pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock has given up on reporting detailed collection size  (Read 5070 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 19, 2020, 18:11 »
+17
Today, Shutterstock changed how the website displays how many images & videos it has in the collection and now has a strange reporting of

"We have more than 340 million images as of June 30, 2020."

Using a number from 6 weeks ago seems odd. This morning, they showed:

"Over 331,496,076 royalty-free images with 813,907 new stock images added weekly."

And in the pricing section they claim to add 1.7 million a week (everything - images, video & music)

Footage now says "We have more than 19 million video-clips as of June 30, 2020." but yesterday it said 19,139,690. On the footage pricing page it says they add 58,628 clips a week, so if you wind that back 6 weeks those numbers don't work either.

They clearly need to figure out which set of made up numbers they want to stick with, but even if they do, the rolling tide of awful continues in new uploads.

I tweeted about this with some screenshots

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1296219015308701697

So far, the numbers you get when you search for nothing are still there, but possibly they'll go too.

I think buyers are probably minimally aware of these things, but they're skirting awfully close to misrepresenting their product with these sorts of claims. Combine that with things like the auto-renewal of on-demand image packs (which I thought they only did with subscriptions) and no wonder Trust Pilot is full of unhappy buyers...


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2020, 18:36 »
+3
To be fair, TrustPilot is untrustworthy. I've seen Joe Lycett's uncovering of fake reviews*, and when I googled Trust Pilot, Shutterstock just now, I immediately was invited to write a review as a customer of SS, though I've never been one (I have written TP reviews before, but only via emails from companies I've dealt with).

Not that that means that SS is any better than the bad reviews, of course. I have no respect for them.

* It's a bit silly and longer than it needs to be, but clearly Channel 4 is targetting a younger audience than the very worthy Beeb consumer shows attract.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMSMjF_b_Y
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 20:17 by ShadySue »

« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2020, 10:50 »
+13
Business all boils down to one thing - trust. If you cannot trust those who you are doing business with then they don't have a business. It does not matter how big that business is or how clever they think that they are, if any of their key stakeholders don't trust them then the party comes to an abrupt end. Contributors no longer trust Shutterstock, so the game is up. It may take months or it may take a few years - but one way or another, Shutterstock is done. Their reputation is totally shot.

« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2020, 16:42 »
+3
Quote
To be fair, TrustPilot is untrustworthy.

it is not, because they remove fake reviews whenever detected, but you cannot stop them all. its one of the better review sites out there

« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2020, 16:48 »
+8
The sooner this pig SS goes down, the better

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2020, 20:54 »
+3
Quote
To be fair, TrustPilot is untrustworthy.

it is not, because they remove fake reviews whenever detected, but you cannot stop them all. its one of the better review sites out there
You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think it's very trustworthy that I was invited to write a review just by googling TrustPilot Shutterstock. How would they have 'detected' that I had never been a buyer if I'd written one?

Les

« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2020, 01:48 »
+7
Fixation on the absolute number of images is the only thing SS can talk about. No doubt, the quantity will go up.
Quality is something entirely different, and that is being diminished by deactivation of successful images and by not adding new quality stuff. The library is being diluted by inferior and similar images. The shareholders can be fooled temporarily by the rising numbers, but many buyers will be turned off by the deluge of useless assets.
 

« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2020, 13:01 »
+5
https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2020&no=848417

In this interview to a Korean news site 3 days ago, Stan says, "the companys goal was to have the biggest library in the world,". I know corporate CEOs are the most notoriously unreliable when it comes to telling the truth but maybe Shutterstock is hiding numbers because their database hasn't been increasing at the rate they were hoping for.

Which probably means, at least some of the strategy to delete/deactivate ports appears to have worked.

« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2020, 15:55 »
+13
https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2020&no=848417

In this interview to a Korean news site 3 days ago, Stan says, "the companys goal was to have the biggest library in the world,". ...

Thanks for posting the link to that. It's painful reading - so many bubbly words, but saying so little - but one thing caught my eye.

Pavlovsky mentioned Twitter releasing a subscription product, something I wasn't aware of. A Google search found me an article about what Twitter is thinking of (but hasn't yet implemented)

https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/31/twitter-survey-reveals-the-subscription-options-its-eyeing-including-an-undo-send-option/

The idea that I'd pay extra to change some colors or have a badge to go with my profession seems mad. But then enthusiastic CEOs making a pitch for whatever initiative they're currently engaging it to woo the investment community often seem disconnected from reality.

I was also amused to see the comment about a grant program:

"We are launching a grant program, which is dedicated to support photographers artists videographers and musicians"

Seems to me, that supporting contributors might have been better done by skipping the June 1 royalty reductions...

« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2020, 10:25 »
+1
Quote
To be fair, TrustPilot is untrustworthy.

it is not, because they remove fake reviews whenever detected, but you cannot stop them all. its one of the better review sites out there
You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think it's very trustworthy that I was invited to write a review just by googling TrustPilot Shutterstock. How would they have 'detected' that I had never been a buyer if I'd written one?

Cookies

« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2020, 16:57 »
+3
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1302000947867119616

Shutterstock can't be bothered to update various parts of the web site so they tell a consistent story to prospective subscribers about how many images they have an how many are being added.


« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2020, 17:47 »
+3
And they better not touch the web much, their technical team is a disaster. Any day the web goes down, and they can't get back on the air. Although it is only text, it is better not to move the web much.

To do things well, they must pay money. Not the plan, apparently. I do not think that in the corridors of his office, love is breathed.

« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2020, 12:13 »
0
As contributors' portfolio sizes change from hour to hour without adding or deleting images Sstock are either incompetent or manipulating numbers ...🤔

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100898-disappearing-images/

« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2020, 06:29 »
+3
Im seeing remarkably consistent image sale earnings at the end of the month since june.  Similar to within 1-2 dollars in several hundred.  Never saw anything as consistent as that previously.

It started a very consistent earnings (not numbers) decrease then stabilised at almost the same every month since June.

10+ years submitting and not come across monthly figures as suspiciously consistent.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2020, 14:07 »
+2
As contributors' portfolio sizes change from hour to hour without adding or deleting images Sstock are either incompetent or manipulating numbers ...🤔

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100898-disappearing-images/

You left out, or both and maybe a third. When we connect, anyone of us, we get directed to a server somewhere in the world (how's that for vague?) which has the entire database of images, mirrored from another source. In order to keep all of these synchronized, they have to be taken down, or partially disabled for segments of data, because you can't be reading and writing at the same time and have a duplicate that's 100% of the original.

Now image that the database is 300 million images. Someone can hit a server that has one or more of their images, in the locked section, during an update. 404 error image can't be found. I think people get overly excited when an image is "missing" and they worry that their sales will drop. Remember when people said, their images were being blocked? Remember the blackouts of portions of the world, by times? All of these might be true, in that something isn't found or accessible, when someone looks, but the conclusions and interpretations are just conjecture.

What I mean is, there are not artist or zone blackouts and SS isn't manipulating if our images are seen or not and "missing" images aren't really gone. They are temporarily unavailable while the system is updating. The fact that my portfolio count and my actual image count are NOT the same, isn't really too sinister, and which one is right, which one is wrong? Is the higher number the error or the one image lower number?  ;D

When I was removing images a while back, I'd delete, back up, delete, back up, and after awhile, I'd reload the page. Sometimes the last ten would be gone. Other times, I'd reload and suddenly everything was back. Gone... back. Because all the servers are not always in sync, it could take (I know everyone reads this but seems to forget) "Up to 72 hours" which means, 72 hours for a change in keywords, everywhere in the world.

A missing image, can be invisible in Wisconsin, yet be available for download in Texas, Alaska and Australia. Micro inspecting a huge system, for one image, when we are randomly sent to a server, who knows where, doesn't produce anything except a guess and perception, that something is wrong. And then when the image "returns" it's been fixed, when nothing was actually broken?

I confess, I don't sit and check if my images are there or not, I have other things to do with my time. Just like (remember when) someone wrote some software that would monitor live, checking every minute to see if our account got a download? I mean up to the minute. The agencies blocked these because like a DNS attack it was bringing the response times down on the servers. What's the point? Checking, checking, checking?

And for the people who want to watch and check and see if all their images are there, and try to find the one that's missing. Why? I mean, knowing changes nothing and we don't really know, because we can only look under a microscope, and can't see the whole world view. You need to remember to leave the website, clear your cache, then come back, every time you look.  ;D

As for the OP, "We have more than 340 million images as of June 30, 2020." which is what it says now, is pretty funny. I thought the idea of reporting how many images and how many new, was irrelevant, when they did report it. Now they have dropped the, we have more, claims. Dupes and similar have been hit hard. Some portfolios that most of us would have called nothing but filler and spam, have been closed.

None of that matters to me, or changes my collection, but maybe it will make the site look better for buyers. Who needs all that junk and crapstock, just to say "we have more images". I mean, how many buyers, thought that a terrible search with all kinds of duplicates, made their buying better.

Meanwhile: "215 million stock images, vectors, videos and 360-degree panoramic images. Greater choice from Alamy, the worlds most diverse stock photo collection." LOL

« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2020, 15:52 »
+1
Who cares? Shutterstock is literally dead at this point. Why is anyone even contributing there anymore? My P5 sales are through the roof these days

« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2020, 17:10 »
+2
Who cares? Shutterstock is literally dead at this point. Why is anyone even contributing there anymore? My P5 sales are through the roof these days

it CAN'T be 'literally' dead if the site is functioning, reviewing and selling!  you may not like them but tha's just your opinion.

 as far as P5, why should we believe you when you don't show  your portfolio or give any context. eg if you sold 1 image last month for $1 and sold another one this month for $2 you'd have a 100% increase in sales!

and Pete - your post & this one show the absurdity here - you give a long, detailed acct of why conspiracies about SS are nonsense when there are much simpler reasons (it's called Occam's Razor), compared with a driveby post with no content


PZF

« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2020, 04:30 »
0
Who cares? Shutterstock is literally dead at this point. Why is anyone even contributing there anymore? My P5 sales are through the roof these days

Well who's the lucky one then!!! Nada here, nowt, nuffin'. Situation normal for photos.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2020, 12:10 »
+1
Who cares? Shutterstock is literally dead at this point. Why is anyone even contributing there anymore? My P5 sales are through the roof these days

it CAN'T be 'literally' dead if the site is functioning, reviewing and selling!  you may not like them but tha's just your opinion.

 as far as P5, why should we believe you when you don't show  your portfolio or give any context. eg if you sold 1 image last month for $1 and sold another one this month for $2 you'd have a 100% increase in sales!

and Pete - your post & this one show the absurdity here - you give a long, detailed acct of why conspiracies about SS are nonsense when there are much simpler reasons (it's called Occam's Razor), compared with a driveby post with no content

Yeah, point taken. (I would say rambling rather than drive by?)

I don't disagree with Jo Ann, or others, if it looked that way. What I was trying to say, the number of images was a bad idea when they did report it, the current numbers are saying June, but we know that's not true, inaccurate and it's out of date. Also most buyers at this point, shouldn't care or don't care about "we have the most images" when it's content not count that's most important.

I thought the Alamy tag was funny. Reviews across the industry turned to a joke, agencies desperate for more content, the stupid "we have more" race, ignoring quality. I don't think reporting the count or not is anything that's important.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2020, 09:24 »
0
Moderately related but I couldn't find any other thread that might have been on topic and I didn't want to start a new one for this one tid-bit.

From Kate:

The current limit to how much content you can submit is 100 videos and 500 images per 7 day period.

I guess that would reduce the number of new images and videos?  :)  Especially from people who work more, group accounts, or the image factories.

"We've found that submitting more content than this usually ends up working against you, as your content competes against itself at the top of the search results. "  :o

« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2020, 14:28 »
+3
Who cares? Shutterstock is literally dead at this point. Why is anyone even contributing there anymore? My P5 sales are through the roof these days

it CAN'T be 'literally' dead if the site is functioning, reviewing and selling!  you may not like them but tha's just your opinion.

 as far as P5, why should we believe you when you don't show  your portfolio or give any context. eg if you sold 1 image last month for $1 and sold another one this month for $2 you'd have a 100% increase in sales!

and Pete - your post & this one show the absurdity here - you give a long, detailed acct of why conspiracies about SS are nonsense when there are much simpler reasons (it's called Occam's Razor), compared with a driveby post with no content

SS is dead. Anything else you care to whine about?

« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2020, 15:06 »
0
Moderately related but I couldn't find any other thread that might have been on topic and I didn't want to start a new one for this one tid-bit.

From Kate:

The current limit to how much content you can submit is 100 videos and 500 images per 7 day period.

I guess that would reduce the number of new images and videos?  :)  Especially from people who work more, group accounts, or the image factories.

"We've found that submitting more content than this usually ends up working against you, as your content competes against itself at the top of the search results. "  :o

Im not overly sure i believe them.

Generally out of all the uploads, regardless of quality, one or two will get traction, the rest wont.
So its possible spamming images to the top of the search (for new/recent) is a useful tactic in that 1 or 2 will sell, then continue to do so whilst the others dont.

That said, 500 is a ludicrous limit - nobody has anything like that many commercially viable images to upload every single week.

AS works on keywords for the first 30 days then a lot more ranking so it maybe an idea with bit batches there to drip feed the same number in over several weeks to give each one more of a chance to live, find and take off.

« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2020, 22:41 »
0
Who cares? Shutterstock is literally dead at this point. Why is anyone even contributing there anymore? My P5 sales are through the roof these days

it CAN'T be 'literally' dead if the site is functioning, reviewing and selling!  you may not like them but tha's just your opinion.

 as far as P5, why should we believe you when you don't show  your portfolio or give any context. eg if you sold 1 image last month for $1 and sold another one this month for $2 you'd have a 100% increase in sales!

and Pete - your post & this one show the absurdity here - you give a long, detailed acct of why conspiracies about SS are nonsense when there are much simpler reasons (it's called Occam's Razor), compared with a driveby post with no content

SS is dead. Anything else you care to whine about?
ROFLMAO - say it 3 times and it still won't make it true!

{whining on my way to the bank w zombie $ from a dead agency}

« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2020, 22:52 »
0


...That said, 500 is a ludicrous limit - nobody has anything like that many commercially viable images to upload every single week.
 ...
it's very possible to submit 500+ images a month depending on your workflow

in last 2 months i've had following accepted:

ss 700
pond 800
AS 1600

i shot over 20k images last year from 8 major foreign trips plus multiple short trips w/in US, most still not culled/edited/captioned. i work in larger batches and don't upload steadily, so i submit sporadically (i'd gotten behind on  previous submissions to AS)
 

« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2020, 06:00 »
+1
This is a week not a month.....

And yes i do similar, i work (well when there was work...) solidly for 5 months with little or no time to upload then filter them in over the rest of the year so can get more than 500 sometimes.  However its bursty so once ive done that i have weeks or more of little or no uploads etc.

So the limit if it existed would just mean it takes slightly longer to submit my media than otherwise but not a major problem.

i'd still say nobody has 500 images a week, every week of sufficient quality (unless you're a factory in which case they're exempt this anyway).  For most circumstances it just encourages spamming/similar and other things.

« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2020, 10:26 »
+2
CommuniCat really nailed it!... in this business contributors is an agency's life-blood ( somebody used this expression some years back) it really fits! and if the blood gets infected the patient will die!...anyway who cares they have been conning us for years! just look at their crazy and schitzophrenic search algorithm changes every five minutes and in the process slaughtering hundreds of portfolios!

« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2020, 09:15 »
0
CommuniCat really nailed it!... in this business contributors is an agency's life-blood ( somebody used this expression some years back) it really fits! and if the blood gets infected the patient will die!...anyway who cares they have been conning us for years! just look at their crazy and schitzophrenic search algorithm changes every five minutes and in the process slaughtering hundreds of portfolios!

The search changes every five minutes? How does changing and giving more exposure to more people slaughter portfolios? Wouldn't that help some of us. How does that hurt?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2020, 15:50 »
+1
Quote
To be fair, TrustPilot is untrustworthy.

it is not, because they remove fake reviews whenever detected, but you cannot stop them all. its one of the better review sites out there

Just this evening, I wrote a 5* review on TrustPilot (not stock related) then looked through my other reviews. Only my 5* reviews remain: my others, from 4* down to 1*, have disappeared. I never got any notification about them being removed.

« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2020, 08:17 »
+2
Quote
To be fair, TrustPilot is untrustworthy.

it is not, because they remove fake reviews whenever detected, but you cannot stop them all. its one of the better review sites out there

Just this evening, I wrote a 5* review on TrustPilot (not stock related) then looked through my other reviews. Only my 5* reviews remain: my others, from 4* down to 1*, have disappeared. I never got any notification about them being removed.

Trustpilot is a scam review site. https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/trustpilot.com

« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2020, 16:48 »
0

Trustpilot is a scam review site. https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/trustpilot.com

probably based in Lake Woebegone where all the children are above average

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: September 29, 2020, 18:18 »
0
Quote
To be fair, TrustPilot is untrustworthy.

it is not, because they remove fake reviews whenever detected, but you cannot stop them all. its one of the better review sites out there

Just this evening, I wrote a 5* review on TrustPilot (not stock related) then looked through my other reviews. Only my 5* reviews remain: my others, from 4* down to 1*, have disappeared. I never got any notification about them being removed.

Trustpilot is a scam review site. https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/trustpilot.com

Ha! The high review of TP is actually of a different site altogether!

« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2020, 04:09 »
0
Quote
To be fair, TrustPilot is untrustworthy.

it is not, because they remove fake reviews whenever detected, but you cannot stop them all. its one of the better review sites out there
Not only. They remove negative reviews on demand of businesses. And for them no matter if the review is real and true. Cannot believe that they do this only as volunteers.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2020, 10:12 »
0
Quote
To be fair, TrustPilot is untrustworthy.

it is not, because they remove fake reviews whenever detected, but you cannot stop them all. its one of the better review sites out there
Not only. They remove negative reviews on demand of businesses. And for them no matter if the review is real and true. Cannot believe that they do this only as volunteers.

Starting at $199 per month - https://business.trustpilot.com/plans

« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2020, 19:24 »
0
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com

Well its not doing them a lot of good - im not sure there are companies on there with a lower rating - its certainly the lowest ive ever seen.

1053 reviews at the time of writing that and 93% are "bad".

Most of it isnt even angry contributors - its angry buyers.  And thats MUCH more of a problem for a company.

« Reply #34 on: October 05, 2020, 08:54 »
0
There is still a place on the web where you can see the stats:

https://www.shutterstock.com/sitemap/topics-trends-stock-photography

 ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
5610 Views
Last post May 23, 2006, 16:46
by madelaide
8 Replies
5642 Views
Last post April 23, 2007, 03:55
by fintastique
Top Sellers

Started by maigi « 1 2  All » Shutterstock.com

34 Replies
10990 Views
Last post December 19, 2011, 09:13
by Morphart
7 Replies
2183 Views
Last post September 12, 2014, 03:54
by PZF
12 Replies
1818 Views
Last post August 10, 2020, 09:41
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle