Quote from: PhotoBomb on November 09, 2017, 02:07

I also reverted back to the old editor this evening.

How do you do that?

ctrl Z on Windows
cmd Z on Mac

Quote from: PhotoBomb on November 09, 2017, 02:07

I also reverted back to the old editor this evening.

How do you do that?

I didn't do anything. But this morning I'm still back to the old editor.

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 08, 2017, 10:37

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 07, 2017, 13:49

Complaining about badly designed software, software with bugs or the fact that instead of paying for a set of decent QA people, SS hopes contributors will do their QA for free is perfectly reasonable.

Doesn't matter what the year is.

SS is a public company that takes the lion's share of what buyers pay them to run an agency. For that lion's share they need to do their job, competently. Contributors can certainly report the odd bug, but it sounds from the SS forum posts as if this unasked for feature update isn't ready for alpha testing.

This isn't some cooperative project where we all pitch in - and if it ever was, it has long, long since ceased to be. Suggesting we should all just chill strikes me as dismissive and rude.

Have a little patients is not the same as chill. The same editor that people were in an uproar over and threatening to leave in 2011 is not the one that some have said, bring back the old editor or I'm not uploading anything. Just seems like we've been through this before and the final product was better. Of course I agree, we are the testers and anyone with 2c worth of brains at HQ would have foreseen some of the obvious flaws.

I like the larger preview, but it makes the page unmanageable. We shouldn't have to scroll down to see what we're doing and what's necessary for the image. Everything line by file worked fine. Keyword suggestions are a joke. The spelling error, click for each one, is terrible. Overall someone who did the programming, has probably never submitted an image.

Now they are asking for help and what to change and some of the same loudest complainers are saying, nope, I'm not going to help them. Same loud complainers who say I'm not uploading unless you bring back the old system, are writing daily about how the new editor doesn't work, as they are uploading. Which is it? Just can't win?

If they ask me what to improve I'd be happy to tell them and help all of us get a better interface completed sooner.

So are you on the forums pointing out all the flaws in order to be helpful? Or just here snarking at the people who actually are on the forums pointing things out? If  you'd be happy to tell them and help all of us get a better interface completed sooner, go for it. They're on the forums responding to comments. Maybe if you're loud enough they'll email you and invite you to waste time on the phone with them.

yes I am, are you pleased now?

If you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem. It's one thing to complain and point out what's wrong, but another to offer helpful advise how they should fix those problems. I'm doing that for the rest of us who have to put up with this new editor torture, hopefully to make it work better, sooner.

Submitting video from the West Coast. I can not copy and paste keywords. They have to be entered one at a time.

It looks like the interface was designed by a technician and not by someone who uses it every day. Too many clicks and too much scrolling the right column.

This will play havoc with my carpal tunnel syndrome.

I'm figuring out workarounds to make it quicker, but it's still much slower than the old version.

For copying and pasting keywords, click the three dots next to "keywords" and a popup will allow you to copy or clear them. I find it much easier to open a second browser tab and copy and paste from there than to toggle back and forth between selecting a single image and having to click the stupid "multi select."

Also, you can still edit things the old way by submitting the images with the minimum 7 keywords, then editing once approved...when you do that you still get the old editing interface. But it's a royal pita to go in and edit everything twice.

It's crazy for contributors to have to give each other lessons on to how to use what used to be an elegantly simple and quick interface.

In other news, my new images are selling like hotcakes on Adobe but buried under mountains of nearly identical illos on SS. No sales there at all. Adobe is quickly becoming the new SS, and SS is on its way to iStockville.

Submit page no longer working (video).

Error: "Nothing submitted. Please review errors."

There are no errors to review.

Quote from: RAW on November 10, 2017, 17:46

Submit page no longer working (video).

Error: "Nothing submitted. Please review errors."

There are no errors to review.

The same for vectors. Shutterstock team needs a good doctor.

� or a full hospital?


______
When I have seen the new page, without having used it, I was really not very happy.
Now I am using the new page and I have no problem at all (only photos for now).
I have uploaded different batches from 4 to 7 images, and I must say that if the first times I was a little disoriented and have to find where was everything and what/how to do, now I find this new system easier and faster than the old one.
In the end I think it's just a matter of habit.

The new submission is a nightmare. If you have plenty of models and model releases uploaded it is a terrible pain now to attach the right one. Terrible non ergonomic UI design. If SS tries to copy Adobe please copy it totally. The Adobe submission looks very similar but it is USER FRIENDLY. This one is near as terrible as the one Getty has. Huge step bachwards.

In other news, my new images are selling like hotcakes on Adobe but buried under mountains of nearly identical illos on SS. No sales there at all. Adobe is quickly becoming the new SS, and SS is on its way to iStockville.

I see the same trend too, at least two other agencies, FT and 123 are galloping while SS is dead.

Quote from: fotorob on November 09, 2017, 04:20

Quote from: PhotoBomb on November 09, 2017, 02:07

I also reverted back to the old editor this evening.

How do you do that?

ctrl Z on Windows
cmd Z on Mac

Hey McFly , can we step into the past with that ?

They hate their contributors.  They're hoping all the professionals will leave, and they can fill up their gallery with stuff from people who don't actually need to get paid.

I support my claim with their recent Craigslist ads, suggesting that just anybody can make money uploading pictures to Shutterstock.

I see ZERO improvement. If anything it's a step backwards since it would've wasted a lot of money to develop. Where is the ability to choose footage thumbnails which all other agencies have? (actually Fotolia don't either)  What was the point in the one on one sessions with certain contributors two years ago if you didn't take anything on board that they said could improve things.

In terms of upload and submission of footage my ranking is

1st VB
2nd FOTOLIA
3rd P5
distant 4th SS

The worst problem I've got with it is that it forces you to remove keywords it doesn't like before you submit. This means that place-names and other stuff that aren't in its "controlled vocab" can't be used.. It rejects Dafna, which is the equivalent of Manhattan for Qatar, and it rejects Qatari, which is the equivalent of American. So people searching on those terms are not going to see my latest images. I doubt if correct scientific binomials for plants and animals will get through, either (e.g Phoenix theophrasti - the Cretan date palm - or Aeshna mixta for the migrant hawker dragonfly). Granted the number of people searching by Linnaean binomials will be minimal, but why prevent accurate descriptions being given?

I've only just tried it a couple of times, but I didn't have a problem with scientific names, etc. You just click on the red word and either select an alternative spelling or confirm that your spelling is correct. It's a little slower than the old click-through used to be, because you have to do it for each word, but I can see the logic of forcing contributors to check their spelling.

From what I read here and on the Shutterstock forums, I was expecting a complete nightmare. It actually was OK - just a touch slower than it used to be.