The sooner this pig SS goes down, the better

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.
 

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.

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/

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? 

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. 

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 world�s most diverse stock photo collection." LOL

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

Quote from: thirdbornentertainment on September 14, 2020, 15:52

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.

Quote from: thirdbornentertainment on September 14, 2020, 15:52

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?

Quote from: cascoly on September 14, 2020, 17:10

Quote from: thirdbornentertainment on September 14, 2020, 15:52

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}

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.