yet. I wonder if Getty will write to SS and get some action. Getty is known for suing.

im not concerned at all...i'm amazed how sad has become this industry..t

Thomas from France · « **Reply #58 on:** August 03, 2019, 13:48 »

Yesterday I cropped a picture from my portfolio and submitted it. Guess what?
"similar" rejection.("picture already in your portfolio")

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #59 on:** August 03, 2019, 14:52 »

Quote from: jonbull on July 31, 2019, 04:58

Its ana rrogant man who doesnt have a clue what ge’is talking avout... serial spammer the worar sanple of whwre thisnindustrybhas gone nowadays. And indoubt he’is even near 500 dollar. A lot of people in the beginning had very few images in 10’months considering the 10 week limit.... he has 7000 images and doesnt sell practicalky nothing despite he thought he is tactic would have made himnprobably much much more

I would advise not posting MicroStockGroup replies when you've had a drink or several!

dragonblade · « **Reply #60 on:** October 11, 2019, 22:41 »

It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS with over 7000 photos. It goes to show that he has persistance.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #61 on:** October 12, 2019, 02:18 »

Quote from: dragonblade on October 11, 2019, 22:41

It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS. It took over 7000 photos and some videos to get there. Not an outstanding ratio between upload numbers and sales but it goes to show that he has persistance.

Seems to be he set out to prove one thing and his results show the opposite.

ouatedeP · « **Reply #62 on:** October 13, 2019, 11:14 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 12, 2019, 02:18

Quote from: dragonblade on October 11, 2019, 22:41
It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS. It took over 7000 photos and some videos to get there. Not an outstanding ratio between upload numbers and sales but it goes to show that he has persistance.
Seems to be he set out to prove one thing and his results show the opposite.

and also no word. His goal was to make it by uploaded 10,000 images. His latest chart showed clearly that it was a failure, and had to add video.

gnirtS · « **Reply #63 on:** October 31, 2019, 06:56 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 12, 2019, 02:18

Quote from: dragonblade on October 11, 2019, 22:41
It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS. It took over 7000 photos and some videos to get there. Not an outstanding ratio between upload numbers and sales but it goes to show that he has persistance.
Seems to be he set out to prove one thing and his results show the opposite.

Reminds me of the entertaining Netflix flat earth documentary where they set out with some fairly advanced experiments to prove the earth was flat.
When every single experiment instead started showing the exact opposite, they kept their original hypothesis and started questioning the measurements and instruments used to obtain them instead...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #64 on:** October 31, 2019, 08:01 »

Quote from: gnirtS on October 31, 2019, 06:56

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 12, 2019, 02:18
Quote from: dragonblade on October 11, 2019, 22:41
It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS. It took over 7000 photos and some videos to get there. Not an outstanding ratio between upload numbers and sales but it goes to show that he has persistance.
Seems to be he set out to prove one thing and his results show the opposite.

Reminds me of the entertaining Netflix flat earth documentary where they set out with some fairly advanced experiments to prove the earth was flat.
When every single experiment instead started showing the exact opposite, they kept their original hypothesis and started questioning the measurements and instruments used to obtain them instead...

Thats by no means uncommon even in quite respected scientific circles. Scientists are human too and become psychologically attached to their theories just like anyone else.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #65 on:** October 31, 2019, 10:21 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 31, 2019, 08:01

Quote from: gnirtS on October 31, 2019, 06:56
Quote from: Pauws99 on October 12, 2019, 02:18
Quote from: dragonblade on October 11, 2019, 22:41
It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS. It took over 7000 photos and some videos to get there. Not an outstanding ratio between upload numbers and sales but it goes to show that he has persistance.
Seems to be he set out to prove one thing and his results show the opposite.

Reminds me of the entertaining Netflix flat earth documentary where they set out with some fairly advanced experiments to prove the earth was flat.
When every single experiment instead started showing the exact opposite, they kept their original hypothesis and started questioning the measurements and instruments used to obtain them instead...
Thats by no means uncommon even in quite respected scientific circles. Scientists are human too and become psychologically attached to their theories just like anyone else.

Mostly wrong people and pseudo-science types, psychics, communication with the dead, ghost hunters, Bermuda Triangle, Aliens visit in UFOs, crop circles are secret messages, animal mutation, Gods from outer space and aliens built the pyramids Etc. I wonder if they sit home laughing at all the people who think the shows and books are actually serious and not just a way to make money from mythology.

Real science sets out to prove a theory and if the evidence shows the opposite, that's actually a good thing, because it proved the opposite. The goal of true science isn't to stick with an imperfect theory or hypothesis, but to benefit from the study, research and evidence to better understand what was being studied. What I mean is, proving a theory is wrong, is not a failure, if there's a valid scientific study behind the results.

Flat Earthers are already disillusion, small wonder they can't accept the facts of their own tests.

Santa Claus is real, I've seen him...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #66 on:** October 31, 2019, 12:09 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 31, 2019, 10:21

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 31, 2019, 08:01
Quote from: gnirtS on October 31, 2019, 06:56
Quote from: Pauws99 on October 12, 2019, 02:18
Quote from: dragonblade on October 11, 2019, 22:41
It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS. It took over 7000 photos and some videos to get there. Not an outstanding ratio between upload numbers and sales but it goes to show that he has persistance.
Seems to be he set out to prove one thing and his results show the opposite.

Reminds me of the entertaining Netflix flat earth documentary where they set out with some fairly advanced experiments to prove the earth was flat.
When every single experiment instead started showing the exact opposite, they kept their original hypothesis and started questioning the measurements and instruments used to obtain them instead...
Thats by no means uncommon even in quite respected scientific circles. Scientists are human too and become psychologically attached to their theories just like anyone else.

Mostly wrong people and pseudo-science types, psychics, communication with the dead, ghost hunters, Bermuda Triangle, Aliens visit in UFOs, crop circles are secret messages, animal mutation, Gods from outer space and aliens built the pyramids Etc. I wonder if they sit home laughing at all the people who think the shows and books are actually serious and not just a way to make money from mythology.

Real science sets out to prove a theory and if the evidence shows the opposite, that's actually a good thing, because it proved the opposite. The goal of true science isn't to stick with an imperfect theory or hypothesis, but to benefit from the study, research and evidence to better understand what was being studied. What I mean is, proving a theory is wrong, is not a failure, if there's a valid scientific study behind the results.

Flat Earthers are already disillusion, small wonder they can't accept the facts of their own tests.

Santa Claus is real, I've seen him...

Yes of course but real science is practicsed by humans so is not infallible. It is also funded by humans which can also affect its "purity"...it usually gets there in the end though.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #67 on:** November 01, 2019, 09:40 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 31, 2019, 12:09

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 31, 2019, 10:21
Quote from: Pauws99 on October 31, 2019, 08:01
Quote from: gnirtS on October 31, 2019, 06:56
Quote from: Pauws99 on October 12, 2019, 02:18
Quote from: dragonblade on October 11, 2019, 22:41
It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS. It took over 7000 photos and some videos to get there. Not an outstanding ratio between upload numbers and sales but it goes to show that he has persistance.
Seems to be he set out to prove one thing and his results show the opposite.

Reminds me of the entertaining Netflix flat earth documentary where they set out with some fairly advanced experiments to prove the earth was flat.
When every single experiment instead started showing the exact opposite, they kept their original hypothesis and started questioning the measurements and instruments used to obtain them instead...
Thats by no means uncommon even in quite respected scientific circles. Scientists are human too and become psychologically attached to their theories just like anyone else.

Mostly wrong people and pseudo-science types, psychics, communication with the dead, ghost hunters, Bermuda Triangle, Aliens visit in UFOs, crop circles are secret messages, animal mutation, Gods from outer space and aliens built the pyramids Etc. I wonder if they sit home laughing at all the people who think the shows and books are actually serious and not just a way to make money from mythology.

Real science sets out to prove a theory and if the evidence shows the opposite, that's actually a good thing, because it proved the opposite. The goal of true science isn't to stick with an imperfect theory or hypothesis, but to benefit from the study, research and evidence to better understand what was being studied. What I mean is, proving a theory is wrong, is not a failure, if there's a valid scientific study behind the results.

Flat Earthers are already disillusion, small wonder they can't accept the facts of their own tests.

Santa Claus is real, I've seen him...
Yes of course but real science is practicsed by humans so is not infallible. It is also funded by humans which can also affect its "purity"...it usually gets there in the end though.

Oh of course also true. Peer review is supposed to be cross checking, and published papers are supposed to be reviewed. Yet pseudo-science just publishes and the general public buys it without blind studies, or repeating. Take the anti-vaccination crowd.

And you are also correct that some funding, is designed to support studies that will support their agenda. If you are contrary, you won't get funded = no study, silenced. There's much more politics involved than "true" science and pecking order, and back stabbing.

If I make a discovery, lets say historic archaeology, Native American. There's no way anyone will read anything or even make a note of what I found. But if I give the data to Dr. Someone, and he reviews it, puts his name on it, then it's news. Like the location of a lost site, with maps, evidence and overlays... fortunately it does get out in a small way, but you'll never see my name on anything, anywhere. No credentials = no credibility.

1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results

Unlike social pseudo-science which is
1. Draw a conclusion
2. Ask questions that lead to manipulated conclusions
3. Test by only using tests that support your conclusion
5. Only use the data that supports your pre-existing conclusions
6. Call it science

marthamarks · « **Reply #68 on:** November 01, 2019, 11:13 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 31, 2019, 10:21

Santa Claus is real, I've seen him...

Yep, I've seen him too. Amazing!

And even more miraculous… you and I and everybody else in the "developed world" are about to start seeing him again in each and every one of our local shopping malls.

Doesn't it make you wonder how the fat-but-merry ol' fellow manages to supervise all those hardworking elves in the North Pole?

marthamarks · « **Reply #69 on:** November 01, 2019, 11:15 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 01, 2019, 09:40

Take the anti-vaccination crowd.

You take 'em. Please.

georgep7 · « **Reply #70 on:** November 01, 2019, 11:37 »

Quote

If I make a discovery, lets say historic archaeology, Native American. There's no way anyone will read anything or even make a note of what I found. But if I give the data to Dr. Someone, and he reviews it, puts his name on it, then it's news. Like the location of a lost site, with maps, evidence and overlays... fortunately it does get out in a small way, but you'll never see my name on anything, anywhere. No credentials = no credibility.

Uncle Pete you seem to forget the "power" of social media and internet spread "knowledge".
Of i recall correct, I have read o many comments in Youtube "oh, you explain better than my teacher", "oh, you opened my eyes!"
to channels with no credentials. Folowers ready to spread the new found "truth"

Here is a sample example of current developed mind work"you won't beleiev how he cleaned his car with an egg" 2.000.000 clicks.
(a guy that eat an egg for a breakfast and works better because he ate breakfast....

)
It would be funny if it wasn't spread all over the net as affiliate ads and similar to "serious" sites...

People ae blessed today to click and search for everything from scientifc sources online.
People are cursed today to seek and develop all kind of distorted and weird opinions found in www(dot)not-a-clue-i-just-need-clicks(dot)com

Edit.

PS

Santa should be in jail for labour issues.

yes many of us have seen Santa. But. Have you seen any elves taking vacations or bonus?

XD

Edit II I will write SAnta for a new keyboard, this noe ruins my posts.
And now I will leave and start searching what half or irregular keywords entered today in uploads. duh!

marthamarks · « **Reply #71 on:** November 01, 2019, 23:53 »

Quote from: George_ on November 01, 2019, 11:37

Santa should be in jail for labour issues.

yes many of us have seen Santa. But. Have you seen any elves taking vacations or bonus? XD

LOL

cascoly · « **Reply #72 on:** November 02, 2019, 19:25 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 31, 2019, 10:21

….
Real science sets out to prove a theory and if the evidence shows the opposite, that's actually a good thing, because it proved the opposite. The goal of true science isn't to stick with an imperfect theory or hypothesis, but to benefit from the study, research and evidence to better understand what was being studied. What I mean is, proving a theory is wrong, is not a failure, if there's a valid scientific study behind the results. ...

agree totally w your list of quackery to which i'd add homeopathy, neuropaths, acupuncture, chiropractic and other medical shams

a quibble, but an important one -- in science you don't seek to prove your theory - you test the null-hypothesis -- ie, if your theory is A, then you experiment to show whether not-A is likely. (a recent Sci-Am had an excellent article on this use of statistics)

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #73 on:** November 03, 2019, 06:31 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 02, 2019, 19:25

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 31, 2019, 10:21

….
Real science sets out to prove a theory and if the evidence shows the opposite, that's actually a good thing, because it proved the opposite. The goal of true science isn't to stick with an imperfect theory or hypothesis, but to benefit from the study, research and evidence to better understand what was being studied. What I mean is, proving a theory is wrong, is not a failure, if there's a valid scientific study behind the results. ...
agree totally w your list of quackery to which i'd add homeopathy, neuropaths, acupuncture, chiropractic and other medical shams

a quibble, but an important one -- in science you don't seek to prove your theory - you test the null-hypothesis -- ie, if your theory is A, then you experiment to show whether not-A is likely. (a recent Sci-Am had an excellent article on this use of statistics)

The misstated part is my fault trying to write. But you do need a hypothesis to test and find the results, one way or another. Not to prove a preconceived conclusion.

Pseudo-science and bad science go hand in hand. They work the same way, ignore the facts and only use what supports your theory or agenda.

Quote from: George_ on November 01, 2019, 11:37

Santa should be in jail for labour issues.

yes many of us have seen Santa. But. Have you seen any elves taking vacations or bonus? XD

You see elves, maybe Leprechauns too, or the Indian Makiaweesug, and other little people who live in the forest? I mean, of course we don't see them.

Well except Gnomes which are all over, pretending to be statues on peoples lawns.

My theory is the Elves work for the world, because they like making gifts for people, and room and board...

Once again, maybe they dress as Gnomes when on vacation, seems like they are all over travel sites?

I have a flock of Packer-Mingos, they seem to live under the long needle evergreens on the front lawn. Honest, these are real, they come to feed here every Fall and stay until January.

Photographic proof.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How is this possible? (Read 24452 times)

Clair Voyant

georgep7

John Maria Meyer

Clair Voyant

Clair Voyant

John Maria Meyer

John Maria Meyer

georgep7

John Maria Meyer

John Maria Meyer

memakephoto

JAFO

marthamarks

marthamarks

georgep7

marthamarks

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors