Author Topic: How Much Did SS pay you TOTAL last year for "Contributor Fund" (Read 4119 times)

Uncle Pete · « **on:** January 21, 2023, 15:48 »

Poll is anonymous, one vote per person. Some people have asked this question before and the answers are scattered. I thought maybe all in one place might be interesting?

Just from a few people, it's not a part of total earnings, because I don't make that much and I got more than some people who are much better and successful.
It's not based on how many images. Same thing. People with more images have been paid less than I got.

We don't know.

Just wondering what kind of numbers, different people got paid for Contributor Fund last year?

I found all my payments in December, I don't know if anyone got anything else before or since?

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2023, 17:46 »

I don't believe I was aware of it, so as far as I know, nothing. What exactly is it?

Fairplay · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2023, 03:58 »

$0-$1

Anita Potter · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2023, 06:08 »

I got a whopping $.28 all in December. I checked the rest of 2022 and it was only in December. You need another poll option of <$1

cascoly · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2023, 11:55 »

december was the only month - next payment is in june.

for those who had zero did they also have an active SS acct?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2023, 22:50 »

Quote from: Anita Potter on January 22, 2023, 06:08

I got a whopping $.28 all in December. I checked the rest of 2022 and it was only in December. You need another poll option of <$1

Fixed that.

Quote from: cascoly on January 22, 2023, 11:55

december was the only month - next payment is in june.

for those who had zero did they also have an active SS acct?

Good logical question. But I suppose I assumed that only people with an account would answer? OK too late to add, "If you have an account..."

Now I want to know who that lone person is that got over $120. They must have something truly amazing. Either in numbers or in what kind of content they have that AI wanted for training. Nice to see that someone got a nice gift.

mino216 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 24, 2023, 17:21 »

Next time, it will be better if each range is larger than the previous one and not all of them are using 20USD steps. In such a case, there will be a large number of votes in one "basket" but nothing in the others, especially in the larger ones. 20 and 40 USD is 100% difference but 280 and 300 USD is just 7%. It will be miracle that someone will fit there. 0,01-20USD basket is extremely big and we have not got much information (is everybody near 0,01 or near 20? That is a huge difference). It will be better something like 0-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8, 8-16,... or slightly rounded (like 0-1, 0-2, 2-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100, 100-250,...)

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2023, 11:57 »

Quote from: mino216 on January 24, 2023, 17:21

Next time, it will be better if each range is larger than the previous one and not all of them are using 20USD steps. In such a case, there will be a large number of votes in one "basket" but nothing in the others, especially in the larger ones. 20 and 40 USD is 100% difference but 280 and 300 USD is just 7%. It will be miracle that someone will fit there. 0,01-20USD basket is extremely big and we have not got much information (is everybody near 0,01 or near 20? That is a huge difference). It will be better something like 0-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8, 8-16,... or slightly rounded (like 0-1, 0-2, 2-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100, 100-250,...)

Yes, but no. By specific ranges that are all the same, I won't bias the results with an unknown predetermined group. If I do what you say, many more people could incidentally cluster in one range and we wouldn't know.

Knowing now from what I see, and I couldn't have known, I could have made $10 spreads and further divided the specifics.

As it is, I think we have a close enough idea of what most people got paid? 92% made $60 or less.

Yes, if I knew in advance, that 60% were in that same range, I would have used lower brackets, say $5 for the first $100, then $20 after that. But I don't think the specifics are as important as the general numbers. Most people got $20 or less.

I didn't know. It could have been that everyone clustered at $40 and all the lower and little divisions would have been irrelevant?

cascoly · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2023, 13:48 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 25, 2023, 11:57

Quote from: mino216 on January 24, 2023, 17:21
Next time, it will be better if each range is larger than the previous one and not all of them are using 20USD steps. In such a case, there will be a large number of votes in one "basket" but nothing in the others, especially in the larger ones. 20 and 40 USD is 100% difference but 280 and 300 USD is just 7%. It will be miracle that someone will fit there. 0,01-20USD basket is extremely big and we have not got much information (is everybody near 0,01 or near 20? That is a huge difference). It will be better something like 0-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8, 8-16,... or slightly rounded (like 0-1, 0-2, 2-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100, 100-250,...)

Yes, but no. By specific ranges that are all the same, I won't bias the results with an unknown predetermined group. If I do what you say, many more people could incidentally cluster in one range and we wouldn't know.

Knowing now from what I see, and I couldn't have known, I could have made $10 spreads and further divided the specifics.

As it is, I think we have a close enough idea of what most people got paid? 92% made $60 or less.

Yes, if I knew in advance, that 60% were in that same range, I would have used lower brackets, say $5 for the first $100, then $20 after that. But I don't think the specifics are as important as the general numbers. Most people got $20 or less.

I didn't know. It could have been that everyone clustered at $40 and all the lower and little divisions would have been irrelevant?

the $20-100 range is less than the 'none' so not much info gained by knowing more received $51 than those who got $47

and combine $100-200, 200+

that' the best that can be done with a poll like this. a better approach would be to have the smaller increments, then report with combined numbers - 4 or 5 points on a graph

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2023, 13:45 »

Quote from: cascoly on January 25, 2023, 13:48

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 25, 2023, 11:57
Quote from: mino216 on January 24, 2023, 17:21
Next time, it will be better if each range is larger than the previous one and not all of them are using 20USD steps. In such a case, there will be a large number of votes in one "basket" but nothing in the others, especially in the larger ones. 20 and 40 USD is 100% difference but 280 and 300 USD is just 7%. It will be miracle that someone will fit there. 0,01-20USD basket is extremely big and we have not got much information (is everybody near 0,01 or near 20? That is a huge difference). It will be better something like 0-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8, 8-16,... or slightly rounded (like 0-1, 0-2, 2-5, 5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100, 100-250,...)

Yes, but no. By specific ranges that are all the same, I won't bias the results with an unknown predetermined group. If I do what you say, many more people could incidentally cluster in one range and we wouldn't know.

Knowing now from what I see, and I couldn't have known, I could have made $10 spreads and further divided the specifics.

As it is, I think we have a close enough idea of what most people got paid? 92% made $60 or less.

Yes, if I knew in advance, that 60% were in that same range, I would have used lower brackets, say $5 for the first $100, then $20 after that. But I don't think the specifics are as important as the general numbers. Most people got $20 or less.

I didn't know. It could have been that everyone clustered at $40 and all the lower and little divisions would have been irrelevant?

the $20-100 range is less than the 'none' so not much info gained by knowing more received $51 than those who got $47

and combine $100-200, 200+

that' the best that can be done with a poll like this. a better approach would be to have the smaller increments, then report with combined numbers - 4 or 5 points on a graph

Valid points. Fortunately this is not a scientific or valid poll question in so many ways. Just an effort to get a general idea of how much did most people make from this deal. And now we can see that.

I never would have expected myself to be one of the better off? But then I have always said "Shutterstock Likes Me Better!"