MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock do nothing with spammers.  (Read 13903 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2016, 02:36 »
0
Please help by bombing my tropic until SS hear us. Thank you.

newbielink:http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/89532-why-ss-do-not-thing-with-title-and-keyword-redundant-spammers/ [nonactive]

« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2016, 04:00 »
+2
They don't give a crap if few people are doing it... but if we all start spamming titles, they might start doing something. Just a thought.

« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2016, 05:53 »
+1
They don't give a crap if few people are doing it... but if we all start spamming titles, they might start doing something. Just a thought.

My thoughts too.. I'd hate to do it, but seems like there are new rules in the competition :-[

« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2016, 21:27 »
+3
Doesn't prove that these sell better but when will SS cut the heads off these dirty sewer rats? It makes the whole site look dumb and offendes buyers.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-420267355/stock-vector-classic-guitar-classic-guitars-classic-guitar-icon-classic-guitar-icons-classic-guitar-vector-classic-guitar-flat-classic-guitar-isolated-classic-guitar-player-classic-guitar-pick.html?src=R9gYuX6O-0ITU3bnYhsfpQ-1-61
Classic guitar. Classic guitars. Classic guitar icon. Classic guitar icons. Classic guitar vector. Classic guitar flat. Classic guitar isolated. Classic guitar player. Classic guitar pick. Guitar.

Threats are no use until they start punishing these people. We can see, nothing changed.

« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2016, 22:55 »
+3
Doesn't prove that these sell better but when will SS cut the heads off these dirty sewer rats? It makes the whole site look dumb and offendes buyers.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-420267355/stock-vector-classic-guitar-classic-guitars-classic-guitar-icon-classic-guitar-icons-classic-guitar-vector-classic-guitar-flat-classic-guitar-isolated-classic-guitar-player-classic-guitar-pick.html?src=R9gYuX6O-0ITU3bnYhsfpQ-1-61
Classic guitar. Classic guitars. Classic guitar icon. Classic guitar icons. Classic guitar vector. Classic guitar flat. Classic guitar isolated. Classic guitar player. Classic guitar pick. Guitar.

Threats are no use until they start punishing these people. We can see, nothing changed.


and look at the keywords:

Quote
classic guitar illustration, classic guitar black, classic guitar close up, classic guitar eps, classic guitar retro, classic guitar concert, classic guitar drawing, classic guitar, classic guitar amp, classic guitar icons, classic guitar string, classic guitar tree, classic guitar silhouette, classic guitar design, classic guitar vintage, classic guitar wood, classic guitar icon vector, classic guitar strap, classic guitar detail, classic guitar teacher, classic guitar hero, classic guitar repair, classic guitar acoustic, classic guitar image, classic guitar flat, classic guitar love, classic guitar jack, classic guitar amplifier, classic guitar icon, classic guitar neck, classic guitar wings, classic guitar cartoon, classic guitar sketch, classic guitar grunge, classic guitar tuner, classic guitar fretboard, classic guitar wall, classic guitar player silhouette, classic guitar art, classic guitar picks, classic guitar outside, classic guitar effects, classic guitar gibson, classic guitar strings, classic guitar electric, classic guitar rock, classic guitar vector, classic guitar white background, classic guitar vectors, classic guitar music

« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2016, 09:32 »
+7
All the spammers are in the top 'best match' positions, and it's clearly working for them - just open a 'best match' search next to a 'popular' search and many of the same images appear.

If I write autumn, autumn, autumn, autumn, autumn, ad nauseam, as my title, that will always be a better match for an 'autumn' search than if the word is just used once.

It's killing sales and damaging the site's credibility. I thought after the spam email debacle, that something might actually be done but, if anything, it's just served to educate the cheats and made matters far worse.

I guess we have to:

a. Trust Shutterstock to do something about it
b. Play the same game
c. Keep moaning about it, because misery loves company
d. Concentrate efforts on the sites that can actually give Shutterstock a run for their money

I'm currently a little in the c camp but mainly in d

« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2016, 09:57 »
+3
Doesn't prove that these sell better

that's true too. but after all the stellar performance with the IT guy leaving "to spend more time with fly"
i think it's pretty obvious what sort of agency ss aspiring to.

a. Trust Shutterstock to do something about it
b. Play the same game
c. Keep moaning about it, because misery loves company
d. Concentrate efforts on the sites that can actually give Shutterstock a run for their money

a is totally out of character for ss these days !
d is the wisest choice ... but the magic question is which agency can replace ss???
i was hoping stocksy, but they are not for everyman.

when you have no agency worth their salt to challenge ss,
it is no wonder ss can tell us all to FO !!!

« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2016, 12:34 »
+1

a. Trust Shutterstock to do something about it
b. Play the same game
c. Keep moaning about it, because misery loves company
d. Concentrate efforts on the sites that can actually give Shutterstock a run for their money

I'm currently a little in the c camp but mainly in d
I'm in the c camp too just because I'm too lazy to be in b camp.
Of course it is worth it, do you think that so many contributors are just wasting their time?
They do it because others done it before and it proved to be working.

Even if we open hundreds of threads like this/day, SS won't give a da*n, so a is out of question.

« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2016, 13:00 »
0

Even if we open hundreds of threads like this/day, SS won't give a da*n, so a is out of question.

That's the sad fact, isn't it?

It's true that many will take advantage of an unclosed loophole, even if it's against the rules.

What I'm finding hard in all this is that Shutterstock's lack of action smacks of condoning this behaviour. It even has me wondering whether the 'spam email' was sent to almost everyone on purpose - either as a vain attempt to get us to self-police or even as a message to educate?

A long as they are making money, why not?

Ethical companies have higher running costs, right? Perhaps the 'ethical business practices' folder got shuffled to the bottom in the last search change.

« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2016, 05:05 »
+1

Even if we open hundreds of threads like this/day, SS won't give a da*n, so a is out of question.

That's the sad fact, isn't it?

It's true that many will take advantage of an unclosed loophole, even if it's against the rules.

What I'm finding hard in all this is that Shutterstock's lack of action smacks of condoning this behaviour. It even has me wondering whether the 'spam email' was sent to almost everyone on purpose - either as a vain attempt to get us to self-police or even as a message to educate?

A long as they are making money, why not?

Ethical companies have higher running costs, right? Perhaps the 'ethical business practices' folder got shuffled to the bottom in the last search change.

Though I will always count such description and keywords as a spam but there could be many reason for it gaining exposure.

1- Shutterstock once announced that description words will also be counted keywords on search and people flooded the announcement with spam
2- Google loves it, I remember my seo friend once told that the algorithm of google ignores or do not count the keywords present in any image, instead google look for the description or the title of image
3- As said by another person here, shutterstock not taking any action is because its working good for them
4- They do not care

« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2016, 06:21 »
0
2- Google loves it, I remember my seo friend once ....
That with googl is not true but it seams to be true in SS.
Google warns against loading the image title/description (or website) with repeated or irrelevant keywords (keyword stuffing).
Quote
"Examples of keyword stuffing include:
Repeating the same words or phrases so often that it sounds unnatural, for example:
We sell custom cigar humidors. Our custom cigar humidors are handmade. If youre thinking of buying a custom cigar humidor, please contact our custom cigar humidor specialists at custom.cigar.humidors@example.com."
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66358
Those repeated keywords in SS titles are not even sentences but a simple repetition of keywords.
Has anyone ever seen such things on other agencies?
« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 06:26 by Dodie »

« Reply #12 on: October 16, 2016, 09:02 »
+4
Quote

3- As said by another person here, shutterstock not taking any action is because its working good for them
4- They do not care

But they are sending mixed messages big time.

On the one hand they pretend to care, and send a blanket email to warn contributors not to spam, and to keep their titles/keywords within their published parameters.

On the other hand, they allow some to spam with repeated keywords, (not even sure how you can do that, as whenever I have a duplicated keyword the system automatically removes it), and reward them for doing so by promoting them in the top spots of a Best Match search.

All I would ask is for a set of rules that is consistent. Either keep the 'no spamming' rule and enforce it, or scrap the rule so that we can all play the spamming game without fear of consequence.

The current state of affairs rewards the rule-breakers and penalises those who conform, and creates a double standard that's causing a lot of bad feeling.


OM

« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2016, 09:55 »
0
I thought this problem of spamming the description was confined mostly to vectors. However, I came across this photo of soup today in 'Best Match'. Only just approved judging by its number and already #1 in 'Best Match' already on page 1 (middle) of 'Most Popular'. Category 'soup' photo's has 290,000 shots.

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/706681/496729930/stock-photo-soup-in-clear-soup-mug-on-wooden-table-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-496729930.jpg

Description =soup in clear soup mug on wooden table [soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup]


« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2016, 11:00 »
0
I thought this problem of spamming the description was confined mostly to vectors. However, I came across this photo of soup today in 'Best Match'. Only just approved judging by its number and already #1 in 'Best Match' already on page 1 (middle) of 'Most Popular'. Category 'soup' photo's has 290,000 shots.

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/706681/496729930/stock-photo-soup-in-clear-soup-mug-on-wooden-table-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-496729930.jpg

Description =soup in clear soup mug on wooden table [soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup]


It's just as rife in photos. Makes it impossible for anyone sticking to the rules to gain any traction with new images.

« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2016, 11:06 »
+3
Those repeated keywords in SS titles are not even sentences but a simple repetition of keywords.
Has anyone ever seen such things on other agencies?

No, but most search engines do not reward duplicate terms, so it has no effect. One quick tweak in the search engine by Shutterstock and the problem is solved...
« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 11:32 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2016, 11:27 »
+6
Please help by bombing my tropic until SS hear us. Thank you.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/89532-why-ss-do-not-thing-with-title-and-keyword-redundant-spammers/


As Shutterstock does not care about what you write on the forum (because customers don't read it) the best to do is to write on their Facebook page (because customers read it).


« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2016, 12:23 »
+2
Shutterstock should send another email warning that those who don't amend their descriptions/keywords by a given date, will have their accounts suspended, and then actually follow it through.

Then it should lock the description field so that it can't be altered after upload.

This can't be a difficult fix, and yet the problem has persisted for months.

« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2016, 12:31 »
+4
These titles make Shutterstock look like a warez site.

« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2016, 12:57 »
+9
I sent sent sent sent sent sent sent sent sent them them them them an email with links and such, got only this reply a week ago:

qte Thank you for contacting Shutterstock Contributor Support.

We have passed this information along to our Compliance department for further review.
unqte


practicing to spam in the meantime :D :D

« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2016, 14:56 »
0
If it means anything to anyone ... Those spammy titles and keywords might search well in Shutterstock ... but, google frowns on keywording that way ...

So, it might be helping that one specific person in the short term but, long term ... it's hurting them and SS. It's really not worth it to jump on that boat ...



OM

« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2016, 15:22 »
0
Shutterstock should send another email warning that those who don't amend their descriptions/keywords by a given date, will have their accounts suspended, and then actually follow it through.

Then it should lock the description field so that it can't be altered after upload.

This can't be a difficult fix, and yet the problem has persisted for months.

That is probably what SS will do, unfortunately. Thereby punishing the thousands of correct users of this facility (of which I too occasionally make use) because there's a few smarty-pants b*****s who abuse it. In the description field, it's sometimes difficult to avoid using a word more than once but restricting it to a maximum of two or three times should be sufficient.

« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2016, 15:36 »
+5
Change the search algorithm to only count a word once. Problem solved.

Search algorithms control everything, always have, and always will, and shouldn't be too hard to change.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2016, 21:34 »
+7
Problem with spamming titles. Title spamming. Spam. Title. Titles spamming titles. Problems with titles that have spammy titles. Spam. Spam. Problem with spamming titles. Title spamming. Spam. Title. Titles spamming titles. Problems with titles that have spammy titles. Spam. Spam. Problem with spamming titles. Title spamming. Spam. Title. Titles spamming titles. Problems with titles that have spammy titles. Spam. Spam.  :o

« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2016, 08:33 »
+8
This has become ridiculous. When you now type "Halloween" in search and choose vector, you will see 49 of 100 vectors with spam titles. 15 days ago was 37.

16 vectors are from Allxnet, and 7 are from VectorUp.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Allxnet
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/hellolittleboy

I avoided to put names of the contributors, but this is going too far. This is my main source of income, and I have something to do about it.


Shelma1

« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2016, 09:32 »
+6
I've found that social media seems to get the most attention. I just sent them a message about it on their FB page. Please join in, and if we send enough messages they should get the message. Ha ha.

« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2016, 09:50 »
+2
I've found that social media seems to get the most attention. I just sent them a message about it on their FB page. Please join in, and if we send enough messages they should get the message. Ha ha.

I also noticed some contributors leave complaints (usually about the site being down) on their FB wall, as comments under the images. If many of us complain about the spam titles right on their FB wall maybe it will annoy SS enough to do something about it? :-\

« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2016, 09:52 »
0
Twitter would be good choice too, I think, anyway, it's a nice idea. What did you write on their wall?

Shelma1

« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2016, 10:05 »
+4
I asked why they're not doing anything about spammers, pointed them to the Halloween results, and asked if we should all do that now. I sent a message, but writing on their wall and under their posts also seems to work. Tweeting is also a good idea. It's completely out of control, and it affects our income.

« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2016, 10:11 »
+5
I just posted something underneath the latest photo on their FB wall. Let's see if it disappears.

« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2016, 13:05 »
+4
I just posted something underneath the latest photo on their FB wall. Let's see if it disappears.

I just posted as well a comment underneath one of the latest images on their wall. Join us!

« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2016, 13:32 »
+2
Maybe we should all pretend that we are customers and those spammy titles hurt our searches, that would be even more helpful, I think...

« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2016, 13:34 »
+2
Change the search algorithm to only count a word once. Problem solved.

Search algorithms control everything, always have, and always will, and shouldn't be too hard to change.

They should have people paid for that!

BD

« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2016, 21:14 »
+1
It looks like people are starting to do it on Bigstock now too. It makes Shutterstock and Bigstock look unprofessional compared to the other sites. Is it difficult to change how the search functions so that duplicate words do not have an effect on search placement?

« Reply #36 on: October 20, 2016, 09:07 »
+3
It looks like people are starting to do it on Bigstock now too. It makes Shutterstock and Bigstock look unprofessional compared to the other sites. Is it difficult to change how the search functions so that duplicate words do not have an effect on search placement?

I doubt that it is difficult to change, but why would they bother. Right now, as far as I can see, there are only 3 of us complaining on the FB wall about the spamming. Hopefully, other people are sending direct messages to support complaining about it, or tweeting. I am sure they couldn't care less about a handful of people complaining, especially if there is some financial benefit to SS for allowing it.

edit: just checked twitter, don't see any posts about the problem. See lots of replies to tweets about the site being down, one regarding a search for people of color and the results returning a bunch of white hipsters, but nothing about spamming.  :(
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 09:14 by cathyslife »


Shelma1

« Reply #37 on: October 20, 2016, 09:46 »
+5
Meanwhile I'm having a continuing conversation with them about the problem. I find it sad that only three people (all women) bothered to actually go to their FB page yesterday and say something.

« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2016, 09:51 »
+1
Meanwhile I'm having a continuing conversation with them about the problem. I find it sad that only three people (all women) bothered to actually go to their FB page yesterday and say something.

I don't do FB but I thank you and the rest who are bringing it up on FB. More here should do that.

What SS should do is start locking ports with these titles and tell them to go edit. Then when fixed, allow them to sell again. That would be fast and these spammers would be shut down until they make changes, if they want to make money.

This takes the work off SS and makes the spammers get things fixed.

I don't even know how to find SS on FB? Name and link maybe more people will go help.

« Reply #39 on: October 20, 2016, 10:13 »
+2
If you dont have a FB account, I dont think you will be able to post. If you do have an account, go to your FB page. At the top, search for Shutterstock...it should show in the results. Go to their page and post. It isnt that big of an inconvenience!


You can always email support. Not sure if you will get an answer, but it at least shows that it isnt just 3  people who are troubled by the problem.  :)

BD

« Reply #40 on: October 20, 2016, 13:45 »
+1
I'm not on Facebook either, but I can write an email to them.

« Reply #41 on: October 20, 2016, 14:24 »
+7
Shutterstock to contributors:
- Remove all you spammy titles now or your account to be suspended!

Few months later us to Shutterstock:
-Excuse me, could you please do something about those spammy titles.. Hello... Anyone there??

 ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2016, 02:42 »
+2
Meanwhile I'm having a continuing conversation with them about the problem. I find it sad that only three people (all women) bothered to actually go to their FB page yesterday and say something.
I agree, it is a little sad, because the Facebook page touches the customers too
(I went days ago and I am not a woman ;) )
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 02:44 by Chichikov »

Shelma1

« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2016, 18:02 »
+16
Well, Shutterstock did something. They deleted a thread about spammers on their forums....but left the spam images up. You can spam, but you can't talk about spam.

« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2016, 19:18 »
0
I hope they do something about it soon, or I'll start going through my images and edit all the descriptions haha.

« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2016, 19:21 »
+2
Well, Shutterstock did something. They deleted a thread about spammers on their forums....but left the spam images up. You can spam, but you can't talk about spam.


I was wondering if they would delete all the posts complaining about spammers on FB, but as of right now, they are still up.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #46 on: October 21, 2016, 23:15 »
+3
Well, Shutterstock did something. They deleted a thread about spammers on their forums....but left the spam images up. You can spam, but you can't talk about spam.

Big giant company that is on its way down. I'm surprised how Fotolia sales are eclipsing SS for me.


ShadySue

« Reply #47 on: October 22, 2016, 05:28 »
+11
Well, Shutterstock did something. They deleted a thread about spammers on their forums....but left the spam images up. You can spam, but you can't talk about spam.
Are we absolutely sure SS hasn't been secretly taken over by Getty?

« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2016, 05:56 »
+2
Well, Shutterstock did something. They deleted a thread about spammers on their forums....but left the spam images up. You can spam, but you can't talk about spam.
Are we absolutely sure SS hasn't been secretly taken over by Getty?
Hoping thats never the "Exciting" news for contributors

« Reply #49 on: October 22, 2016, 08:52 »
+3
Well, Shutterstock did something. They deleted a thread about spammers on their forums....but left the spam images up. You can spam, but you can't talk about spam.

Wow, I didn't notice that they deleted not just one but two threads named after the spammy titles of some images. Does that mean "green" for everyone to spam?

« Reply #50 on: October 22, 2016, 09:07 »
+3
Well, Shutterstock did something. They deleted a thread about spammers on their forums....but left the spam images up. You can spam, but you can't talk about spam.

Wow, I didn't notice that they deleted not just one but two threads named after the spammy titles of some images. Does that mean "green" for everyone to spam?

yea, this is open doors for spammers, however they cannot delete the posts here, so this can remain a open thread.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #51 on: October 22, 2016, 19:01 »
+5
I'm fearful to complain ... I take the crumbs and keep quiet.

« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2016, 23:13 »
+2
Does this mean we all have to go back and spam the titles of our images, just to level the playing field?   :(

« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2016, 01:01 »
+9
Does this mean we all have to go back and spam the titles of our images, just to level the playing field?   :(
I also feel like a total mug spending a lot of time being careful not to repeat keywords in the description as per the instructions from SS while spammers are rewarded with high search placement.

« Reply #54 on: October 23, 2016, 08:53 »
+5
Does this mean we all have to go back and spam the titles of our images, just to level the playing field?   :(
I also feel like a total mug spending a lot of time being careful not to repeat keywords in the description as per the instructions from SS while spammers are rewarded with high search placement.

Totally with you on that.

« Reply #55 on: October 24, 2016, 09:54 »
+5
Well, Shutterstock did something. They deleted a thread about spammers on their forums....but left the spam images up. You can spam, but you can't talk about spam.


It turns out that we falsely accused SS with deleting that post. Apparently, the OP herself deleted the thread while she wanted to delete just one reply.
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/89580-report-keyword-and-title-spamming-accounts-here/#entry1573501
« Last Edit: October 24, 2016, 10:15 by Dodie »



« Reply #57 on: October 29, 2016, 03:35 »
0
Apparently, if you send a letter to SS about specific images, they do contact the author and ask them to change the spammy description.

alno

« Reply #58 on: October 29, 2016, 04:10 »
+5
Is that too difficult to change their search engine a bit to avoid rewarding those spammers... Shutterstock is applying bot review system for images which is way more complicated than simple title filter for repeated words.

Shelma1

« Reply #59 on: October 29, 2016, 05:09 »
+3
Apparently, if you send a letter to SS about specific images, they do contact the author and ask them to change the spammy description.

Yes...they change the description...and fill the keywords with spam. So they retain their position in the search. Just search "Halloween" and you"ll see the spammer's images remain where they were, and the keywords now repeat Halloween 50 times while the description just says Halloween once.

« Reply #60 on: October 29, 2016, 05:23 »
+3
Shelma1, indeed. Wow...

« Reply #61 on: October 29, 2016, 06:36 »
+8
And why should we have to do their work for them? They set the rules, they sent out a mass email saying it was wrong, they can go through their database and find all the infractions and have people who get paid to do that kind of work make global changes...so now do we not only get paid peanuts for the work we have already done, but we are expected to do this kind of work too?


Two things I hate: companies making millions and billions of dollars on the backs of people scrounging just to pay their mortgage. And cheaters who are allowed to get away with it.  >:( >:( >:(

« Reply #62 on: October 29, 2016, 07:12 »
+4
They should just implement some kind of report system, when users could report spammers, and then they should delete those scumbags' accounts...

I think that would be the eassiest way, after all, sometimes you have two or three same keywords in description and it's not neceseraly spam...

And why they don't do anything about it is beyond me, I'm pretty sure, customers are sick of seeing pages and pages of almost identical files on the first page of search...

« Reply #63 on: October 29, 2016, 07:20 »
+1
They should just implement some kind of report system, when users could report spammers, and then they should delete those scumbags' accounts...

I think that would be the eassiest way, after all, sometimes you have two or three same keywords in description and it's not neceseraly spam...

And why they don't do anything about it is beyond me, I'm pretty sure, customers are sick of seeing pages and pages of almost identical files on the first page of search...

was thinking the same, but this won't be good as the report system will get full with so many links (correct / incorrect) that they will start counting it as spam.

« Reply #64 on: October 29, 2016, 09:18 »
+1
They should just implement some kind of report system, when users could report spammers, and then they should delete those scumbags' accounts...

I think that would be the eassiest way, after all, sometimes you have two or three same keywords in description and it's not neceseraly spam...

And why they don't do anything about it is beyond me, I'm pretty sure, customers are sick of seeing pages and pages of almost identical files on the first page of search...

was thinking the same, but this won't be good as the report system will get full with so many links (correct / incorrect) that they will start counting it as spam.

And spammers can change them back. They are editable.

Maybe they don't want to reduce the number of their available images which is a selling point against competitors, especially Adobe? And they don't want to modify their search engine, at least until they're certain about the behavior of the modified algorithm (if there is one)? I'm just trying to guess....

« Reply #65 on: October 29, 2016, 09:28 »
0
They should just implement some kind of report system, when users could report spammers, and then they should delete those scumbags' accounts...

I think that would be the eassiest way, after all, sometimes you have two or three same keywords in description and it's not neceseraly spam...

And why they don't do anything about it is beyond me, I'm pretty sure, customers are sick of seeing pages and pages of almost identical files on the first page of search...


was thinking the same, but this won't be good as the report system will get full with so many links (correct / incorrect) that they will start counting it as spam.


And spammers can change them back. They are editable.

Maybe they don't want to reduce the number of their available images which is a selling point against competitors, especially Adobe? And they don't want to modify their search engine, at least until they're certain about the behavior of the modified algorithm (if there is one)? I'm just trying to guess....


Yes, but if everyone follows the same then a good website will be no more a spammed website.

Look these:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-499183882/stock-vector-sale.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-498802090/stock-vector-happy-diwali-vector-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwali-diwal.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-491841091/stock-vector-halloween-bats-halloween-bats-halloween-bats-halloween-bats-halloween-bats-halloween-bats-halloween-bats-halloween-bats-halloween-bats-halloween-bats-halloween-bats-halloween-b.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-417968887/stock-vector-banner-banner-banner-banner-banner-banner-banner-banner-banner-banner-banner-banner.html

It looks the last link contributor changed the title, but url remains the same

« Reply #66 on: October 29, 2016, 09:50 »
0
And why should we have to do their work for them? They set the rules, they sent out a mass email saying it was wrong, they can go through their database and find all the infractions...

Here's the problem: they can't do that.  Not with 100 million images - it would be too expensive.  Where would they start? What rules would they set up for inspectors? How would they keep track of which images had been checked? How would they stop spammers from restoring the bogus keywords the next day?

They've basically lost control of the quality of their product.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 09:52 by stockastic »


« Reply #67 on: October 29, 2016, 10:12 »
+1
What? I just notice this! Hahaha, how many spam keywords. I am speechless... Contributors Allxnet and icanFly are winners in spamming. This is just funny. Upload image, type spam keywords and description, wait few days, then change it to normal, and go to shopping! :D

A large amount of unprofessionalism from SS...

« Reply #68 on: October 29, 2016, 12:50 »
+2
And why should we have to do their work for them? They set the rules, they sent out a mass email saying it was wrong, they can go through their database and find all the infractions...

Here's the problem: they can't do that.  Not with 100 million images - it would be too expensive.  Where would they start? What rules would they set up for inspectors? How would they keep track of which images had been checked? How would they stop spammers from restoring the bogus keywords the next day?

They've basically lost control of the quality of their product.


Sure they can, if they want to. As far as spammers restoring bogus keywords or titles...lock the fields on accounts that are found to be in violation of the rules. Please dont tell me these things cant be done...just about any code can be written to do whatever one wants. If you and i can find spammers, certainly they can, whether by paying a person to search or by writing code. You mentioned it would be expensive...i will certainly buy that as reason why they cant be bothered.


« Reply #69 on: October 29, 2016, 13:00 »
+1
Is it possible Getty iStock was having the same problem popping up so they disallowed changing keywords after uploading? SStock better do the same.

« Reply #70 on: October 29, 2016, 14:23 »
0
And why should we have to do their work for them? They set the rules, they sent out a mass email saying it was wrong, they can go through their database and find all the infractions...

Here's the problem: they can't do that.  Not with 100 million images - it would be too expensive.  Where would they start? What rules would they set up for inspectors? How would they keep track of which images had been checked? How would they stop spammers from restoring the bogus keywords the next day?

They've basically lost control of the quality of their product.


Sure they can, if they want to. As far as spammers restoring bogus keywords or titles...lock the fields on accounts that are found to be in violation of the rules. Please dont tell me these things cant be done...just about any code can be written to do whatever one wants. If you and i can find spammers, certainly they can, whether by paying a person to search or by writing code. You mentioned it would be expensive...i will certainly buy that as reason why they cant be bothered.

It's possible - but prohibitively expensive.   You or I do a specific keyword search and maybe find a spammer on page 1.   Easy.  Now imagine your task is to clean up a database of 100 million images.  Try to imagine the steps you'd have to go through, changes and additions to the database that might be required.   Sure it's possible, but SS would NEVER spend what it would take to actually do this.  Everything they've done in the last year has had the goal of REDUCING costs.  That's how they got into this mess - by letting spammers in the door in the first place.  What about that guy with 30,000 photos of the same bag of pot? How did that get by those experienced, honest reviewers?   I have my theories. Think about it and give me yours. 
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 14:25 by stockastic »

Shelma1

« Reply #71 on: October 29, 2016, 14:51 »
+3
But they don't have to go through 100 million files. All they need to do is change the algorithm so redundant keywords don't make files pop to the top of best match. Or disable editing after approval. I'd miss that, because I do think of a good keyword now and then that I missed on submission, but I'd rather have that than have spammers decimating my earnings.

I think SS is purposely letting it go because they keep a lot more money by allowing new contributors to fill up the most popular search results. most popular tends to be filled with good images from long-term contributors who are getting top royalties. I really can't think of any other reason why they haven't nipped this in the bud yet, honestly. And that's really sad.

« Reply #72 on: October 29, 2016, 15:19 »
+1
But they don't have to go through 100 million files. All they need to do is change the algorithm so redundant keywords don't make files pop to the top of best match. Or disable editing after approval. I'd miss that, because I do think of a good keyword now and then that I missed on submission, but I'd rather have that than have spammers decimating my earnings.

I think SS is purposely letting it go because they keep a lot more money by allowing new contributors to fill up the most popular search results. most popular tends to be filled with good images from long-term contributors who are getting top royalties. I really can't think of any other reason why they haven't nipped this in the bud yet, honestly. And that's really sad.
What I can't understand is why buyers aren't kicking up a fuss surely they must be getting fed up with being presented by pages of inferior product? Yes sadly SS seem in danger of losing the plot......

alno

« Reply #73 on: October 29, 2016, 17:56 »
+3
But they don't have to go through 100 million files. All they need to do is change the algorithm so redundant keywords don't make files pop to the top of best match. Or disable editing after approval. I'd miss that, because I do think of a good keyword now and then that I missed on submission, but I'd rather have that than have spammers decimating my earnings.

I think SS is purposely letting it go because they keep a lot more money by allowing new contributors to fill up the most popular search results. most popular tends to be filled with good images from long-term contributors who are getting top royalties. I really can't think of any other reason why they haven't nipped this in the bud yet, honestly. And that's really sad.
What I can't understand is why buyers aren't kicking up a fuss surely they must be getting fed up with being presented by pages of inferior product? Yes sadly SS seem in danger of losing the plot......

Buyers are often too busy to kick up any fuss because they simply need thing get done. It's much easier to type quitely something new in a browser like fotolia.com or envato.com.

« Reply #74 on: October 30, 2016, 13:22 »
+2
Is it possible Getty iStock was having the same problem popping up so they disallowed changing keywords after uploading? SStock better do the same.

You would give up your rights and stop all of us from updating keywords, because of a minority that abuses the function. No way! I like to add new words to old files sometimes, especially when I see words being searched that I don't have in my files. I want to make more by being smart, not be locked in jail because somebody else breaks a rule.

I say block spammer accounts from search and tell them to fix titles and keywords, they will be unblocked. Everything will be fixed fast or they will be gone by their own inaction.

Don't punish me for what some fool does wrong.

« Reply #75 on: October 30, 2016, 13:48 »
0
Is it possible Getty iStock was having the same problem popping up so they disallowed changing keywords after uploading? SStock better do the same.

You would give up your rights and stop all of us from updating keywords, because of a minority that abuses the function. No way! I like to add new words to old files sometimes, especially when I see words being searched that I don't have in my files. I want to make more by being smart, not be locked in jail because somebody else breaks a rule.

I say block spammer accounts from search and tell them to fix titles and keywords, they will be unblocked. Everything will be fixed fast or they will be gone by their own inaction.

Don't punish me for what some fool does wrong.

I agree.  But like I keep saying, their options are pretty severely limited by the size of their archive and the amount of new stuff pouring in.   Who is going to find those offenders?  Will SS pay people to sit and try endless keyword searches, tagging spammers as they go?  Or to search 100 million images one at time? If a spammer gets told to clean up his act, are they going to re-inspect every one of his 10,000 images?  And what if he comes back in a week and restores all the spam? 

SS could conceivably add checks to their search code and maybe filter out spam results.  But that's probably not nearly as simple as we think.  And it would slow down the search, maybe by a lot - remember, the search starts out with 100 million to look at. Code to check the keywords for repetitions of every included word takes time to run.

Yes SS could do any of these things, or solve the problem in another way I'd never think of.  My point is just that it would inevitably cost significant money and, apparently, they don't care enough to do it.

« Reply #76 on: October 30, 2016, 13:57 »
+1
Is it possible Getty iStock was having the same problem popping up so they disallowed changing keywords after uploading? SStock better do the same.

You would give up your rights and stop all of us from updating keywords, because of a minority that abuses the function. No way! I like to add new words to old files sometimes, especially when I see words being searched that I don't have in my files. I want to make more by being smart, not be locked in jail because somebody else breaks a rule.

I say block spammer accounts from search and tell them to fix titles and keywords, they will be unblocked. Everything will be fixed fast or they will be gone by their own inaction.

Don't punish me for what some fool does wrong.

I agree.  But like I keep saying, their options are pretty severely limited by the size of their archive and the amount of new stuff pouring in.   Who is going to find those offenders?  Will SS pay people to sit and try endless keyword searches, tagging spammers as they go?  Or to search 100 million images one at time? If a spammer gets told to clean up his act, are they going to re-inspect every one of his 10,000 images?  And what if he comes back in a week and restores all the spam? 

SS could conceivably add checks to their search code and maybe filter out spam results.  But that's probably not nearly as simple as we think.  And it would slow down the search, maybe by a lot - remember, the search starts out with 100 million to look at. Code to check the keywords for repetitions of every included word takes time to run.

Yes SS could do any of these things, or solve the problem in another way I'd never think of.  My point is just that it would inevitably cost significant money and, apparently, they don't care enough to do it.

Yes, make the software find the title spammers and warn them. Oh wait that was the email that everybody was up in arms and insulted about warning us not to spam.

I say punish the offenders not all the rest of us.


« Reply #77 on: November 02, 2016, 00:25 »
+2
This is a serious issue now. I hope someone from shutterstock should take appropriate action against these spammers.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-499447474/stock-vector-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-496346044/stock-vector-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween-halloween.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492188641/stock-vector-cloud-icon-cloud-vector-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud-cloud.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492209329/stock-vector-sale-banner-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale-sale.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-496170547/stock-vector-ribbon-ribbon-ribbon-ribbon-ribbon-ribbon-ribbon-ribbon-ribbon-ribbon-ribbon-ribbon.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-503633596/stock-vector-hipster-hipsterhipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster-hipster.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-413992543/stock-vector-emoticon-emoji-set-emoticon-emoji-icon-emoticon-emoji-design-emoticon-emoji-flat-emoticon-emoji-art-emoticon-emoji-image-emoticon-emoji-illustration-emoticon-emoji-vector-emoticon.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-418661806/stock-vector-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern-pattern.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-435473020/stock-vector-quote-marks-vector-quote-marks-set-quote-marks-collection-quote-marks-abstract-quote-marks-design-quote-marks-image-quote-marks-illustration-quote-marks-flat-quote-marks-typograph.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-435472585/stock-vector-women-lips-icon-women-lips-set-women-lips-image-women-lips-design-women-lips-flat-women-lips-symbol-women-lips-set-women-lips-collection-women-lips-sign-women-lips-vector-women.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-430556296/stock-vector-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-cog-co.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-441145573/stock-vector-finger-click-hand-click-icon-finger-click-hand-click-icon-finger-click-hand-click-icon-finger-click-hand-click-icon-finger-click-hand-click-icon-finger-click-hand-click-icon-f.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-430037173/stock-vector-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pillow-pil.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-418661797/stock-vector-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate-celebrate.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-436431307/stock-vector-annual-report-cover-blue-annual-report-cover-template-annual-report-cover-design-annual-report-cover-layout-annual-report-cover-a4-annual-report-cover-concept-annual-report-cover-ve.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-436897852/stock-vector-modern-yellow-brochure-design-brochure-template-brochures-brochure-layout-brochure-cover-brochure-templates-brochure-layout-design-brochure-design-template-brochure-mockup-brochu.html

« Reply #78 on: November 02, 2016, 11:52 »
0
Spam and it sold really well??

« Reply #79 on: November 02, 2016, 16:08 »
0
Spam and it sold really well??

People assume it sells, just because it's up front. I don't and we have no way of looking at sales. But I still find it offensive that others can spam their way to the first page and make buyers look at undeserving files. I don't like cheaters or crooks.

« Reply #80 on: November 02, 2016, 16:27 »
+1
Spam and it sold really well??

People assume it sells, just because it's up front. I don't and we have no way of looking at sales. But I still find it offensive that others can spam their way to the first page and make buyers look at undeserving files. I don't like cheaters or crooks.


I feel the same way.

« Reply #81 on: November 02, 2016, 16:49 »
+1
They either need to tell us they don't care and make it open season or else drop the boom on these spammers.

There are hundreds if not thousands of images that would be suitable for most buyers, search placement is what makes the difference between a sale and nothing. If spamming can get you onto the first page it appears to be well worth it.

I bet if SS did just a few searches and disabled the obviously spammed image ports they saw on the first page we would see a huge drop in this problem - they obviously are not willing to do this.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1977 Views
Last post April 22, 2014, 11:24
by bunhill
126 Replies
28963 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 15:09
by tickstock
14 Replies
4336 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:28
by etudiante_rapide
134 Replies
13572 Views
Last post November 23, 2016, 16:12
by BD
81 Replies
13440 Views
Last post January 31, 2017, 13:24
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results