MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Justanotherphotographer on September 03, 2015, 01:35
-
Do a search for "luck sadly wink" (just to bring up examples). Does SS ever pull people up for spamming or is it just happy to be able to claim to have a massive collection even though a huge chunk is the same images spamming the search results?
-
Find me a micro which doesn't allow gross spamming.
-
Dreamstime is the most stringent, but I don't think any of the big sites would be as lax as SS on this, even IS with their new let (almost) anything in policy. Take a look at the examples in the results. There are literally hundreds of identical very simple two color icon sets with just the two colors changed.
-
Find me a micro which doesn't allow gross spamming.
I think, by image spam the OP means hundreds of similar images from the same contributor, not keyword spaming. Just check the above mentioned keywords.
As far as I know, no other micro allows this.
-
Find me a micro which doesn't allow gross spamming.
I think, by image spam the OP means hundreds of similar images from the same contributor, not keyword spaming. Just check the above mentioned keywords.
As far as I know, no other micro allows this.
Sorry, yes thanks that's exactly what I mean. The keywords I used are just some I copied from one of the offending files to bring up a load of the examples.
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
I wonder, why SS let him with this kind of "original" materials ?
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
He was obviously stoned when he came up with the idea...
-
I wonder if this even equals $0.25 worth of sales in 5 years?
-
If every agency were to cull their collections, removing copies, identicals, I guess the total images in micro-stock wouldn't even amount to 20 million originals.
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Oh good grief. I thought the agencies had some kind of algorithm that sorted out these kinds of things? I used to get rejections when I would upload two images of the same thing, one horizontal and one vertical!
-
Both those examples beggar belief.
In the case of the icon shop(71K+ items), there are so many issues.
One is the proliferation of non-sensical variations - identical vector icon sets with color variations.
Another is offering sets of hundreds of icons (617 medical icons is one, 660 medical service icons another) - a sort of arms race to see who can cram in more "stuff" per download to try for more sales.
Another is approving individual icons (which I assume are in lots of the sets) that are so simple - two lines (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=282269897) - that they really should be in a set with a few others.
Perhaps SS wanted to up its vector count at some point and thought this sort of mass of crap could accomplish that?
The other portfolio (the weed-themed one) makes a joke of any pretense that commercial value is part of reviewing standards. I have to believe these portfolios were submitted in bulk and not reviewed at all.
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
That's Oringer's personal portfolio, he has enough money to get stoned every day :)
-
We're seeing the final stage of 'crowdsourcing'. This is where it ultimately leads. And with 50 million images already accepted, there's no possibility of cleaning up the inventory.
-
We're seeing the final stage of 'crowdsourcing'. This is where it ultimately leads. And with 50 million images already accepted, there's no possibility of cleaning up the inventory.
I think cleaning up the collection would be quite easy actually, a couple of full time employees dedicated to the task could get it under control in a few months. I mean just the icon example I pointed out, that's tens of thousands of images right there, and you issue a serious warning that stops them uploading the same garbage again, that's thousands less images out of the queue every week. So maybe $80000 a year, which is a total drop in the ocean for SS.
But lets face it, it's the opposite of what SS wants to do, they want to inflate the number of images in the collection so they can sell it to share holders. For the same reason Facebook spams up my inbox telling me I have "notifications" when I don't, just to get my login so they can claim a billion people use the site every day or whatever.
-
We're seeing the final stage of 'crowdsourcing'. This is where it ultimately leads. And with 50 million images already accepted, there's no possibility of cleaning up the inventory.
I think cleaning up the collection would be quite easy actually, a couple of full time employees dedicated to the task could get it under control in a few months. I mean just the icon example I pointed out, that's tens of thousands of images right there, and you issue a serious warning that stops them uploading the same garbage again, that's thousands less images out of the queue every week. So maybe $80000 a year, which is a total drop in the ocean for SS.
But lets face it, it's the opposite of what SS wants to do, they want to inflate the number of images in the collection so they can sell it to share holders. For the same reason Facebook spams up my inbox telling me I have "notifications" when I don't, just to get my login so they can claim a billion people use the site every day or whatever.
50,000,000 images, and let's say an inspector spent 15 seconds looking at the keywords of an image - I came up with about 100 man-years. Of course, they wouldn't have to look at every one - they could, say, check 5% of each contributor's shots.
Maybe they could actually improve things if they took a hard line - for example, closing the account of a contributor who'd spammed even one image - but I doubt they'd ever do that. And the guy cited above, with his thousands of junk images, isn't going to be put off by a 'warning'.
We should turn this around and ask how these spammers got their stuff on /board in the first place. You can't tell me those hundreds of inane repetitious variations got through normal inspection. These guys are fast-tracked somehow - they're being let in through a back door.
-
I agree that a few full timers checking the first 10 pages or so of the most popular searches and then bringing the hammer down on the serial offenders could make a huge difference to the collection appearance in just a few months. The problem is that they have to be willing to do so - or even want to.
-
Both those examples beggar belief.
In the case of the icon shop(71K+ items), there are so many issues.
One is the proliferation of non-sensical variations - identical vector icon sets with color variations.
Another is offering sets of hundreds of icons (617 medical icons is one, 660 medical service icons another) - a sort of arms race to see who can cram in more "stuff" per download to try for more sales.
Another is approving individual icons (which I assume are in lots of the sets) that are so simple - two lines ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=282269897[/url]) - that they really should be in a set with a few others.
Perhaps SS wanted to up its vector count at some point and thought this sort of mass of crap could accomplish that?
The other portfolio (the weed-themed one) makes a joke of any pretense that commercial value is part of reviewing standards. I have to believe these portfolios were submitted in bulk and not reviewed at all.
I love the weed guys screen Name... I wrote to support about this Port and they said basically we see no issue and Mind you own business was the feeling I got. This is My business!!!! and BTW, Heres Jons Port. John Used to call me when this started and ask for advice on which camera to buy. LOL Guarantee the weed Port doesn't get reviewed.
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-ushutterstock.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-ushutterstock.html)
-
We're seeing the final stage of 'crowdsourcing'. This is where it ultimately leads. And with 50 million images already accepted, there's no possibility of cleaning up the inventory.
I think cleaning up the collection would be quite easy actually, a couple of full time employees dedicated to the task could get it under control in a few months. I mean just the icon example I pointed out, that's tens of thousands of images right there, and you issue a serious warning that stops them uploading the same garbage again, that's thousands less images out of the queue every week. So maybe $80000 a year, which is a total drop in the ocean for SS.
But lets face it, it's the opposite of what SS wants to do, they want to inflate the number of images in the collection so they can sell it to share holders. For the same reason Facebook spams up my inbox telling me I have "notifications" when I don't, just to get my login so they can claim a billion people use the site every day or whatever.
50,000,000 images, and let's say an inspector spent 15 seconds looking at the keywords of an image - I came up with about 100 man-years. Of course, they wouldn't have to look at every one - they could, say, check 5% of each contributor's shots.
Maybe they could actually improve things if they took a hard line - for example, closing the account of a contributor who'd spammed even one image - but I doubt they'd ever do that. And the guy cited above, with his thousands of junk images, isn't going to be put off by a 'warning'.
We should turn this around and ask how these spammers got their stuff on /board in the first place. You can't tell me those hundreds of inane repetitious variations got through normal inspection. These guys are fast-tracked somehow - they're being let in through a back door.
? This isn't to do with keywords
-
No, that was my mistake at the beginning.
The thread is specifically about image spamming, not keyword spamming.
-
No, that was my mistake at the beginning.
The theead is abour image spamming, not keyword spamming.
Similar issue though. How are these guys getting approved in the first place? And what would it cost to clean this up?
-
LOL at Sean's link ^^^
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Don't you guys realize!? Limited commercial value is reduced, when minor variations are produced times infinity.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/07/07d47b2227f592e9e53bbfe1fea7c0da1192205fb254416b66b1a80d0c25620f.jpg)
Kids in Africa are starving over the amount of money it's costing for the bandwidth and server space to host all of these gems
-
LOL at Sean's link ^^^
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Don't you guys realize!? Limited commercial value is reduced, when minor variations are produced times infinity.
BUSINESS
MARIJUANA
BUSINESS
and
SODA
montages are running rampant... but what does this stuff mean!?> Must be a lot of buyers for them, if they're making so many duplicates HAHAHAH
You could probably just make a script to put random words over all your pictures, automatically upload them, and double your portfolio every couple hours. Sounds like a project for Sean...
-
No, that was my mistake at the beginning.
The theead is abour image spamming, not keyword spamming.
Similar issue though. How are these guys getting approved in the first place? And what would it cost to clean this up?
Why would they bother looking at all 50,000,000 images? There's only, what, 60,000 contributors give or take? A couple of editors can get through that, as stated, in a couple of months. How long would it take to find problem contributors when you look at a portfolio and see an entire page of nearly identical shots?
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Just added 400 new ones since 2 days ago.
-
No, that was my mistake at the beginning.
The theead is abour image spamming, not keyword spamming.
Similar issue though. How are these guys getting approved in the first place? And what would it cost to clean this up?
Why would they bother looking at all 50,000,000 images? There's only, what, 60,000 contributors give or take? A couple of editors can get through that, as stated, in a couple of months. How long would it take to find problem contributors when you look at a portfolio and see an entire page of nearly identical shots?
I agree although my comment was actually about keyword spam. If SS was willing to take a hard line, and drop a contributor on the first instance of image spam they identified, they could really clean house. I note however that some contributors have many thousands of images, which would take a while to flip through.
It will never happen, though. There is obviously no one at SS whose job it is to care about this problem. They probably don't even see it as a 'problem'.
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Just added 400 new ones since 2 days ago.
So how is this happening? Has he paid off someone in SS to load this stuff in? Are we supposed to believe all this junk passed inspection?
-
We're seeing the final stage of 'crowdsourcing'. This is where it ultimately leads. And with 50 million images already accepted, there's no possibility of cleaning up the inventory.
I think cleaning up the collection would be quite easy actually, a couple of full time employees dedicated to the task could get it under control in a few months. I mean just the icon example I pointed out, that's tens of thousands of images right there, and you issue a serious warning that stops them uploading the same garbage again, that's thousands less images out of the queue every week. So maybe $80000 a year, which is a total drop in the ocean for SS.
But lets face it, it's the opposite of what SS wants to do, they want to inflate the number of images in the collection so they can sell it to share holders. For the same reason Facebook spams up my inbox telling me I have "notifications" when I don't, just to get my login so they can claim a billion people use the site every day or whatever.
Nah, I dare to say It's even simpler, no employees, no developers needed... there are already thousands of people sorting out the images: the customers. They just need to drop the super-unpopular images that nobody even looked at for years. I bet the collection would go down well below 20 mill in a blink...
-
Agree.
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Just added 400 new ones since 2 days ago.
So how is this happening? Has he paid off someone in SS to load this stuff in? Are we supposed to believe all this junk passed inspection?
This guy has to either be tight with someone at SS or works there. I can't imagine they would otherwise let people do this. It's stupid as hell. Maybe I can try a test, create 400 text images and see what my reject rate is.
-
Maybe I am thick, but what does CAR have to do with a picture of pot on a table to begin with? I know, DRIVE and DEATH are also a stretch. Never knew anyone to die from smoking or eating pot. But seriously - CAR???
-
Maybe he is flogging dope to all the reviewers? when they go for lunch he is down there getting them all at it and when they come back to office they're so high on the hubbly-bubbly they pass and accept anything and everything ;D
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Looks like a very creative guy 8) :D
-
Interesting thread, I said the same things about out of control spamming over on the iStock forums and posted these search results for certain keywords,
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19999283/iStock-spam.jpg
These are actual best match keyword searches, not taken from ports or from date ordered searches. Each batch can run several pages followed by another batch of spam from another contributor.
Being exclusive on iStock I don't usually look at what's going on at SS but having just had a quick browse I'd say standards have indeed dropped dramatically since I last looked a few months ago but I don't think the spamming is any where near as bad as on iStock, yet, at least for illustrations, haven't compared photos.
It seems the whole industry is shooting itself in the foot in the race to the bottom, which is not just about being cheapest but being able to boast about the largest collection. Any algorithm which is supposed to promote better images to the front of searches based on performance is fighting a losing battle, the cream can't rise to the top when it's buried under so much spam.
-
not about keywords
-
^^^
I didn't say it was about keyword spamming, but that these are the kind image spamming search results that you get, lets say for certain topics, rather than keywords, if it will make you happier.
If you type in a couple of keywords and get 3 pages of very basic similar images from one contributor, how would you describe it?
-
This pot-text guy just got another boatload of images approved from last night. I am speechless.
-
The plan at SS - to the extent there ever was a 'plan' - was to use crowdsourcing to get unlimited inventory at minimal cost, then do the heavy lifting in what we call the 'search algorithm', which I'm guessing is by this time a fairly complicated piece of software. They believed if they hired a bunch of hot-shot young developers, drinking Jolt and acting very Disruptive, that search algorithm would get better and better until somehow it was able to cut through all the spam and junk, and show the buyers exactly what they wanted. In other words, typical dot-com hype about "AI", and wishful thinking by investors, resulting in many millions of dollars being sunk into a business concept which is ultimately self-limiting and destined to hit a wall at some point.
In particular, I think they underestimated how much they'd end up being 'played' by technically knowledgeable spammers and, maybe, by good old fashioned corruption.
-
This pot-text guy just got another boatload of images approved from last night. I am speechless.
LOL! In a strange way, maybe this guy is doing us a favour. Anyone carrying the idea there is still any reason or logic to this game only need to look at this portfolio to see it is become pointless.
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
He was obviously stoned when he came up with the idea...
I guess the reviewer might have been also..
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
He was obviously stoned when he came up with the idea...
I guess the reviewer might have been also..
Or, he is a reviewer himself.
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
He was obviously stoned when he came up with the idea...
I guess the reviewer might have been also..
Or, he is a reviewer himself.
Then he/she can determine their own earnings from reviewing.....real easy money! Must be difficult to find enough hours in the day to produce the quantity needed to make you a millionaire reviewer though. But I'm sure that completely automated processes could achieve that. ;D
-
49000 Icon Why?
newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=243877&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest [nonactive]
104 000 Icon.
newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=802546&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest [nonactive]
They are have 100-200 Icon just change the background, and making 100 000 vector. You are kidding me :). I make 100 icon and i put in 4 pictures. 25 - 25 - 25 - 25 icons. And stop it, no more variations, but the spammer never give up :D
The pictures on shutterstock 80% crap or poor, not quality. Shutterstock must change the business strategy, while the professional contributors give up. The buyers not find easy the quality pictures => not buy pictures, and we have poor earning.
I HATE THE SPAMMERS! WE HATE SPAMMERS!
-
49000 Icon Why?
newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=243877&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest [nonactive]
104 000 Icon.
newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=802546&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest [nonactive]
They are have 100-200 Icon just change the background, and making 100 000 vector. You are kidding me :). I make 100 icon and i put in 4 pictures. 25 - 25 - 25 - 25 icons. And stop it, no more variations, but the spammer never give up :D
The pictures on shutterstock 80% crap or poor, not quality. Shutterstock must change the business strategy, while the professional contributors give up. The buyers not find easy the quality pictures => not buy pictures, and we have poor earning.
I HATE THE SPAMMERS! WE HATE SPAMMERS!
Oh man awesome. You have to admire the nerve of switching out the backgrounds and reuploading the same simple icons again and again. I wouldn't have the front to do it. Or at least be able to look at myself in the mirror afterwards.
-
another good one:
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=615538&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=615538&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
-
...You have to admire the nerve of switching out the backgrounds and reuploading the same simple icons again and again...
In addition to the perception of unfairness in how different groups of contributors are treated - one group seemingly getting a free pass to upload anything they like and the rest of us getting wrong white balance or out of focus rejections - why would SS allow its collection to be trashed like this?
It had gone from a site that didn't really have the best quality (back in 2004-5-6) to a site with a really good, large collection, great search and visually appealing presentation of results.
Now it's just padding the numbers with this rubbish. Really sad to see.
-
They allow it to be thrashed because they are complacent. Majority have already made their money an they are sort of just riding with the tide.
I am doing very well at SS but that won't last long if things are not changing.
Itsa a crying shame but the minute they went public, the minute the suits moved in its become just another subs site. They just happen to flaunt more junk then anybody else.
Above examples is just a horrible reminder of what photography shouldn't be and if they were to cull their own files getting rid of embarrassing old junk, they wouldn't be left with more then ten mil images.
-
Why not deleting this crap portfolios, and leave space for professional contributors? If I were the owner, i fired out these lame contributors. In 1000 new accepted (vectors), 50 is the good work, it is unacceptable.
-
This pot-text guy just got another boatload of images approved from last night. I am speechless.
I can't decide whether he's making a point or just gone insane surely he can't be generating any significant income....can he. If he does then I guess we've all got it wrong!
-
We should consider the possibility that this stuff isn't even being submitted, inspected and approved - but that SS has people generating it internally, just to pump up their numbers. There is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing this.
-
Apart from being taken to the cleaners by the Stock Exchange regulators who would no doubt consider this fraud. They could easily bump up their figures by accepting MY crap.
-
Apart from being taken to the cleaners by the Stock Exchange regulators who would no doubt consider this fraud. They could easily bump up their figures by accepting MY crap.
Not seeing how that would amount to fraud of any sort. They're a retailer, they can sell their own private label products. They can waive inspection for selected contributors. They can even hire photographers, designers and CAD people and I don't think it would violate our contributor agreements. We were never guaranteed a level playing field. Crowdsourcing was how they got started; now, they're an established seller of imagery and they can source it any way they want.
-
If every agency were to cull their collections, removing copies, identicals, I guess the total images in micro-stock wouldn't even amount to 20 million originals.
If they delete all the copies of the ideas, then not more than 10...images
-
I believe in their various reports they talk about submissions rather than images. Perhaps it would be one for the lawyers but I think it would be misleading if they included their own content. Anyway I don't believe for a nanosecond they are doing it as they reject plenty of images as this site discusses. Why spend money creating crap images - if they were doing it I think they could come up with something better but they don't want to take on the risk which is borne by us contributors.
-
We should consider the possibility that this stuff isn't even being submitted, inspected and approved - but that SS has people generating it internally, just to pump up their numbers. There is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing this.
For all we know you might be right? nothing surprises me anymore in this business. There is little doubt that SS sales are declining and quite rapidly so. The only reason they keep telling the world about their 60 million images is to impress share-holders not buyers. Contributors are not worth anything they are expendables and can be replaced tomorrow.
The new management don't care about spam, don't care about relations, bugs glitxhes or anything. They will milk the place dry, drain every ounce out of it while they can. Afterwards you couldn't even sell it for a song.
-
Actually there is lots of doubt that sales are falling, its not what they are reporting to shareholders now that WOULD be fraud. Sales are going up but not as fast as uploads hence a decline for some sellers.
Conspiracy theories are wearing after a time there is lots to complain about the way shutterstock is going without coming up with various bizarre plots that would benefit no one especially shutterstock.
-
Actually there is lots of doubt that sales are falling, its not what they are reporting to shareholders now that WOULD be fraud. Sales are going up but not as fast as uploads hence a decline for some sellers.
Conspiracy theories are wearing after a time there is lots to complain about the way shutterstock is going without coming up with various bizarre plots that would benefit no one especially shutterstock.
The thing is, it's hard to come up with an explanation for this 'image spam' stuff that doesn't involve someone gaming the system at some level.
-
I prefer the incompetence over conspiracy approach though I have to agree the review process does seem severely broken. Inspectors who also contribute may be an issue as well as poor quality supervision. I find it strange that SS have so little confidence in their process they ask people to try again if they get rejections - surely they should be stressing the robustness of their system and the unlikelihood that they got it wrong.
-
Another Icon warrior :)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html)
62000 image from 2014. Full of crap :)
-
Another Icon warrior :)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url])
62000 image from 2014. Full of crap :)
Not to my taste or hard to do but look like the kind of thing people might use - don't confuse stock with art or technical wizardry
-
We should consider the possibility that this stuff isn't even being submitted, inspected and approved - but that SS has people generating it internally, just to pump up their numbers. There is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing this.
Maybe and maybe not, but one thing appears certain, there is another submission door that the mere mortals cannot use. It is beyond me to grasp how SS would let in such junk in such volume. I can see a few sneaking through but that many is on purpose and submitted most likely in a way that we would never see, whether they know an inspector, are affiliated with SS, is the cousin of Jon, the husband of the front desk associate, the janitor, whatever.
-
62K images in one year?????
that' guy keeps busy with his uploads... how he managed to upload and keyword that much in one year, that's impressive.
Another Icon warrior :)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url])
62000 image from 2014. Full of crap :)
-
We not sell the new pictures (vectors), while the new vectors 90% is crap, crap icons. Nobody search the vectors in new category, while the news its so crap. I go 10 page to found 1 new good illustration. This ratio is sucks. Nobody search in new category.
Shutterstock have 5 million icon why accepting more this crap?
The best: Spammers whit funny artist name :) Idesign, bestvector, popular vector. Im so angry.
-
Another Icon warrior :)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url])
62000 image from 2014. Full of crap :)
Not to my taste or hard to do but look like the kind of thing people might use - don't confuse stock with art or technical wizardry
I don't think it's the simplicity that's the issue - repetition with too few changes is the problem. I searched for lamp within this contributor's portfolio and there were over 2,500 items. Endless minor variations on the theme with the same objects - probably 50 submissions would cover everything
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?searchterm=lamp&submitter=2677336 (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?searchterm=lamp&submitter=2677336)
-
there were over 2,500 items
Yep. Twenty-six pages dedicated to lamp icons. Just your ordinary, garden-variety portfolio!
I'm wondering if any of these have ever showed up on other stock sites. Anybody seen them before? If not, does it mean this dude produced tons of these in one fell swoop just for submission to SS, starting in 2014?
Really strange.
-
I don't get it, because it's such a waste of time...for the contributor and the reviewers. Is this person happy getting no sales from 64,000 images?
-
I don't get it, because it's such a waste of time...for the contributor and the reviewers. Is this person happy getting no sales from 64,000 images?
Waste of time and waste of buyers time with all the similar and spam. This is why RPI is not a good way to value income. Somebody who uploads 10 of a subject vs 50 vs this spam. RPI will be different but real earnings might be close.
I'm with Mantis on this. How do all these get past review. Something wrong.
-
Nobody seemed to like my theory - but I'm saying, these were never reviewed. SS is having this stuff done internally, or commissioning someone, and loading it directly. No one is spending time uploading 10s of thousands of things like this, and SS wouldn't pay reviewers to look at it. Maybe they just want to pad their numbers and reach some new milestone of collection size. Or, maybe they want to show some subset of customers what a vast collection of icons and similar stuff they have.
Of course, I could be wrong. One way to prove me wrong would be to find the same material on another microstock.
-
I "image searched" on google with photo of one of this icons, and it only shows shutterstock results.
I also coppied first 20 keywords and put them in the fotolia and istock search and there were no results.
-
Nobody seemed to like my theory - but I'm saying, these were never reviewed. SS is having this stuff done internally, or commissioning someone, and loading it directly. No one is spending time uploading 10s of thousands of things like this, and SS wouldn't pay reviewers to look at it. Maybe they just want to pad their numbers and reach some new milestone of collection size. Or, maybe they want to show some subset of customers what a vast collection of icons and similar stuff they have.
Of course, I could be wrong. One way to prove me wrong would be to find the same material on another microstock.
I can't buy this theory - they could do what Istock do and accept nearly everything cheapest way to boost numbers.
-
62K images in one year?????
that' guy keeps busy with his uploads... how he managed to upload and keyword that much in one year, that's impressive.
they have a large portfolio and it is keyworded over the years and then they send a harddrive to shutter who just add the protfolio to the database. . or they are a factory, with a few people uploading 177 images per day. not that difficult
-
Shutterstock vector category called: The War of Icons :)
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?searchterm=globe+hand&x=0&y=0&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&submitter=3261299&photographer_name=Mr.Creative&search_group=&orient=&commercial_ok=&show_color_wheel=1&sort_method=popular (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?searchterm=globe+hand&x=0&y=0&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&submitter=3261299&photographer_name=Mr.Creative&search_group=&orient=&commercial_ok=&show_color_wheel=1&sort_method=popular)
-
You can produce easy illustration backgrounds you don't even need software on your computer, there are enough online apps/sites which can create this stuff. It's extremely easy to produce and extremely easy to keyword because the keywords are always the same. Shutterstock happily accept this stuff (I tested by myself but with only 10Illustration I'm not an image spammer) but carefully crafted, edited and keyworded photos gets rejected on a daily basis for obscure reasons, it's just crazy. And yes I sold one of this cheap illustrations so far.
If you produce quality stuff Shutterstock might not for you!
-
Shutterstock vector category called: The War of Icons :)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?searchterm=globe+hand&x=0&y=0&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&submitter=3261299&photographer_name=Mr.Creative&search_group=&orient=&commercial_ok=&show_color_wheel=1&sort_method=popular[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?searchterm=globe+hand&x=0&y=0&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&submitter=3261299&photographer_name=Mr.Creative&search_group=&orient=&commercial_ok=&show_color_wheel=1&sort_method=popular[/url])
LOl another ironic name Mr.Creative!
That one even has icons where the only difference seems to be the sample text!
-
We should consider the possibility that this stuff isn't even being submitted, inspected and approved - but that SS has people generating it internally, just to pump up their numbers. There is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing this.
Bingo
-
Some photographers specialize in a subject. That is the only reason for multiple images.
It seems odd that on the one hand we see so much image spamming but on the other their approval process is a joke. They can't claim quality images when this allowed. I can't see customers would want to wade through so similar image. Undoubtedly, many of their rejected images would be better than almos
t identical images by same contributor.
-
According to the data on the SS mainpage; on June 6, 2014 weekly image additions were 252.177. This week that figure is 545.406. More than doubled in 16 months!
-
Yeah, and 80% of those are just similars.
-
Today I had to buy an image of a hand holding a marker (like in an animated whiteboard video). So I went to SS. I got this, endless pages filled with the same, repetitive stuff. And not even close to what I was looking for.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/1gkkd5.jpg)
(http://i61.tinypic.com/28it0ef.jpg)
-
Today I had to buy an image of a hand holding a marker (like in an animated whiteboard video). So I went to SS. I got this, endless pages filled with the same, repetitive stuff. And not even close to what I was looking for.
([url]http://i62.tinypic.com/1gkkd5.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i61.tinypic.com/28it0ef.jpg[/url])
All I can think of is that they're loading up on this sort of content now - and very likely doing it internally, or on contract - and, once they have enough, will announce a more sophisticate search tool for buyers. You might be able to see just single image of "marker guy" and then search specifically for the same image with different text. Or the same text on a different background.
-
All I can think of is that they're loading up on this sort of content now - and very likely doing it internally, or on contract - and, once they have enough, will announce a more sophisticate search tool for buyers. You might be able to see just single image of "marker guy" and then search specifically for the same image with different text. Or the same text on a different background.
It would be a very interesting feature!
-
Today I had to buy an image of a hand holding a marker (like in an animated whiteboard video). So I went to SS. I got this, endless pages filled with the same, repetitive stuff. And not even close to what I was looking for.
([url]http://i62.tinypic.com/1gkkd5.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i61.tinypic.com/28it0ef.jpg[/url])
betcha this contributor is a good friend of the mass-rejection villain team of atilla household ;)
and this is the only time i am all for serbian's "two is too many when you upload 2000 of the same stuff" implementation.
-
Today I had to buy an image of a hand holding a marker (like in an animated whiteboard video). So I went to SS. I got this, endless pages filled with the same, repetitive stuff. And not even close to what I was looking for.
([url]http://i62.tinypic.com/1gkkd5.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i61.tinypic.com/28it0ef.jpg[/url])
Thats disgusting
-
I would say that is borderline/ not that bad compared to uploading the same icons over and over again. Different buyers could need ones saying "customer service" or "good idea". As long as they are keyworded correctly and the search algorithm is working. Lots of buyers wouldn't know how to customise it themselves
-
Nobody seemed to like my theory - but I'm saying, these were never reviewed. SS is having this stuff done internally, or commissioning someone, and loading it directly. No one is spending time uploading 10s of thousands of things like this, and SS wouldn't pay reviewers to look at it. Maybe they just want to pad their numbers and reach some new milestone of collection size. Or, maybe they want to show some subset of customers what a vast collection of icons and similar stuff they have.
Of course, I could be wrong. One way to prove me wrong would be to find the same material on another microstock.
Can't accept this or similar theories. Why wouldn't they just accept our work if they need numbers. We have better quality and not spam repeats.
-
Nobody seemed to like my theory - but I'm saying, these were never reviewed. SS is having this stuff done internally, or commissioning someone, and loading it directly. No one is spending time uploading 10s of thousands of things like this, and SS wouldn't pay reviewers to look at it. Maybe they just want to pad their numbers and reach some new milestone of collection size. Or, maybe they want to show some subset of customers what a vast collection of icons and similar stuff they have.
Of course, I could be wrong. One way to prove me wrong would be to find the same material on another microstock.
Can't accept this or similar theories. Why wouldn't they just accept our work if they need numbers. We have better quality and not spam repeats.
sorry yada3 , i agree with stockastic on this one. 8)
they do not just mass approve you and me, they have certain people who can upload everything
and sh*t and all gets approved without looking at their work because of their position
in the boardroom 8)
this is not just a plague in ss, it's a common practice with all business controlled by shareholders.
nepotism is a commonplace in business, and with shareholders, it is not unusual for them to get their good-for-nothing sons, daughters, wife, mistresses, cousins cousins cousins..etc
into the management office without an interview, or qualification,etc
-
Nobody seemed to like my theory - but I'm saying, these were never reviewed. SS is having this stuff done internally, or commissioning someone, and loading it directly. No one is spending time uploading 10s of thousands of things like this, and SS wouldn't pay reviewers to look at it. Maybe they just want to pad their numbers and reach some new milestone of collection size. Or, maybe they want to show some subset of customers what a vast collection of icons and similar stuff they have.
Of course, I could be wrong. One way to prove me wrong would be to find the same material on another microstock.
Can't accept this or similar theories. Why wouldn't they just accept our work if they need numbers. We have better quality and not spam repeats.
sorry yada3 , i agree with stockastic on this one. 8)
they do not just mass approve you and me, they have certain people who can upload everything
and sh*t and all gets approved without looking at their work because of their position
in the boardroom 8)
this is not just a plague in ss, it's a common practice with all business controlled by shareholders.
nepotism is a commonplace in business, and with shareholders, it is not unusual for them to get their good-for-nothing sons, daughters, wife, mistresses, cousins cousins cousins..etc
into the management office without an interview, or qualification,etc
And aside from people who watched x-files, what's your proof that they have special people or boardroom specials or cousins. I'll stick with what I can really see. They reject mass quantities of good work, and if it was all about making numbers, that makes no sense. If they wanted numbers, SS would be more like they used to be or more like IS.
-
And aside from people who watched x-files, what's your proof that they have special people or boardroom specials or cousins. I'll stick with what I can really see. They reject mass quantities of good work, and if it was all about making numbers, that makes no sense. If they wanted numbers, SS would be more like they used to be or more like IS.
1) i don't watch xfiles
2) da vinci said the world was round , a long time before the rest of the world was allowed to think that da vinci was correct
3) it is much easier to be Thomas ;D
-
Nobody seemed to like my theory - but I'm saying, these were never reviewed. SS is having this stuff done internally, or commissioning someone, and loading it directly. No one is spending time uploading 10s of thousands of things like this, and SS wouldn't pay reviewers to look at it. Maybe they just want to pad their numbers and reach some new milestone of collection size. Or, maybe they want to show some subset of customers what a vast collection of icons and similar stuff they have.
Of course, I could be wrong. One way to prove me wrong would be to find the same material on another microstock.
Can't accept this or similar theories. Why wouldn't they just accept our work if they need numbers. We have better quality and not spam repeats.
Because inspecting submissions takes time and costs money. If you just want thousands of similar vectors or icons, it's cheaper to pay someone to generate exactly what you want, and just load it directly, without paying reviewers to look at it.
SS makes their own rules. There is no legal requirement that they only offer imagery from outside contributors, or that it all goes through inspection. Their buyers don't care where it came from. SS wants to grow, and they don't need to rely on crowdsourcing for everything anymore.
-
Because inspecting submissions takes time and costs money. If you just want thousands of similar vectors or icons, it's cheaper to pay someone to generate exactly what you want, and just load it directly, without paying reviewers to look at it.
SS makes their own rules. There is no legal requirement that they only offer imagery from outside contributors, or that it all goes through inspection. Their buyers don't care where it came from. SS wants to grow, and they don't need to rely on crowdsourcing for everything anymore.
i seem to agree more with you than with my own xfile theory ;)
it goes hand in hand with the deception method used by apartment bldg owners who want to dump their real estate because it is riddled with lots of pending repair and hidden skeleton ..
so they fill their apt with met-houses and druggies
and present their apt as fully-rented.
when the buyers come in, they make sure the druggies and met-houses ppl are gone,
so it looks like a nice quiet fully-rented apartment bldg.
iow, wait for another change of ownership istock style
-
Because inspecting submissions takes time and costs money. If you just want thousands of similar vectors or icons, it's cheaper to pay someone to generate exactly what you want, and just load it directly, without paying reviewers to look at it.
SS makes their own rules. There is no legal requirement that they only offer imagery from outside contributors, or that it all goes through inspection. Their buyers don't care where it came from. SS wants to grow, and they don't need to rely on crowdsourcing for everything anymore.
i seem to agree more with you than with my own xfile theory ;)
it goes hand in hand with the deception method used by apartment bldg owners who want to dump their real estate because it is riddled with lots of pending repair and hidden skeleton ..
so they fill their apt with met-houses and druggies
and present their apt as fully-rented.
when the buyers come in, they make sure the druggies and met-houses ppl are gone,
so it looks like a nice quiet fully-rented apartment bldg.
iow, wait for another change of ownership istock style
The thing is, though, that it's not even deceptive. SS simply sells images, they're not a photographers' agency. The images can come from anywhere: from independent 'contributors', or people under contract to SS, or from SS employees. They can choose to inspect new content, or just accept it as-is. They could even write software to generate thousands of vector images automatically, based on some formulas for combining images and text with variations. None of that would be deceptive, or in violation of their contributor terms. We (independent photographers) are just one source of images. There will certainly be others, in the future.
Take a look at what's happening with Etsy. It started out with crowdsourcing of handmade goods. Now that it's gone public, it's bringing in mass-produced products from big suppliers. All those artisans and craftsmen that got the business off the ground are crying "foul" but there never was any promise regarding the future. Same thing will happen to (formerly) micro stock.
-
Take a look at what's happening with Etsy. It started out with crowdsourcing of handmade goods. Now that it's gone public, it's bringing in mass-produced products from big suppliers. All those artisans and craftsmen that got the business off the ground are crying "foul" but there never was any promise regarding the future. Same thing will happen to (formerly) micro stock.
hmm, interesting. so we like those indie musicians and now artisans are all crying foul, when we all went in knowing that eventually they will forget you once they become mainstream.
it's a sad world with vultures using pawns like us.
i guess the next time something wonderful comes up ...like canva, stocksy ... ;)
we better ask ourselves if we want to lend them a helping hand, right???
what do that phrase for ppl like us...??? whipping boy, chess piece, stoolie, floor-mat ...
can't remember what that is appropriate definition to describe ppl like us 8)
-
can't remember what that is appropriate definition to describe ppl like us 8)
Dispensable. :( >:(
-
Take a look at what's happening with Etsy. It started out with crowdsourcing of handmade goods. Now that it's gone public, it's bringing in mass-produced products from big suppliers. All those artisans and craftsmen that got the business off the ground are crying "foul" but there never was any promise regarding the future. Same thing will happen to (formerly) micro stock.
hmm, interesting. so we like those indie musicians and now artisans are all crying foul, when we all went in knowing that eventually they will forget you once they become mainstream.
it's a sad world with vultures using pawns like us.
i guess the next time something wonderful comes up ...like canva, stocksy ... ;)
we better ask ourselves if we want to lend them a helping hand, right???
what do that phrase for ppl like us...??? whipping boy, chess piece, stoolie, floor-mat ...
can't remember what that is appropriate definition to describe ppl like us 8)
I guess the lesson is that all opportunities are temporary. There's always a 'window'. Any new idea that takes off will eventually be absorbed by big corporations, that never changes. And eventually, they kill it, or transform it beyond recognition, and the cycle starts over. Many people still value things made by individual artisans and craftsmen, and if Etsy is no longer be the place to find them, something will take its place.
-
In the town next to mine they had a first "maker's festival" last month. Took over part of an organic farm to sell handmade goods from local artisans. The turnout was so huge it caused traffic jams. The weekly farmers' markets are also packed. I think people are getting tired of mass production.
-
In the town next to mine they had a first "maker's festival" last month. Took over part of an organic farm to sell handmade goods from local artisans. The turnout was so huge it caused traffic jams. The weekly farmers' markets are also packed. I think people are getting tired of mass production.
Yes I think so too. And of course Etsy was riding that trend, until they went public, and immediately began losing their identity in the madness of a newly public company.
I have lots of photos that I could be selling as wall art, greeting cards etc. But as we all know, art/craft shows are a huge effort that seldom pays off. For photographers, the problem is inventory - we have to invest hundreds in framed/matted prints, and unlike wood furniture, they aren't fun to make. And we have to store them. If technology could give us an answer to this problem, local photo sales would be more of an option. Maybe every art show could have a single print booth that could produce finished product on demand, so we'd just have to show samples.
-
I have lots of photos that I could be selling as wall art, greeting cards etc. But as we all know, art/craft shows are a huge effort that seldom pays off. For photographers, the problem is inventory - we have to invest hundreds in framed/matted prints, and unlike wood furniture, they aren't fun to make. And we have to store them. If technology could give us an answer to this problem, local photo sales would be more of an option. Maybe every art show could have a single print booth that could produce finished product on demand, so we'd just have to show samples.
i think we have a rapport going here... in terms of where we are going with our work..globally via ss,etc or locally. re your comment to me about temporal-ity of opportunity, and in this latest reply of yours to shelma re marketing locally.
y'know, i have traveled to lots of countries and the issue of distribution is the same all over,, whether latin-am, italy, usa, asia, etc. i spoke to all kinds of photographers and painters and i get mostly
the most optimistic rapport from the ones who work locally all day in an installment during summer mainly.
you mention inventory issue is universal too. i was on holidays in the maritimes and italy and these same issues were pointed out to me. also local issues like getting a good spot each summer. some cities have a bais to seniority, others are first come first served annual while other is more in the raffle. but no matter where you get to be in the tourist area during summer for your stall,
the unity is amazing.
we don't find this backstabbing attitude we find with stock photography.
and yes, many tell me they are not interested in stock photography too.
but, long days in summer sitting in the tent or outdoors in the shade waiting for business
do not fazed these artisans. they are back there every year, so obviously they must make enough
or else they would not be there each summer .
the cost to get a stall is a bit steep for someone like me waiting to see if i do want to take that leap
... as the oldtimers say, $$$ to pay for a stall may sound much, but you sell .
if you are in this business, i like to hear your own view as to the feasibility to take that leap
to sell photographs locally, ie. in whatver city i may be at that time.
italy i am told is almost out of the question, as they do not give out a local stall license to foreigners.
-
p.s.
i know what i commented directly to stockastic is a bit OT, but this topic of this thread is more or less moot. nothing 's gonna change with ss or whoever. whether in terms of better contributors relations, or preview size, or sales, etc
so we may as well start to rapport on alternatives instead of beating a dead horse
and screaming here on leaf's site
because no one gives a hoot already. 8)
-
Yes, we've wandered off topic. But obviously SS isn't going to explain what's going on and won't change.
For me, at least, microstock is history and in fact, discussion here on MSG is way down from what it used to be. I'd like to see a new forum dedicated to print sales, both online and in person. I've searched, but I don't think there is one that is currently active. MSG has a subforum for POD but there's little activity in it. FAA has a forum but the moderators won't allow criticism or any mention of competitors.
-
Yes, we've wandered off topic. But obviously SS isn't going to explain what's going on and won't change.
For me, at least, microstock is history and in fact, discussion here on MSG is way down from what it used to be. I'd like to see a new forum dedicated to print sales, both online and in person. I've searched, but I don't think there is one that is currently active. MSG has a subforum for POD but there's little activity in it. FAA has a forum but the moderators won't allow criticism or any mention of competitors.
nothing wrong with competition. if football(soccer to you ), tennis or grandprix ban competitiveness
... the sport would diminish into wishywash like social medias on interent 8)
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Just added 400 new ones since 2 days ago.
He's very high surely... :)
I think marijuana fans browse his portfolio for hours!
-
can't remember what that is appropriate definition to describe ppl like us 8)
Dispensable. :( >:(
thx. that's the word.
-
Just added 400 new ones since 2 days ago.http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)[/url]
bingo, this is the reason why ss has been going down the sewer ...
the main menu for boardroom meeting is this .
and the obvious target market for 2016 ss business projection
-
Just added 400 new ones since 2 days ago.[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])[/url]
bingo, this is the reason why ss has been going down the sewer ...
the main menu for boardroom meeting is this .
and the obvious target market for 2016 ss business projection
The quality of his pics is amazing considering that he is the whole day smoking weed (I suppose)
-
I think he's set things up so that his cat can just randomly bump the camera a bit and activate the shutter. Over and over and over.
Does SS still have a "new images" page, and if so does this sort of stuff show up on it? Check out his 'sets' page. It says he has over 10,000 images of marijuana on a white background.
-
Apparently "Doug Shutter" is a real person named Nathan.
Here's the Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/stock.potography (https://www.facebook.com/stock.potography)
This is in the FB "About" section:
"Hi. I'm Nathan.
I'm in love with imagery, storytelling & admittedly...Marijuana. I want to learn all about this plant and the meaning(s) attached to it.
I will travel across the country researching and photographing the topic of American Marijuana.
My initial goal is to build a facebook community. To learn and plan. I love your images and stories! Anything 'American Marijuana.' Please keep sharing.
Thank you all so much.
Nathan"
-
Apparently "Doug Shutter" is a real person named Nathan.
Here's the Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/stock.potography (https://www.facebook.com/stock.potography)
This is in the FB "About" section:
"Hi. I'm Nathan.
I'm in love with imagery, storytelling & admittedly...Marijuana. I want to learn all about this plant and the meaning(s) attached to it.
I will travel across the country researching and photographing the topic of American Marijuana.
My initial goal is to build a facebook community. To learn and plan. I love your images and stories! Anything 'American Marijuana.' Please keep sharing.
Thank you all so much.
Nathan"
Weed + MicroStock = Nathan
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D mrblues101 stockastic
u made my day to a good start to this halloween weekend
as for nathan, i guess he is vyying for a national grant to research marijuana, or maybe he already has one but forgot. talking about america and marijuana, i just heard some song on the radio that says
the new free america smoking marijuana ,... or something like that...
i guess that must be nathan too.
we might just find soon in USA that marijuana is essential to religion like some caribbean islands
everything is going up in a puff of smoke... whether it is due to tobacco or weed
envato, ss, ... who else is a disciple of nathan 8)
-
I think he's set things up so that his cat can just randomly bump the camera a bit and activate the shutter. Over and over and over.
Does SS still have a "new images" page, and if so does this sort of stuff show up on it? Check out his 'sets' page. It says he has over 10,000 images of marijuana on a white background.
that explains ss claim of 50K daily new images. nathan contributes 1/5 of them already 8)
-
10,000 images of the same thing; and, apparently, not one rejected for "low commercial value". The guy is a genius.
-
By the way, i just send a PM to Nathan's facebook telling him that what he does in SS is spam, but he reply me that from his perspective Images that do not contain marijuana are spam.
-
i know some of spam vector artis,
his 8000 vectors earn more than my 1200 'good' vector ::)
-
i know some of spam vector artis,
his 8000 vectors earn more than my 1200 'good' vector ::)
But no 8 times more (?)
-
There could be some real money involved. Marijuana is currently a significant news topic, and with 10,000 images, this guy has basically flooded the search. There's no possible way these were all individually inspected - he has to have some sort of inside track. This deal smells funny, and it isn't the aroma of pot.
-
I would say that is borderline/ not that bad compared to uploading the same icons over and over again. Different buyers could need ones saying "customer service" or "good idea". As long as they are keyworded correctly and the search algorithm is working. Lots of buyers wouldn't know how to customise it themselves
I would go further and say it is a smart move. The images cost far less than the time it takes a designer to add the words himself. If a designer can find an image that looks good (which some of those aren't though) and it contains the words they need then it makes financial sense for them to download all the versions he needs and save a sh*t loa of time (money) in having to produce them himself. Their client of course will be charged for the time it would have taken.
When searching for images etc you rarely find these appearing at the top of the search results.... in which case, I'd rather concentrate on what I'm doing rather than worrying about what other people are doing in completely different genres of images.
The icons and cannabis images on the other hand seem more than a little excessive!
-
There could be some real money involved. Marijuana is currently a significant news topic, and with 10,000 images, this guy has basically flooded the search. There's no possible way these were all individually inspected - he has to have some sort of inside track. This deal smells funny, and it isn't the aroma of pot.
yes, as my neighbour tells me, also, in some countries marijuana is considered holy weed
and ss could get lots of dls from these zealots for their altar and communes. also they would surely need product labels for their plantation crop which is sold as hemp to countries who believe
it is a good alternative to valium,etc
the next presidential election could also buy a lot of photos from him if one of the candidate is going to legalize marijuana. it's like those days when alcohol was bootlegging
and now we have a govt monopoly of legalized bootleg selling alcohol.
who knows, nathan might just be the next president or maharishi of marijuana... a deity of the future 8)
and as i said, even receiving a grants for his research on marijuana
possible business project 2016...
let me see if i can find our local druggie(s) ... i could collaborate with them
even make their addiction tax-deductible as a provider of drug images for ss
-
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-174525851/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-174525851/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-200093987/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-200093987/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html)
-
"Shutterstock" becoming "GutterStock".
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-174525851/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-174525851/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-200093987/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-200093987/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url])
surprised it got approved past the wrong WB or poor composition curator.
must have been an employees who took these pictures with smartphone
after a company's party.
i guess it's time i got my grand-niece to take some shots of her classmates tom-foolery,
and i get a few self-portraits of me in the loo, picking my nose, wanking,etc...
that seems to be where the target-market is for 2016...
those sites that has all those "cheerleaders show more than her cheering skills, nipslip,
oops, what who stole my p*nties ... was i really that drunk last night as i woke up
missing my drawers"...
how low can you go , ss ???
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-174525851/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-174525851/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-200093987/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-200093987/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url])
In this case, it's not so simple. Look at the ID...it's 25,000,000 apart. He obviously uploaded them at different time periods with different reviewers. The guy has so many images, he probably lost track of them.
-
Now Mr. Weed start to upload images cutted at botton and top.
http://www.shutterstock.com/es/pic-333448979/stock-photo-marijuana-panoramic.html?src=yC-z2wRwtq5CPXWHzT3bmQ-1-0 (http://www.shutterstock.com/es/pic-333448979/stock-photo-marijuana-panoramic.html?src=yC-z2wRwtq5CPXWHzT3bmQ-1-0)
http://www.shutterstock.com/es/pic-333448982/stock-photo-marijuana-panoramic.html?src=yC-z2wRwtq5CPXWHzT3bmQ-1-1 (http://www.shutterstock.com/es/pic-333448982/stock-photo-marijuana-panoramic.html?src=yC-z2wRwtq5CPXWHzT3bmQ-1-1)
I never upload photos (just vector illustrations) so i dont fully understand about reasons to be rejected, but as i read before images cannot be cutted...
-
Maybe he is hired by shutter to provide wholly owned content amongst others so that in the long run they dont need contributors, canva seems to go that way
-
Maybe he is hired by shutter to provide wholly owned content amongst others so that in the long run they dont need contributors, canva seems to go that way
I've been thinking that deals like that would explain a lot of the repetitious stuff noted in this thread, but this pot 'series' is - well let's just say a bit simplistic. I can't imagine SS paying for thousands of images like this.
-
The problem of uploading a lot of similar images:
We really dont know a lot about search algorithm, but as we can see, a very important factor for better search position is number of downloads.
If we have just one weed image (for example) somebody search for weed, and he like our image, so he download the image... another guy search for weed again and see our image, so he download it again... and we can have... 20 downloads for example.
Now, if we have 1000 weed images that are the same image with litte difference, the first guy will download one image, the other guy another different... so i dont have one image with 20 downloads (something good for search position), but i have 20 different images (similar) with 1 download each....
-
I think Shutterstock is a awful company!
-
How many keywords does he have? 5 million? Thought the limit was 50?
Edited to add: It must be the translation. It looks like my images also have 5 million spanish keywords.
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-174525851/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-174525851/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-200093987/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-200093987/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html[/url])
lol :P
-
Apparently "Doug Shutter" is a real person named Nathan.
Here's the Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/stock.potography (https://www.facebook.com/stock.potography)
This is in the FB "About" section:
"Hi. I'm Nathan.
I'm in love with imagery, storytelling & admittedly...Marijuana. I want to learn all about this plant and the meaning(s) attached to it.
I will travel across the country researching and photographing the topic of American Marijuana.
My initial goal is to build a facebook community. To learn and plan. I love your images and stories! Anything 'American Marijuana.' Please keep sharing.
Thank you all so much.
Nathan"
No doubt Nathan and SS see the future of weed becoming huge; see themselves as getting 'in' on the ground floor....maybe they even met one another at the University of Oaksterdam. ;D
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/business-is-booming-at-the-harvard-of-pot-in-california/2015/11/15/e1fd0cb8-78fb-11e5-bc80-9091021aeb69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_oaksterdam930p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/business-is-booming-at-the-harvard-of-pot-in-california/2015/11/15/e1fd0cb8-78fb-11e5-bc80-9091021aeb69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_oaksterdam930p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
-
The guy has no short-term memory left, so he gets up every day and does 100 more photos of the same bag of pot he's been shooting for 6 months, not realizing he already has 10,000 on line.
-
The guy has no short-term memory left, so he gets up every day and does 100 more photos of the same bag of pot he's been shooting for 6 months, not realizing he already has 10,000 on line.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D a day in the life of a contributor/reviewer/shareholder of ss
story continues...
he stumbles into the ss office, opens his laptop and see all these new 100 photos
and approves all of it.
his boss comes slithers in the ss office , and applauds the 10,000 new images today
not realising many of it are marijuana photos
... and he invites his buddy for another joint-meeting
-
Spammers coming from mostly 2015-2014. Its a new wave from third World.
Vector spammers making mostly black ugly clipart icons.
Here is some new spammer:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html)
This is the most intresting:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html)
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?
Now this is 420 000 Spam Pictures from mostly 2015 - 2014, from 13 vector "artist". How many spammer are in total?
My soul crying.
it would be best to fire them all.
-
Spammers coming from mostly 2015-2014. Its a new wave from third World.
Vector spammers making mostly black ugly clipart icons.
Here is some new spammer:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html[/url])
This is the most intresting:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url])
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?
Now this is 420 000 Spam Pictures from mostly 2015 - 2014, from 13 vector "artist". How many spammer are in total?
My soul crying.
it would be best to fire them all.
This is a serious issue i was worried about when an agency has no incentive to police their library for misuse. The numbers of files they have in their library is more important than the integrity of the library itself. What else do you expect from a company whose own founder took thousands of garbage snap shots himself to start this library the first year.
-
Spammers coming from mostly 2015-2014. Its a new wave from third World.
Vector spammers making mostly black ugly clipart icons.
Here is some new spammer:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html[/url])
This is the most intresting:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url])
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?
Now this is 420 000 Spam Pictures from mostly 2015 - 2014, from 13 vector "artist". How many spammer are in total?
My soul crying.
it would be best to fire them all.
This is a serious issue i was worried about when an agency has no incentive to police their library for misuse. The numbers of files they have in their library is more important than the integrity of the library itself. What else do you expect from a company whose own founder took thousands of garbage snap shots himself to start this library the first year.
I think that this is not a big deal, unless you upload icons, so you have big competition with this kind of spammers.
Most of profiles just stop upload (are inactive now), so they think that upload a huge number of icons was a good idea but then they see that images can only be founded in last pages searches so there is not good earining with all of this.
-
Shutterstock is a awful awful company! I have not uploaded anything new in ages. After Shutterstocks newest agreement update they are by far the most evil stock company on the planet!
-
...
This is a serious issue i was worried about when an agency has no incentive to police their library for misuse. The numbers of files they have in their library is more important than the integrity of the library itself. What else do you expect from a company whose own founder took thousands of garbage snap shots himself to start this library the first year.
I think that this is not a big deal, unless you upload icons, so you have big competition with this kind of spammers.
Most of profiles just stop upload (are inactive now), so they think that upload a huge number of icons was a good idea but then they see that images can only be founded in last pages searches so there is not good earining with all of this.
Lets say this is happening. Then others start to think ok, this person is doing it. I'm gonna start doing it in order to compete so we are both abusing. Then lots of others are abusing the system. Then so much junk gets in that any viable new files get so buried in the new rubbish uploads they never even have a chance to compete in the first place. I feel like thats whats been happening recently in shutterstock so i have stopped uploading here as i know my files are very commercial yet some of them don't get seen.
-
...
This is a serious issue i was worried about when an agency has no incentive to police their library for misuse. The numbers of files they have in their library is more important than the integrity of the library itself. What else do you expect from a company whose own founder took thousands of garbage snap shots himself to start this library the first year.
I think that this is not a big deal, unless you upload icons, so you have big competition with this kind of spammers.
Most of profiles just stop upload (are inactive now), so they think that upload a huge number of icons was a good idea but then they see that images can only be founded in last pages searches so there is not good earining with all of this.
Lets say this is happening. Then others start to think ok, this person is doing it. I'm gonna start doing it in order to compete so we are both abusing. Then lots of others are abusing the system. Then so much junk gets in that any viable new files get so buried in the new rubbish uploads they never even have a chance to compete in the first place. I feel like thats whats been happening recently in shutterstock so i have stopped uploading here as i know my files are very commercial yet some of them don't get seen.
Well, im agree with that
-
Shutterstock is a awful awful company! I have not uploaded anything new in ages. After Shutterstocks newest agreement update they are by far the most evil stock company on the planet!
What were the issues with the latest agreement? I have short memory!
-
I don't think I've ever seen a portfoio this large:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=aarden (http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=aarden)
edit: never mind. looks like a gallery of some sort.
-
Google translate tells me that aarden is Dutch for earthen, so I think it's just a search for earth, not a gallery. If I type in "fenetre", for example, I get a results page of over a million windows, even though my language is set to English
-
Ah. Good call.
-
SS can not be doing this to 'pump their numbers'.
If they wanted to pump the numbers we would not be getting so many 'Out Of Focus' rejections even when the photo is tac sharp.
There must be another reason so much crap is being accepted.
-
SS can not be doing this to 'pump their numbers'.
If they wanted to pump the numbers we would not be getting so many 'Out Of Focus' rejections even when the photo is tac sharp.
There must be another reason so much crap is being accepted.
yes it sure looks fishy why regular contributors get a whole batch rejected with
no matter what , there is a problem with your photo.
according to the ss thread of complaints, these are coming from ppl who know how to process
photos for years... but suddenly
it is mostly OOF. if not, it is poor lighting , even if shadows are transparent. if all is perfect,
it is composition. so no matter what , the rejection still stand for these regular contributor
who suddenly forgot how to focus, WB, composition and contract some shaky hand disability.
but marijuana dude walks in with thousands without being curated.
who can solve this million dollar, i mean million image mystery???
-
oh also, i forgot to mention this...
anyone noticed your approved images are being edited to remove category and most of the keywords even if relevant. eg. for a safari outdoor zoo park
i had most of my keywords removed to leave only zoo and animal
and my category of animal / outdoor park was deleted to leave only outdoor park
not sure if it's a glitch because my other batches are not edited like that.
can it be the same reviewer rejector who if you're lucky to get approved, your photos won't sell
anyway because the keywords and other cateogry are removed???
i found it by accident because i wanted to use the same description and keywords.
-
Probably SS just need more marijuana stuff, but does not need
more Zoo pics. Less people have access to marijuana than
To the Zoo. IMHO ???
-
I'm sorry but the guy with the 35000 weed images still wins !
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Lets say this is happening. Then others start to think ok, this person is doing it. I'm gonna start doing it in order to compete so we are both abusing. Then lots of others are abusing the system. Then so much junk gets in that any viable new files get so buried in the new rubbish uploads they never even have a chance to compete in the first place. I feel like thats whats been happening recently in shutterstock so i have stopped uploading here as i know my files are very commercial yet some of them don't get seen.
Exactly my thoughts.
I'm exclusive on IS, mostly icon sets, and this is exactly what is happening over there. I was thinking of giving up exclusivity and uploading to SS instead as everything over there is now dominated by a few spammers but if it's just as bad on SS then there's no point.
I guess it's a case of either join in the spamming or become a photo contributor instead.
Are there any sites left which puts quality over quantity?
BTW, there is a contributor on IS called crispyicon but that's not me.
-
I'm sorry but the guy with the 35000 weed images still wins !
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably SS just need more marijuana stuff, but does not need
more Zoo pics. Less people have access to marijuana than
To the Zoo. IMHO ???
exactamento...
as i said in another thread. it's very easy to get 100% approval/rejection
approval (levels and focus must be spot on) (your black , grey, white must be that)
rejection (bottom of screen has anything chopped off or out of focus)(sky is not blue)
exception, where for sure 100% approval - (subject is smoking weed or someone is offering the reviewer a kilo of weed, tomato, apple... best to add a note to the reviewer on this)
8) 8) 8)
btw, there is no human reviewer, it is a robot, that is why when you log in,
it wants to be sure YOU ARE NOT A ROBOT...
because they do not want you to sense that they too are robots at ss
;) ;) ;)
-
This is really really annoying.
Anyway, from a portofolio of 60k+ images it's impossible not to generate a minimum of 50-60+ sales/day.
I think it's simple math.
That still counts for 600$+/month on Shutterstock.
I don't think any of these portofolio makes less than 600$/month.
I used to sell a lot of crap (not repetitive crap) but... crap when I had a poor technical level.
So, my guess would be that it's relevant for them to spam with this s**t if they earn a little living from it.
-
This is really really annoying:
This is all same:
http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-346259405/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-31 (http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-346259405/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-31)
http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-348359921/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-30 (http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-348359921/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-30)
http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-351424148/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-29 (http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-351424148/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-29)
http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-332781803/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-38 (http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-332781803/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-38)
http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-322766738/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-42 (http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-322766738/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-42)
http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-359570837/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-54 (http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-359570837/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-54)
http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-355905305/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-77 (http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-355905305/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-77)
http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-354936566/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-82 (http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-354936566/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-82)
http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-316075061/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-15 (http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-316075061/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-15)
http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-327521588/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-10 (http://www.shutterstock.com/hu/pic-327521588/stock-vector-car-icon-vector-illustration.html?src=_jdTmFtC8XnBNkCO0Bh9FQ-1-10)
What is this?
Why accepting this Crap?
-
Amusingly, this user's name is popular.vector! There are 64,723 items in their portfolio and it's about 100 or so objects presented in endless variations of box color & shape, background color & shape. It's mind-numblngly boring repetition of super-simple objects, each one to a file. Does that mean the trend on SS of ever-increasing collections of icons in one file is passé?
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=2939971&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=2939971&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
About the only good thing I can think of is that the keywords are pretty close (so there are a few misplaced words like computer on an icon of an eye dropper, but they're mostly OK)
-
But this images (icons) are grouped in the last pages of SS search engine.
-
What is this?
Why accepting this Crap?
I don't know the answer, but you're 100% correct. This is CRAP!!!!!
And it's also pretty CRAPPY for SS to allow it.
-
Spammers coming from mostly 2015-2014. Its a new wave from third World.
Vector spammers making mostly black ugly clipart icons.
Here is some new spammer:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html[/url])
This is the most intresting:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url])
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?
Now this is 420 000 Spam Pictures from mostly 2015 - 2014, from 13 vector "artist". How many spammer are in total?
My soul crying.
it would be best to fire them all.
I think it's wrong to criticize vectors artist like this. Photographers spend more time on post-productions but there are tens of thousands who take every day snap shots and upload them.
There is a market for both. Another mail icon is no worst than another photo of a tomato or a strawberry. As someone who has a mixed portfolio, to call one side's work ugly is misguided.
-
Amusingly, this user's name is popular.vector! There are 64,723 items in their portfolio and it's about 100 or so objects presented in endless variations of box color & shape, background color & shape. It's mind-numblngly boring repetition of super-simple objects, each one to a file. Does that mean the trend on SS of ever-increasing collections of icons in one file is passé?
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=2939971&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=2939971&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
About the only good thing I can think of is that the keywords are pretty close (so there are a few misplaced words like computer on an icon of an eye dropper, but they're mostly OK)
yes, according to her avatar she is a lady and she created 64K in one year. wow, that's more than I can make in my lifetime . .. even if the robot reviewer approved the other half of my properly produced photographs ( yes, I average between 10 % /50% rejection... weekdays/ weekends , and some weekends 90% rejection ( which I resubmit a month later during the weekdays to get 100% approval anyway.. .. irritating but oh well, what can I do???
back to topic, I wouldn't even be able to create 6400 in one year never mind 64000
. she is a super woman from ukraine
-
If every agency were to cull their collections, removing copies, identicals, I guess the total images in micro-stock wouldn't even amount to 20 million originals.
And buyers would probably not know the difference. Shareholders? Yes.
-
Spammers coming from mostly 2015-2014. Its a new wave from third World.
Vector spammers making mostly black ugly clipart icons.
Here is some new spammer:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html[/url])
This is the most intresting:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url])
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?
Now this is 420 000 Spam Pictures from mostly 2015 - 2014, from 13 vector "artist". How many spammer are in total?
My soul crying.
it would be best to fire them all.
I think it's wrong to criticize vectors artist like this. Photographers spend more time on post-productions but there are tens of thousands who take every day snap shots and upload them.
There is a market for both. Another mail icon is no worst than another photo of a tomato or a strawberry. As someone who has a mixed portfolio, to call one side's work ugly is misguided.
Who's singling out vector artists? Most of this thread is about a photographer if you read back. How can you defend the kind of behaviour linked to here? It's straight up spamming the library.
-
This is Image Spam topic. And this artists real spammers, Photogarphers or Vector "artists" does not matter
-
This is the most intresting:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url])
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?
76,000 on Dec 3 and 94,000 five weeks later. Super productive!
-
To me, the most interesting thing about this is that SS doesn't feel any pressure to explain what's actually going on.
Obviously this stuff isn't going through the normal submission and review process.
-
This is the most intresting:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url])
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?
76,000 on Dec 3 and 94,000 five weeks later. Super productive!
wow, another superhuman.
so, what happened to that reviewer(s) who kept harassing photographers for
"poor composition" if it was correct WB, well exposed ... and no other rejectionable reasons???
oh, i forgot, that ANALysis only applies to contributors 2 years and more experienced with ss 8)
-
This is the most intresting:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url])
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?
76,000 on Dec 3 and 94,000 five weeks later. Super productive!
Worse than the author create spam is the Shutterstock approve it, mainly because it's vector image that among all styles (photo, 3D, etc) is the easiest to change not needing similar varieties.
Now 94958
-
look on button of page
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1891259p2.html?sort_method=newest&safesearch=1 (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1891259p2.html?sort_method=newest&safesearch=1)
boring, background changed
-
The spammer coming mostly from Thailand and India.
-
Here's another one (from the US).
::)
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
-
Here's another one (from the US).
::)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Extraordinary!!!
-
Clearly quick to produce in order to spend more time on SS forums. ;D
-
I'm tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is just a test to see how much income spamming like that actually generates. Tempted, but not quite.
I'm sure he'll report his results to the rest of the forum over there. 8)
I'm not holding my breath.
-
Here's another one (from the US).
::)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Many of these images appear to be exact duplicates. Not just similars, but duplicates. Many have the marijuana leaf at slightly different opacities, but many do not. This looks like another case of zero reviews or a portfolio from an SS insider. Pathetic! >:(
-
Here's another one (from the US).
::)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This is what you call a true spammer. Fortunately, he's getting about 0 sales from those 700 marijuana images.
-
I don't know why you even bother with this spammers...let them spam nobody will ever buy those crappy photos. The problem isn't the one who uploads, but is the one who review it and approved the photos that guy should be fired asap.
-
The spammer coming mostly from Thailand and India.
i already wrote in another thread...most come also from ikraine now....there are photog from ukraine with 40000 images, mostly similar, a lot do illustration.
and it's pretty easy to understand how this happen...
one man artist, pay other 10 for artist 200 300 dollar month, maybe more, to produce all this icon and images.
-
Here's another one (from the US).
::)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
The spammer way to work, was not successful in Dreamstime ;D
http://www.dreamstime.com/justcause_info (http://www.dreamstime.com/justcause_info)
-
I don't know why you even bother with this spammers...let them spam nobody will ever buy those crappy photos. The problem isn't the one who uploads, but is the one who review it and approved the photos that guy should be fired asap.
Does anyone know if there is any advantage in the search algorithms in terms of sheer weight of numbers? I just cant see a reason why people produce similars in such epic numbers it must be brain frying! The review process at SS seems to have problems...as far as I know there is not rejection reason for similars or LCV
-
I don't know why you even bother with this spammers...let them spam nobody will ever buy those crappy photos. The problem isn't the one who uploads, but is the one who review it and approved the photos that guy should be fired asap.
Does anyone know if there is any advantage in the search algorithms in terms of sheer weight of numbers? I just cant see a reason why people produce similars in such epic numbers it must be brain frying! The review process at SS seems to have problems...as far as I know there is not rejection reason for similars or LCV
As far as I know, there is no advantage. Images only moves up if it gets downloaded. All the spam images of the same kind tend to fall into the same spot on the search engine results, sometimes create a wall between the good stuff and the garbage lurking at the bottom.
-
Here's another one (from the US).
::)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
The spammer way to work, was not successful in Dreamstime ;D
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/justcause_info[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/justcause_info[/url])
Why was he banned from this forum? I think I missed that. Not mourning his loss, just curious
-
Here's another one (from the US).
::)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
The spammer way to work, was not successful in Dreamstime ;D
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/justcause_info[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/justcause_info[/url])
Oh, that's why Barry Blackburn depends every decision made by SS in their forums. How can SS make any worse decision than accepting this guy's images.
-
Here's another one (from the US).
::)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=395407&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
The spammer way to work, was not successful in Dreamstime ;D
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/justcause_info[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/justcause_info[/url])
Why was he banned from this forum? I think I missed that. Not mourning his loss, just curious
i don't know why he was banned from dst because i gave up on them a while back.
but i suspect it has a lot to do with dst going the other extreme with similars.
on one end of the spectrum, dst went berserk that two similars is way too much , and will reject image 3 to 3million.
on the other end is ss with some special no limit no reviewer checkpoint to stop any similars of marijuana and simple vectors of certain "elites" of mass-production
meanwhile, conscientious hardline contributors who produce non-similars and non-simple non-LCV images are constantly being screened at the checkpoint with atilla in the "immigration-booth".
go figure the sense of this. perharps, maybe not so ridiculous as it is the same when you drive through border, where innocent travellers are searched thoroughly while certain winnebagos and container ships which most likely store hidden contraband of goods and people,etc are wave to pass through without stopping.
-
Sorry I mean banned from here, MSG, I saw his profile says banned.
-
This is the most intresting:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html[/url])
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?
76,000 on Dec 3 and 94,000 five weeks later. Super productive!
102,853
-
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This guy has a new style these days.
-
Find myself getting all teary-eyed about the old LCV* days
*Limited Commercial Value
-
Another one: http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=3886493&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=3886493&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
Added 5732 per week!
-
Another one: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=3886493&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=3886493&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Added 5732 per week!
Also added to Alamy
http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?pseudoid=%7b369A18A5-1B48-4983-B598-751FEE00CC2C%7d&name=hwang+donghyun&st=11&mode=0&comp=1 (http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?pseudoid=%7b369A18A5-1B48-4983-B598-751FEE00CC2C%7d&name=hwang+donghyun&st=11&mode=0&comp=1)
-
Every city in the world
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3906626p2.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3906626p2.html)
-
Every city in the world
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3906626p2.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3906626p2.html[/url])
I guess I could see where that could be useful...
-
Every city in the world
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3906626p2.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3906626p2.html[/url])
I guess I could see where that could be useful...
Although whether its worth the investment of time I doubt (as well as its brain numbing effect)
-
By going through all these spammers ports, it looks like the SS review team is blind in these cases. They thoroughly examine all our photos and sometimes rejects amazing images. Why their vision is vanished while passing this crap???
-
SS is clearly reaching out to image factories and offering to upload all their images for them. (I've noticed a new trend at SS: When I do have images that catch on, they sell well for about a week and then suddenly stop. When I search for them, I see that my images and those of popular "older" contributors have been pushed off the front page by a flood of simple icon-like vectors from contributors who joined in 2015.)
-
Every city in the world
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3906626p2.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3906626p2.html[/url])
I guess I could see where that could be useful...
Although whether its worth the investment of time I doubt (as well as its brain numbing effect)
I had ones like that rejected (years ago) because I was told the Rand McNally maps are copyrighted. I wasn't exactly copying the whole map book and trying to sell every page, so not sure why they were rejected, but it appears as though that doesn't matter anymore. Some of those in that port look like RandMc maps.
-
what's particularly annoying is their rejections for 'public domain' or out of copyright images (maps, 19th century anatomy, etc), then accepting these copyrighted images
-
SS is just uploading these huge ports without looking at them, and doesn't care if they break the TOS. I think the goal is to pay out the lowest possible royalty rate by flooding the site with new images from factories that are still getting 25 cents. The investors probably want to see bigger profit Margins, hence the slashing of extended license payout amounts and the appearance of zillions of new images made possible by uploading huge ports and lowering entrance standards.
-
Impact on revenue from all this crap is probably very low and subject to Law of Diminishing Returns....but this is easy money for SS and looks good on paper.
Even more reason for people to invest more time in other opportunities however.
-
F*ck knows why I've bothered to learn how to draw again though.
-
Time to start writing to them Guys and Posting Links to threads. ASK THE QUESTIONS!!
-
SS is clearly reaching out to image factories and offering to upload all their images for them. (I've noticed a new trend at SS: When I do have images that catch on, they sell well for about a week and then suddenly stop. When I search for them, I see that my images and those of popular "older" contributors have been pushed off the front page by a flood of simple icon-like vectors from contributors who joined in 2015.)
Correct.
-
SS is clearly reaching out to image factories and offering to upload all their images for them. (I've noticed a new trend at SS: When I do have images that catch on, they sell well for about a week and then suddenly stop. When I search for them, I see that my images and those of popular "older" contributors have been pushed off the front page by a flood of simple icon-like vectors from contributors who joined in 2015.)
I don't think this one has been mentioned before - over 34,000 near duplicates
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_id=2223479&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_id=2223479&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
SS is now at 81,122,094 total - what metric for which investor is driving this bizarre pollution?
-
SS is clearly reaching out to image factories and offering to upload all their images for them. (I've noticed a new trend at SS: When I do have images that catch on, they sell well for about a week and then suddenly stop. When I search for them, I see that my images and those of popular "older" contributors have been pushed off the front page by a flood of simple icon-like vectors from contributors who joined in 2015.)
I don't think this one has been mentioned before - over 34,000 near duplicates
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_id=2223479&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_id=2223479&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
SS is now at 81,122,094 total - what metric for which investor is driving this bizarre pollution?
Clearly, not all artists are created equal. Shouldn't those all be combined into one file? ;D (similar policy)
-
SS is clearly reaching out to image factories and offering to upload all their images for them. (I've noticed a new trend at SS: When I do have images that catch on, they sell well for about a week and then suddenly stop. When I search for them, I see that my images and those of popular "older" contributors have been pushed off the front page by a flood of simple icon-like vectors from contributors who joined in 2015.)
I don't think this one has been mentioned before - over 34,000 near duplicates
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_id=2223479&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_id=2223479&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
SS is now at 81,122,094 total - what metric for which investor is driving this bizarre pollution?
Clearly, not all artists are created equal. Shouldn't those all be combined into one file? ;D (similar policy)
ss is the worst for reviewing...they will refuse any creativity...send the a panned sport photos and they will refuse for motion blur:)....they are the most boring agency, from this side stock is much better accepting even cross processes black and white...not perfect but beautiful photos, aka stocks style....SS is a kille of originality, i see this in my last 4 5 batches....then saw the millions of terrible photos accepted.
I'd say that if you shoot only for ss you will become soon a poor photographer technically and emotionally.
but ss sold much more than any other agency.
-
I don't think this one has been mentioned before - over 34,000 near duplicates
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_id=2223479&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_id=2223479&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
SS is now at 81,122,094 total - what metric for which investor is driving this bizarre pollution?
I would think that the Microsoft Windows logo would be copyrighted. Row 14, 4th icon set from the left. Meanwhile, mine get rejected for even a blurred hint of a single letter than I failed to clone out.
-
A bunch of my best-selling images were just pushed off page 1 of the popular search, and sure enough when I checked the page was filled with more than 30 extremely similar images from one contributor who joined in 2015. Looks like more than 12,000 of their images were uploaded to SS in one week last month. Clearly a hard drive sent to someone to upload. The only saving grace is that they're disappearing from page 1 now, but how annoying not only for me but for buyers, who see 30 almost identical images as supposedly "most popular."
-
My soul cries!
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-4252879p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-4252879p1.html)
He have exactly 50 pictures, This is spam?
Shutterstock hunting these contributors or just the title spammers?
-
This is just mind blowing. Why SS is allowing this is beyond me.
-
And they won't take two pictures of different sea lions sitting on different rocks? Maybe I use a robot to write slogans multiple times across each of them.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
My soul cries!
^^ The one phrase that spammy scum doesn't have :)
-
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
With the new feature of SS (now in beta version) buyer can add his/her own text to images and buy the license like this, im pretty sure they add this new feature to stop this kind of Bulk Uploads.
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
This port is (yet another) disgrace, not only for the approach but for nonsense or misspelled captions, such as:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-446070451/stock-photo-does-your-marketing-make-your-new-customers-fell-welcome-hand-pressing-a-button-on-blurred.html
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
-
Hehe, funny indeed....
-
It's so obvious that this is a business spiraling out of control. On the one hand, crude automated "reviewing" is rejecting all sorts of good stuff for crazy reasons. On the other, employees are stuffing in the spam portfolios of friends, bypassing inspection.
-
It's so obvious that this is a business spiraling out of control. On the one hand, crude automated "reviewing" is rejecting all sorts of good stuff for crazy reasons. On the other, employees are stuffing in the spam portfolios of friends, bypassing inspection.
wala wala ... i see it in my crystal ball...
oooh look, shutterstock.. the name is slowly morphing ...
holy $h*t, what's that? i don't believe my eyes,
it's changing it's name to ... ISTOCK???
-
Totally pathetic examples
This wretched business is going to the dogs
Why do contributers have to find these things? Isnt SS full of staff to deal with this stuff? Get off your massage tables and do your job!
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1764842&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
With the new feature of SS (now in beta version) buyer can add his/her own text to images and buy the license like this, im pretty sure they add this new feature to stop this kind of Bulk Uploads.
Geat news! Be so! :)
-
There are so many sayings, you could tell short stories with these images...
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/408557008/stock-photo-upgrade-your-life-businesswoman-hand-pressing-button-on-touch-screen-interface-business-408557008.jpg) (http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/382336945/stock-photo-man-hand-writing-i-am-available-with-black-marker-on-visual-screen-isolated-on-background-382336945.jpg) (http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/432338737/stock-photo-good-girls-love-bad-boys-businessman-hand-pressing-button-on-touch-screen-interface-business-432338737.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/399422005/stock-photo-man-hand-writing-marry-me-with-black-marker-on-visual-screen-isolated-on-background-business-399422005.jpg) (http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/415913776/stock-photo-i-don-t-sleep-at-night-businessman-hand-pressing-button-on-touch-screen-interface-business-415913776.jpg) (http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/423453127/stock-photo-i-m-on-maternity-leave-hand-pressing-a-button-on-blurred-background-concept-business-423453127.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/429553693/stock-photo-happy-wife-happy-life-businesswoman-hand-pressing-button-on-touch-screen-interface-business-429553693.jpg)(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/433000471/stock-photo-get-more-friends-businessman-hand-pressing-button-on-touch-screen-interface-business-technology-433000471.jpg) (http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/415934266/stock-photo-i-like-my-musics-high-enough-to-not-hear-you-businessman-hand-pressing-button-on-touch-screen-415934266.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/434675068/stock-photo-forget-the-past-businesswoman-hand-pressing-button-on-touch-screen-interface-business-434675068.jpg) (http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/296624738/stock-photo-man-hand-writing-divorce-with-black-marker-on-visual-screen-isolated-on-sky-business-technology-296624738.jpg) (http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1764842/423683332/stock-photo-how-to-start-a-business-with-no-money-businesswoman-hand-pressing-button-on-touch-screen-423683332.jpg)
-
the solution: must be kick out all of annoying spammers. SS not see this problem.
-
I can't even see much relationship between the pics and the text, in most cases.
-
I have this weird feeling, that background images aren't even his....
-
There are so many sayings, you could tell short stories with these images...
one question from me...
how did all of these get past the reviewer of "out of focus"???
i had images with only a fraction of the subject in motion
eg father playing with child (hands in motion)
or cyclist background in motion due to panning
or a climber up the mountain with just a single head in the foreground out of depth of field
and all got rejected for "out of focus".
nothing got past the reviewer who does not understand motion, panning, critical focus,
are all part of the impact of action... and insist everything to be in focus.
the images you show are all shot closeup with a tele lens or as full aperture
which emphasizes focal point,
nothing wrong with that... but the reviewers i got do not want such images
as everything has to be in focus and not a single sign of motion allowed.
once again showing there is one rule for experienced contributors
and another for a certain group who seems to be immuned from any or all review
by the curators.
reeks of NEPOTISM
something more characteristic of the old Istock before they got sold to the big G
-
What we should be angry about isn't that this stuff is low quality - it's that it was obviously never inspected, or at least not to the same standards as the work of ordinary contributors. This 'portfolio' of cr@p (let's call it a port-phony-o) was loaded directly by an insider or employee, the inspectors never looked at it. This isn't conspiracy theory, it's really the only explanation I can think of. And like someone else said above, it's likely the background images were stolen.
Whatever one might say about Oringer, he doesn't seem to be a crook. So how would he react if he saw this account? Is there any discussion of this on SS's own forum?
-
What we should be angry about isn't that this stuff is low quality - it's that it was obviously never inspected, or at least not to the same standards as the work of ordinary contributors. This 'portfolio' of cr@p (let's call it a port-phony-o) was loaded directly by an insider or employee, the inspectors never looked at it. This isn't conspiracy theory, it's really the only explanation I can think of. And like someone else said above, it's likely the background images were stolen.
Whatever one might say about Oringer, he doesn't seem to be a crook. So how would he react if he saw this account? Is there any discussion of this on SS's own forum?
having been with top mgt and being in one situation where i did get to know where CEO stands,
i have always said i trust Oringer , but never the floor management front line team leads.
i was in these sort of front line team lead many times in my early days, and yes,
there is a lot of bs going on amongst the floor mgt and their own ppl,
where we team leads had to lick boots and eat $h*t while the relatives and cahoots of the
floor mgt clique slack off big time (ie. extended breaks , coming in drunk, leaving early,etc)
one day, i by chance got to meet a CEO , not realising who he was, in the lift,
and when he asked how i like working there, i spilled the beans about all the crap we team leads
were taking. oblivious to me he was one of the big guys.
needless to say, the next week, he came in to reveal himself, and a lot of heads were rolling
and the floor and his relatives were given the pink slip quick.
once again, i found out that CEOs don't expect their floor managers to be this way,
they trusted their mid management to hire the right ppl..
and never look to see what is going on down below.
unless something really bad happened, where they had to come to do damage control
or got someone to narc on the floor managers, like i did unsuspectingly.
anyone knows anyone who is a team lead in ss??? better still, anyone knows
a private line to Oringer??? ;)
reiterate - I too believe Oringer is not a crook.
but then again, many of the USA voted for Nixon and he too admitted that he "was not a crook"
and later on, others voted for Clinton who said he never had $*x with monica ;)
as the great Alvin Lee ( RIP)once said, i may be wrong but i won't be wrong always!!!