Author Topic: Shutterstock accepting 100 crap same pictures? (Read 9736 times)

Groman · « **on:** September 19, 2015, 04:28 »

I see always in new images in vector category, 2 page, same or similar crap pictures accepted? Why?
For example check this portfolio http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2940841p22.html?safesearch=1
Scroll in this portfoliop few pages. And many many crap portfolio. The quality of the pictures suppress a lot of waste.
Why? I dont understand

MScontributor · « **Reply #1 on:** September 19, 2015, 05:03 »

Meanwhile some of us more experienced contributors are struggling to get our much higher quality/commercial value work online.

Makes sense doesn't it

kaboom · « **Reply #2 on:** September 19, 2015, 05:42 »

Because they are going for 100 million images in their library. And they dont care how they get there.

Luuk · « **Reply #3 on:** September 19, 2015, 05:52 »

Last week I searched for a wooden model ship in the keyword tool and it returned with a whole page of 80 new (high photonumbers) ugly, not sharp, wrong white balance, etc. photo's of the same model ship against a greyish background.

Then - theoretically, haven't submitted a ship yet

- the next day you can submit one (not 80!) perfect studio shot with a highend camera of a genuine ancient ship - sharp, perfect white balance, perfect white background - and it will be rejected for reasons nobody understands...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** September 19, 2015, 10:25 »

Take a look at this recent thread for some more examples:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/image-spam/

The person starting that thread referred to it as image spam, and I think that's the right word for it. Sometimes - the marijuana portfolio with endless variations of text overlaid - even one is questionable, but there's clearly some other review process that these submissions go through (no review?).

MScontributor · « **Reply #5 on:** September 19, 2015, 12:08 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 19, 2015, 10:25

Take a look at this recent thread for some more examples:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/image-spam/

The person starting that thread referred to it as image spam, and I think that's the right word for it. Sometimes - the marijuana portfolio with endless variations of text overlaid - even one is questionable, but there's clearly some other review process that these submissions go through (no review?).

This clearly shows that some can upload whatever they want and get a free pass, probably with faster reviews too.
Are these ports making them more money? Do they make them look good towards buyers? Do agencies rather have 10000 similar then our stuff so they can brag about quantity not quality?

OM · « **Reply #6 on:** September 19, 2015, 13:13 »

Quote from: Groman on September 19, 2015, 04:28

I see always in new images in vector category, 2 page, same or similar crap pictures accepted? Why?
For example check this portfolio http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2940841p22.html?safesearch=1
Scroll in this portfoliop few pages. And many many crap portfolio. The quality of the pictures suppress a lot of waste.
Why? I dont understand

An interesting port to be sure..not! Started off in April this year with a few (~150) 'normal' photos and then seems to have gone into robot mode with ~5,000 images uploaded within 6 months. Just something weird about this and other ports like it getting accepted. Maybe SS want to be able to boast that they're on target to get to 100 million images before the end of 2016!

Ides · « **Reply #7 on:** September 19, 2015, 13:21 »

Wowww, I feel like if someone stuck a closed scissors in my stomach, opened, moved and closed again...10 times. Ok, I will survive thinking about these images when I spend hours and days making some cool pictures.

stockastic · « **Reply #8 on:** September 19, 2015, 16:48 »

It's obvious that SS now has a front door, and a back door. An ordinary contributor has to go to the front door and pass inspection. Some people, however, are allowed to bring wheelbarrow loads of junk in the back door.

I shouldn't even care, because I don't submit microstock anymore. But this really sucks. Surely there's been some discussion on the SS forum about it?

skyfish · « **Reply #9 on:** September 20, 2015, 01:23 »

Quote from: stockastic on September 19, 2015, 16:48

It's obvious that SS now has a front door, and a back door. An ordinary contributor has to go to the front door and pass inspection. Some people, however, are allowed to bring wheelbarrow loads of junk in the back door.

I shouldn't even care, because I don't submit microstock anymore. But this really sucks. Surely there's been some discussion on the SS forum about it?

I remember a story, about 2-3 years old, when several months ss didn't delete portfolio which was created on base of stolen images, mostly travel, and they were just cropped, no other changes. Sure, i can extrapolate all conclusions given here to that story.
Companies born, grow, and getting old and useless for contributors. The new ones will come. The first ones can keep the crap. Heavy to move clients will move when finances tell to do that.

heywoody · « **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2015, 05:22 »

Does nobody else have a problem with folks pillorying someone who can't answer back while, at the same time, boasting that their own (invisible) material is so much better?

breamal73 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2015, 05:48 »

Quote from: heywoody on September 20, 2015, 05:22

Does nobody else have a problem with folks pillorying someone who can't answer back while, at the same time, boasting that their own (invisible) material is so much better?

Don't have a problem at all because the real target of the rants is SS, not the contributor.
They must be well aware of these forums and are perfectly free to send a representative here to explain why they are allowing this amount of spamming to happen.

Fatmanphoto · « **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2015, 06:12 »

Quote from: heywoody on September 20, 2015, 05:22

Does nobody else have a problem with folks pillorying someone who can't answer back while, at the same time, boasting that their own (invisible) material is so much better?

I have a name for what you described: 'The Internet'.

As I depend on its existence for both my day job and microstock, I am too much of a coward to have a problem with it.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #13 on:** September 20, 2015, 07:44 »

Quote from: stockastic on September 19, 2015, 16:48

It's obvious that SS now has a front door, and a back door. An ordinary contributor has to go to the front door and pass inspection. Some people, however, are allowed to bring wheelbarrow loads of junk in the back door.

I shouldn't even care, because I don't submit microstock anymore. But this really sucks. Surely there's been some discussion on the SS forum about it?

but are you even surprised??? esp after ss went public??? even before that, think back to your younger days when you go to apply for places that have employees with a dynasty (ie. 3 generations of ppl overpaid underworked like the public services or unionized places) , surely these ppl must grow old and become shareholders of ss. now they also expect their go-for-nothing children to get a free lunch with ss, no???

stockastic · « **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2015, 20:36 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on September 20, 2015, 07:44

Quote from: stockastic on September 19, 2015, 16:48
It's obvious that SS now has a front door, and a back door. An ordinary contributor has to go to the front door and pass inspection. Some people, however, are allowed to bring wheelbarrow loads of junk in the back door.

I shouldn't even care, because I don't submit microstock anymore. But this really sucks. Surely there's been some discussion on the SS forum about it?

but are you even surprised??? esp after ss went public??? even before that, think back to your younger days when you go to apply for places that have employees with a dynasty (ie. 3 generations of ppl overpaid underworked like the public services or unionized places) , surely these ppl must grow old and become shareholders of ss. now they also expect their go-for-nothing children to get a free lunch with ss, no???

But SS is still a young company and things like this shouldn't be happening. I think they'll learn what many companies have learned: outsourcing always ends with loss of control. And I'll bet they've outsourced their reviewing, and that someone in the reviewing operation is mainlining junk into the system. Whatever the source - when you lose control over the quality of your product, bad things follow.

stockastic · « **Reply #15 on:** September 21, 2015, 10:37 »

I had my tinfoil hat on last night, and came up with an alternative explanation for this weird influx of junk: I think we already know that SS inspection has a totally automated first pass - i.e. a piece of software - and they're now allowing submissions to bypass human reviewers altogether, if the software gives them a high enough score. A bunch of bland, simple images might pass all their initial tests and sail right through. Call me crazy.

marthamarks · « **Reply #16 on:** September 21, 2015, 15:30 »

Quote from: stockastic on September 21, 2015, 10:37

Call me crazy.

Or not.

droidworker · « **Reply #17 on:** September 23, 2015, 03:16 »

Spammers! One poeple have 71 000 vectror in the portfolio, He will have 100 icon, just change the background. This is crap. I think he sell 5-10 pictures one day

Dont be care, because they're lame. Not professional works, just craps.

Nikovsk · « **Reply #18 on:** September 23, 2015, 04:00 »

The number of images in my niche has literally doubled in 12 months.

Last year, a new image would stay in the first page for a whole week or more.
Now barely stay for a day or it's already born in the second page.

Guess what, 90% of new stuff are the same ugly illustrations from 2-3 spammers.
They're everywhere.

droidworker · « **Reply #19 on:** September 23, 2015, 05:15 »

Who is the idiot who following this contributors? I wonder how many followers have this contributors

Noooooo One !

50% · « **Reply #20 on:** September 23, 2015, 05:19 »

Quote from: Groman on September 19, 2015, 04:28

I see always in new images in vector category, 2 page, same or similar crap pictures accepted? Why?
For example check this portfolio http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2940841p22.html?safesearch=1
Scroll in this portfoliop few pages. And many many crap portfolio. The quality of the pictures suppress a lot of waste.
Why? I dont understand

Similar picture is currently title photo of iStock starting page!
http://www.istockphoto.com/

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #21 on:** September 23, 2015, 05:41 »

if you look at the home page of ss these days, you see what sort of ~~crap~~ acceptable picture you're supposed to submit if you wish to be a contributor. forget about the higfh quality noiseless fully in focused stuff you submit a long time ago to become approved as a contributor when you and i were younger and first joined ss.
this ~~the focus is not it should be... because i cannot figure out where your focus is~~ pic of the striped blouse lady holding a camera ~~submitted by no doubt one of the mass-reject reviewers~~ is the focus where all should be.
imagine, out of xxx millions of pictures, you put this on your opening page. that must say something , no???
it's liike i own a custom-made tuxedo or smoking business and i put a torn or badly tailored suit on my front door to attract customers to show this is the sort of work i do and they should pay me money for this kind of work.

Groman · « **Reply #22 on:** September 23, 2015, 05:59 »

Quote from: 50% on September 23, 2015, 05:19

Quote from: Groman on September 19, 2015, 04:28
I see always in new images in vector category, 2 page, same or similar crap pictures accepted? Why?
For example check this portfolio http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2940841p22.html?safesearch=1
Scroll in this portfoliop few pages. And many many crap portfolio. The quality of the pictures suppress a lot of waste.
Why? I dont understand

Similar picture is currently title photo of iStock starting page!
http://www.istockphoto.com/

Or what? This is one click generated polygon background, with one low poly generator, this is not WORK! All noob/Lame make this. in shutterstock have 200 000 low poly background. While? Because so easy make this background

Lets make in your own

http://alssndro.github.io/trianglify-background-generator/

weymouth · « **Reply #23 on:** September 23, 2015, 06:08 »

Since the bean counters are desperate for money they have been pushing subs, packages for a long time now. That way, crap is enough to sell. They don't go after the big buyers like ad agencies, designers. They want the small time buyer here and there and then second rate material is good enough.

Groman · « **Reply #24 on:** September 23, 2015, 07:25 »

49000 Icon Why?
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=243877&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

104 000 Icon.
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=802546&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

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

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!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock accepting 100 crap same pictures? (Read 9736 times)

Groman

MScontributor

kaboom

Luuk

Jo Ann Snover

MScontributor

OM

Ides

stockastic

skyfish

heywoody

breamal73

Fatmanphoto

etudiante_rapide

stockastic

stockastic

marthamarks

droidworker

Nikovsk

droidworker

50%

etudiante_rapide

Groman

weymouth

Groman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors