MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock will now accept new contributors with 1/10 passing review.  (Read 21843 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: December 07, 2015, 01:23 »
+4
"Shutterstock will now accept new contributors with 1/10 passing review." and now reject almost every my new photos!?
I do not understand.


Very very nice job SS!


« Reply #126 on: December 07, 2015, 02:18 »
+1
When enter many new "photographers" as they are not experienced in stock photography they will shot a lot of not good sellable content, but content which will fill many niches in the Shutterstock's collection and this overall will return more complex search results to the client and from there more satisfied customers.

« Reply #127 on: December 07, 2015, 06:23 »
+4
The "new" search is already a complete mess, an ocean of low quality spam. If I'm a buyer looking for new content that has never been used before, I would be completely frustrated. You have to type at least 3 keywords to find relevant images, imagine what it will look like in a couple years.

Shutterstock is just looking for a cheap way to increase margins in the short term, but the lack of long term thinking will prove disastrous not only for contributors, but for the company itself. Of course by the time SHTF, SS managers won't be holding their stocks anymore.

« Reply #128 on: December 07, 2015, 06:40 »
+3
Or they could be increasing the value of their premium service. The more junk there is to wade through the more sense it will make for buyers to pay the extra for help searching. We could even see the search engine get worse so they can keep the best algorithm for their own premium team.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Good New For You
« Reply #129 on: December 07, 2015, 07:23 »
+2
Or they could be increasing the value of their premium service. The more junk there is to wade through the more sense it will make for buyers to pay the extra for help searching. We could even see the search engine get worse so they can keep the best algorithm for their own premium team.

That's a possibility. Buyers used to pay a couple thousand dollars to license one image for a single project. Now they can pay a couple thousand dollars a year and get up to almost 10,000 images. I'm sure some of them would gladly pay extra to save time by not dredging through a bazillion images of varying usefulness.

« Reply #130 on: December 07, 2015, 07:48 »
0
"Shutterstock will now accept new contributors with 1/10 passing review." and now reject almost every my new photos!?
I do not understand.


Very very nice job SS!
This proves that the lousy 7/10 exam is obsolete.
You must be able to continously produce quality, not only during your first submission.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


« Reply #131 on: December 07, 2015, 08:07 »
0
"Shutterstock will now accept new contributors with 1/10 passing review." and now reject almost every my new photos!?
I do not understand.


Very very nice job SS!
This proves that the lousy 7/10 exam is obsolete.
You must be able to continously produce quality, not only during your first submission.



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


Less than 2k port on SS. Little less 1k earnings/month.

I produce, I think, quality not quantity.

« Reply #132 on: December 07, 2015, 08:09 »
0
"Shutterstock will now accept new contributors with 1/10 passing review." and now reject almost every my new photos!?
I do not understand.


Very very nice job SS!
This proves that the lousy 7/10 exam is obsolete.
You must be able to continously produce quality, not only during your first submission.



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


Less than 2k port on SS. Little less 1k earnings/month.

I produce, I think, quality not quantity.
Still, your "quality" must be accepted by SS.
Will you be able to pass an 1/10 exam, now, if SS rejects almost everything you produce?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


« Reply #133 on: December 07, 2015, 09:42 »
+1
Or they could be increasing the value of their premium service. The more junk there is to wade through the more sense it will make for buyers to pay the extra for help searching. We could even see the search engine get worse so they can keep the best algorithm for their own premium team.

I think you are on to something here. Companies must constantly find ways to provide greater value, which equals more money, in their product offerings. This would be an excellent way for them to do it.

There is already a lot of junk to wade through. I was searching last week for an image, and search results, for the first two pages, was 1 design, just the background had changed colors. For two pages of search results. And that is getting more and more common.

« Reply #134 on: December 07, 2015, 11:04 »
+9
Or they could be increasing the value of their premium service. The more junk there is to wade through the more sense it will make for buyers to pay the extra for help searching. We could even see the search engine get worse so they can keep the best algorithm for their own premium team.

That's a possibility.  My own cynical point of view is that at this stage in the life cycle of a public company, every decision is ultimately based on the stock price, which in turn is based on big "numbers" put up in front of  investors.  So SS wants to be able to announce that they've increased the size of the collection by some ungodly amount, and also signed up more customers for premium search, and those two goals fit together.   

They also want to announce that they've increased the number of contributors by some large number, and this could explain the lowering of the entrance bar.  I think it's actually just that simple.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 11:12 by stockastic »

« Reply #135 on: December 07, 2015, 12:03 »
+3
Maybe their new policy is to refuse 90% of all uploads so they had to lower the entry or there would be no new talent!

« Reply #136 on: December 07, 2015, 12:47 »
+2
Or they could be increasing the value of their premium service. The more junk there is to wade through the more sense it will make for buyers to pay the extra for help searching. We could even see the search engine get worse so they can keep the best algorithm for their own premium team.

That's a possibility.  My own cynical point of view is that at this stage in the life cycle of a public company, every decision is ultimately based on the stock price, which in turn is based on big "numbers" put up in front of  investors.  So SS wants to be able to announce that they've increased the size of the collection by some ungodly amount, and also signed up more customers for premium search, and those two goals fit together.   

They also want to announce that they've increased the number of contributors by some large number, and this could explain the lowering of the entrance bar.  I think it's actually just that simple.

IMO, these theories offered by Justanotherphotographer and stockastic are actually the best anybody has come up with yet. Either separately or together, they make all kind of sense.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #137 on: December 07, 2015, 13:28 »
+1
One things for sure they'll never curate or raise the prices, it's a subs or nothing approach.

After all the fanfare around SS and trying them out for a few years I feel a bit disappointed with them. I can understand Yuri's frustration with them. I'm not feeling any passion for photography from SS.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 13:30 by stock-will-eat-itself »

« Reply #138 on: December 07, 2015, 18:32 »
0
Or they could be increasing the value of their premium service. The more junk there is to wade through the more sense it will make for buyers to pay the extra for help searching. We could even see the search engine get worse so they can keep the best algorithm for their own premium team.

That's a possibility.  My own cynical point of view is that at this stage in the life cycle of a public company, every decision is ultimately based on the stock price, which in turn is based on big "numbers" put up in front of  investors.  So SS wants to be able to announce that they've increased the size of the collection by some ungodly amount, and also signed up more customers for premium search, and those two goals fit together.   

They also want to announce that they've increased the number of contributors by some large number, and this could explain the lowering of the entrance bar.  I think it's actually just that simple.

i think i understand what both of you say, but excuse me if i don't. what you miss me is that premium service or premium search. what is that???
is this still with ss or is it offset?

another thing is maybe ss wants clients to go to offset so they can start paying higher prices, and contributors earn higher too. but wonder if we too can move to offset and offer higher cost images.

for now, with ss, i think we maybe see an opportunity too, a challenge of us old guys ...
by coming up with quality stuff . if as everyone say the dilution of inventory, then it will be obvious clients will notice you if your work stand out over those who come in without 7/10.

only trick is being seen by the clients. i think once the client find our portfolio there can be an
opportunity for increased sales once the quality dilution begins.

« Reply #139 on: December 07, 2015, 22:03 »
+3

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

Maybe that's the way it should be? In my opinion, microstock should never have been anything other than low to medium quality images. Using thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment to make pennies per sale has always been unsustainable for photographers. It's reality time.


Exactly. I dont think the microstock model was meant to support pro photogs using high end equipment and costly studio/model shoots.

Microstock did support pros producing high quality work until recently and you can bet the SS sales teams chasing the profitable corporate clients are showing them exactly these high production images. They won't be closing sales from backyard shots.

Completely agree!  I am also thinking that in the very near future your screen name will have to become Stock-has-eaten-itself.

« Reply #140 on: December 08, 2015, 09:00 »
+3

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

Maybe that's the way it should be? In my opinion, microstock should never have been anything other than low to medium quality images. Using thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment to make pennies per sale has always been unsustainable for photographers. It's reality time.


Exactly. I dont think the microstock model was meant to support pro photogs using high end equipment and costly studio/model shoots.

Microstock did support pros producing high quality work until recently and you can bet the SS sales teams chasing the profitable corporate clients are showing them exactly these high production images. They won't be closing sales from backyard shots.

Completely agree!  I am also thinking that in the very near future your screen name will have to become Stock-has-eaten-itself.

The other thing SS has going for them (like other sites) is that they have A LOT of excellent contributors who simply don't pay attention to what's really happening or are in areas where a little money means a whole lot. That segment of suppliers probably isn't going away.  If everyone who knows what's happening were to pull their ports, it would not make much difference to the collection because there is plenty of good stuff to replace deletions. It unfortunate but it's a fact.

« Reply #141 on: December 08, 2015, 18:00 »
+2

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

The other thing SS has going for them (like other sites) is that they have A LOT of excellent contributors who simply don't pay attention to what's really happening or are in areas where a little money means a whole lot. That segment of suppliers probably isn't going away.  If everyone who knows what's happening were to pull their ports, it would not make much difference to the collection because there is plenty of good stuff to replace deletions. It unfortunate but it's a fact.

not sure which if i edited correctly , if not, sorry.
but this is the thing that seems to be prevelant here on msg. inconsistency .
what i mean is , only not long ago when rejections were high, many old guys were up with their pitchforks saying "the bar lifted too high already, for the kind of money you pay us".

so now, they lower the bar to very low, and still the voice is shouting saying "the bar is too low".

like cathy, i think , says, micro was never meant for "pros" using expensive cameras to shoot.
if not the cameras, but more the cost of production.  i also remember how someone also said we should be smarter at what we upload as it would be insane to upload works that cost an arm and a leg to produce.
but really, we all know it was never meant for any of us to be paid a lot of money from micro,
so we are flipping back and forth on our own expectation from ss.

i think until someone else comes along to give us as often dls and payout as ss,
i would hold my breath on going to macro or anyone who has not proven they can even be as
productive as dreamstime;  and we know how reliable that is.

looking on the right side, we still see all those long existing agencies still barely hitting past 30 .
so i won't be expecting anyone coming out or coming up to compete against ss.

for now, i will keep my own bar high, and use this lowering of the bar as a chance to actually
stand out above the rest. it's like the real world, you know.. when you see lots of ppl not caring about getting a good job. we still don't say, "oh... that's bad for me... if so many of them doing care
about aiming higher" . same applies to ss, you know. what worry what the others do...
it's really only us, what we do, if we earn more or less in 2016 with ss... with millions of 1/10 entries
and thousands of marijuanas ...
don't really matter anyway.
..should it???


« Reply #142 on: December 08, 2015, 19:34 »
0
Best comment on this topic for now

« Reply #143 on: December 09, 2015, 00:39 »
+4
I agree about keeping our own personal bar high.  I am not afraid of competing with the quality of the new entrants.  I worry that the mass quantity of largely dross will make my higher quality and more expensive - for SS - images much harder to find.

On the high bar issue, while I will keep my quality high, I can no longer afford expensive shoots.  I forsee a future of shooting more food and objects and way less pro models or paid locations.

« Reply #144 on: December 09, 2015, 01:13 »
+6
The problem is not that the bar is high or the bar is low. The biggest problem is that the bar (for image reviews) is changing constantly depending on which reviewer you get. You can get an entire batch 100% rejected, resubmit and get them 100% accepted. Something is wrong with that.

If anyone can explain to me how reducing the initial review requirements is going to improve the review process, go ahead. What I see is that more submitters who really have no idea how to use their camera will be accepted (along with some good contributors no doubt). This is going to result in even larger piles of crap for the reviewing staff to deal with. What are the odds that that is going to help them do a more consistent job? What are the odds that SS will be able to do real quality control on reviewers if they need to hire a bunch more just to wade through the garbage that gets submitted?

I don't think this is the end of the microstock world (700 thousand new images per week will do that eventually). I just don't see how it actually improves anything except the numbers that upper management can sell to shareholders.

« Reply #145 on: December 09, 2015, 08:49 »
+1
The problem is not that the bar is high or the bar is low. The biggest problem is that the bar (for image reviews) is changing constantly depending on which reviewer you get. You can get an entire batch 100% rejected, resubmit and get them 100% accepted. Something is wrong with that.

If anyone can explain to me how reducing the initial review requirements is going to improve the review process, go ahead. What I see is that more submitters who really have no idea how to use their camera will be accepted (along with some good contributors no doubt). This is going to result in even larger piles of crap for the reviewing staff to deal with. What are the odds that that is going to help them do a more consistent job? What are the odds that SS will be able to do real quality control on reviewers if they need to hire a bunch more just to wade through the garbage that gets submitted?

I don't think this is the end of the microstock world (700 thousand new images per week will do that eventually). I just don't see how it actually improves anything except the numbers that upper management can sell to shareholders.


It won't. What I do believe is that their proprietary auto inspection software has been vetted (in their eyes anyway) and they feel that now they can take on more images with a lower scalable number of inspectors. That means the number of images inspected per inspector, overall, goes down (in pure time).

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=8226787

"Each of our images has been vetted by a member of our review team for standards of quality and relevance. We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers. Less than 20% of contributor applicants who applied in 2011 were approved as contributors to shutterstock.com, and less than 60% of images uploaded by approved contributors in 2011 satisfied our rigorous acceptance requirements. "

What's funny is that they are touting how much they reject. If they maintain these rejection numbers as a differentiator then they would need to have a higher flood of images to grow their collection and still claim high image rejection. The contributor application metric is out the door though. That will definitely change.

« Reply #146 on: December 09, 2015, 09:32 »
+2
for a long time now it is clear to me that ss is talking from their asses, they do one thing and tell us something else, or ignore completely

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Good New For You
« Reply #147 on: December 09, 2015, 09:34 »
0
The problem is not that the bar is high or the bar is low. The biggest problem is that the bar (for image reviews) is changing constantly depending on which reviewer you get. You can get an entire batch 100% rejected, resubmit and get them 100% accepted. Something is wrong with that.

If anyone can explain to me how reducing the initial review requirements is going to improve the review process, go ahead. What I see is that more submitters who really have no idea how to use their camera will be accepted (along with some good contributors no doubt). This is going to result in even larger piles of crap for the reviewing staff to deal with. What are the odds that that is going to help them do a more consistent job? What are the odds that SS will be able to do real quality control on reviewers if they need to hire a bunch more just to wade through the garbage that gets submitted?

I don't think this is the end of the microstock world (700 thousand new images per week will do that eventually). I just don't see how it actually improves anything except the numbers that upper management can sell to shareholders.


It won't. What I do believe is that their proprietary auto inspection software has been vetted (in their eyes anyway) and they feel that now they can take on more images with a lower scalable number of inspectors. That means the number of images inspected per inspector, overall, goes down (in pure time).

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=8226787

"Each of our images has been vetted by a member of our review team for standards of quality and relevance. We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers. Less than 20% of contributor applicants who applied in 2011 were approved as contributors to shutterstock.com, and less than 60% of images uploaded by approved contributors in 2011 satisfied our rigorous acceptance requirements. "

What's funny is that they are touting how much they reject. If they maintain these rejection numbers as a differentiator then they would need to have a higher flood of images to grow their collection and still claim high image rejection. The contributor application metric is out the door though. That will definitely change.


Agree. Based on that automated review statement it seems they're lowering the entry standards and letting the pre-filter software take on a higher volume of individual image screening. This makes sense because I'm sure there are plenty of people who produce decent work but get wholesale rejected on the application review due to some images being questionable. These people will now be let in and the pre-screening software will handle the review at the image level.

The result will be that these new contributors will reject themselves. Meaning, if the pre-screening software constantly rejects a high percentage of someone's submissions they'll either improve their work or will stop submitting.

I think this change simply means that SS has become confident enough in the pre-screen software that the entry review is no longer relevant.

So the image quality requirements may not have changed but this definitely will cause a spike in new image volume.   

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #148 on: December 09, 2015, 13:05 »
+5
Another possibility is that SS is positioning themselves for another sale.  They already have millions of images, so by admitting more contributors, they can claim they not only have many millions more images than their competition, but they now also have several times more contributors than all other agencies.  The combination of a gigantic portfolio and tens of thousands of contributors can appear appealing to potential buyers/investors.  Just one more supposition as what could motivate them to take this seemingly counterproductive action (to us contributors anyway).    :-\

« Reply #149 on: December 09, 2015, 17:48 »
0
Agree. Based on that automated review statement it seems they're lowering the entry standards and letting the pre-filter software take on a higher volume of individual image screening. This makes sense because I'm sure there are plenty of people who produce decent work but get wholesale rejected on the application review due to some images being questionable. These people will now be let in and the pre-screening software will handle the review at the image level.

The result will be that these new contributors will reject themselves. Meaning, if the pre-screening software constantly rejects a high percentage of someone's submissions they'll either improve their work or will stop submitting.

I think this change simply means that SS has become confident enough in the pre-screen software that the entry review is no longer relevant.

So the image quality requirements may not have changed but this definitely will cause a spike in new image volume.

agree to all and before.
there is definitely an auto review based on some technical level, not sure what, but i suspect this is like the histogram we refer when we shoot to check if our exposure etc is good or now.
also there could be a reference as to each of our own ratio of approval vs rejection. those of us who edit ourselves have i am sure high ratio of approval, which will no doubt help us through the auto review.
those who have been complaining about 100% rejection etc could well be those who upload as many images daily as i do in months, or as someone mentioned here "gawd i don't even upload that many in a year, how do you manage to upload this many in a week"| or something like that.

the other thing is also, ss stand to lose out to adobe if they let some genius slip by with the 7/10. as i said before, we all know how bad we were at the beginning. .. or even the yuri arcurs,etc.
we know how easy it is to upload to fotolia (adobe), so to say adobe is the new ss, is absolute bollocks .

it's more about gaining new contributors and also keep the existing contributors who can change with the times. we all know the same old same old does not apply anymore.
because the clients have already got so many of those same old same old in their inventory
why would they be looking for more?  also, there could be a new market player in the globe
and north america may not be the main buyers now for ss.
so a new mentality could be needed if we intend to sell more or maintain our monthly sales figures.


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results