I am reading some alarming claims on another forum that the very recent (apparently) change to the SS search facility is turning on and off photographers portfolios during the day to limit their ports exposure and subsequently their earnings, thereby controlling a photographers success.

Surely this cannot be true 

Is it even legal to do such a thing? Well, maybe it is legal but surely not moral or ethical?

Or is this just unhappy SS photog's going through a dip in sales?

with all due respect, it takes an idiot to no realize that most agencies today are not manipulating earning potential for contributors.

they are all messing with computer algorithms to keep our royalties as low as possible and in the meant time telling us we are "special"

what other forum?
And What Proof?

I saw it on the SS forum.

Quote from: ethan on April 04, 2014, 10:23

Quote from: PhotoBomb on April 04, 2014, 10:06

what other forum?
And What Proof?

I saw it on the SS forum.

Quote, link?

Paste of message here:
Thats just it! did not want to share this but since you mentioned it: you hit the nail. Friend of my wife who many consider an analytical computer guru had a look at some agencies searches and after only half hour he came to the conclusion certain searches are controlled as far as earnings, i.e. at certain intervals you are allowed to earn at full potential etc, then you are cut-off.
If true this raise a huge moral/ethical question. Person in question is not just anybody, he has worked with corps like Adobe, Google and twitter, even put together programs for Citicorp investments.
Mind you, I hardly needed anybody to tell me something is badly worng, one day you can have like 20 ODs, 6 SODs and some ELs, next day you get like 50 subs. Even bhy the law of average, this can not hold true.

Link Here:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130802&start=2940

There has been often speculation about iStockphoto and their searches. Because iStock pays different percentages to different people there is some reasonable explanation why it would happen. Though I never bought into any of those speculation because in the bigger picture it doesn't make sense. The main target of all selling companies is to make customers buy something, and to deliberately keep a product hidden that they might want to buy to "save" money just doesn't make sense.

It makes even less sense for Shutterstock as they don't have different collections and even the difference between the top three of their four earning levels is less than 20%. Saving 5 cents by excluding an image that might otherwise sell would be rather stupid.

There has been often speculation about iStockphoto and their searches. Because iStock pays different percentages to different people there is some reasonable explanation why it would happen. Though I never bought into any of those speculation because in the bigger picture it doesn't make sense. The main target of all selling companies is to make customers buy something, and to deliberately keep a product hidden that they might want to buy to "save" money just doesn't make sense.

It makes even less sense for Shutterstock as they don't have different collections and even the difference between the top three of their four earning levels is less than 20%. Saving 5 cents by excluding an image that might otherwise sell would be rather stupid.

It would make sense for them to do this but personally I don't see it.
Yes there are ups and downs but I am at the top tier and have been for years and I continually see my earnings increase.
And your assumption that SS sells images to make money is wrong. They sell subscriptions and other packages - Hoping & Knowing you won't use the entire allotment - that's how they make money. Actually every time someone downloads an image they lose money actually make less money.

Quote from: ethan on April 04, 2014, 10:46

Quote from: ShadySue on April 04, 2014, 10:43

^^, but as they always warn in History lessons, "Look at the Source".

Sorry don't understand, do you mean the fellow called Chris that posted this ?

Christian Lagerek is a well known purveyor of really "out there" opinions - based on his prior lives here; I don't know him personally. Can't argue with the quality of his work, but I would want some other source before printing a story if I were a newspaper

OK Got it 

And your assumption that SS sells images to make money is wrong. They sell subscriptions and other packages - Hoping & Knowing you won't use the entire allotment - that's how they make money. Actually every time someone downloads an image they lose money actually make less money.

Ok, that is another way of looking at it and has some "logic" that could be used to come up with ideas... but to achieve that kind of "success" they would have to hide all content that the customer might download, making it impossible to find something matching the customers needs. They don't win by hiding "image1" if the result is a download for "image2". And in the end the overall experience needs to be good enough to make customers renew their subscriptions if possible, right?

So I still go with "we don't care which image gets the download, we only care if the customers gets what he wants in the shortest time possible" as the most reasonable goal for any agency and how they structure their search results.

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on April 04, 2014, 11:03

Quote from: PhotoBomb on April 04, 2014, 10:53

And your assumption that SS sells images to make money is wrong. They sell subscriptions and other packages - Hoping & Knowing you won't use the entire allotment - that's how they make money. Actually every time someone downloads an image they lose money actually make less money.

Ok, that is another way of looking at it and has some "logic" that could be used to come up with ideas... but to achieve that kind of "success" they would have to hide all content that the customer might download, making it impossible to find something matching the customers needs. They don't win by hiding "image1" if the result is a download for "image2". And in the end the overall experience needs to be good enough to make customers renew their subscriptions if possible, right?

So I still go with "we don't care which image gets the download, we only care if the customers gets what he wants in the shortest time possible" as the most reasonable goal for any agency and how they structure their search results.

Actually we agree - like I said It might make sense but I just don't see them hiding particular portfolios. If they were a lot of us would be seeing disastrous results - and we aren't. I just see growth.

Definitely I concur with that. Until seeing those comments I was unaware of anything being 'wrong' or odd about my sales trends. I only have a really tiny portfolio over on SS and I have only experienced BME for the last six to eight months, not necessarily in $ every month but certainly in downloads by on average 20-25% a month increases. Albeit only three and a half days into April I have 117 D/L (subs and ODD's) and fully expect to beat March total of 894 D/L if things stay the same.

I guess I just was slightly alarmed by what I was seeing (reading) on the SS forum so mentioned it here.

I won't be concerned having seen the comments and views posted in response to my OP.

Thanks everyone

I am reading some alarming claims on another forum that the very recent (apparently) change to the SS search facility is turning on and off photographers portfolios during the day to limit their ports exposure and subsequently their earnings, thereby controlling a photographers success.

Answer Removed

So I still go with "we don't care which image gets the download, we only care if the customers gets what he wants in the shortest time possible" as the most reasonable goal for any agency and how they structure their search results.

Yes!

Actually we agree - like I said It might make sense but I just don't see them hiding particular portfolios. If they were a lot of us would be seeing disastrous results - and we aren't. I just see growth.

And another yes.

Stock art is heavily customer driven and customers can vary wildly on what they want. Some days it is busy and some days it is slow. Some people want subs and others want just one image.

And one more yes. Needs vary, it's random, not stable and a steady flow of demands. It makes no sense at all for SS to hide good selling images and try to force customers to buy less needed or lower quality images. They might be sending people away, which is a higher risk, than the 5 cents between .33 and .38. And what about the ODD and SODs, do you want to distract people and spread those out?

I don't believe in this conspiracy theory. Why woudn't SS want to sell as much as possible and keep their customers happy? What would SS benefit from doing this?

If someone has experienced their portfolio "dissappearing", I think it's more likely some technical glitch.