pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock do nothing with spammers.  (Read 14079 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2004 Views
Last post April 22, 2014, 11:24
by bunhill
126 Replies
29694 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 15:09
by tickstock
14 Replies
4559 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:28
by etudiante_rapide
134 Replies
13711 Views
Last post November 23, 2016, 16:12
by BD
81 Replies
13583 Views
Last post January 31, 2017, 13:24
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results