MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock do nothing with spammers.  (Read 14024 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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1997 Views
Last post April 22, 2014, 11:24
by bunhill
126 Replies
29536 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 15:09
by tickstock
14 Replies
4506 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:28
by etudiante_rapide
134 Replies
13674 Views
Last post November 23, 2016, 16:12
by BD
81 Replies
13536 Views
Last post January 31, 2017, 13:24
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results