Author Topic: similars (Read 12768 times)

Microstockphoto · « **on:** March 23, 2017, 16:55 »

sorry but lol, ss is really on a roll

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/similar/543162643

Zero Talent · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2017, 19:36 »

Don't worry!

1 "good" photo divided by 50 similars equals all photos sunk to the bottom of popularity ranks => only accidental sales in the best case scenario!

angelawaye · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2017, 20:41 »

I would be so embarrassed to have all those "similars" in my portfolio. It would look like I don't know what I am doing...

Hildegarde · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2017, 20:55 »

and yet they reject some as similars where the main subject is clearly very different unlike these repeats with minor variations. It makes no sense.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2017, 01:34 »

The problem is when someone has a bunch of similar accepted, of absolutely terrible quality (trust me they are bad) and they all show up near the top of the first page in the Popular search results.

I'm pretty sure some people are buying their own images to push them to the most popular.

This way they bury other people images in a first phase with their similar in the New search results, and then, even if those good images do get some sales they never make it to the most popular because they never get as many sales as the cheaters and so never make it to the first page.

In the past, both similar and buying own images was not tolerated at all. Now SS simply does no care.

zebra007 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2017, 01:55 »

SS killed spam images

GOOD WORK!

Brasilnut · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2017, 05:10 »

no wonder they can "boast" to have 100 million images

Lecaro · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2017, 05:50 »

i am curious, we cannot report it anywhere?

Zalee · « **Reply #8 on:** March 24, 2017, 06:33 »

I came across this a couple of days ago... disregard the first half page. I'm not saying the pics are bad quality but I don't understand why you would do this.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?page=1&searchterm=lapwing%20plover&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true&search_source=base_search_form&language=en

philopenshaw · « **Reply #9 on:** March 24, 2017, 06:36 »

its a bit of a specialised niche, there cant be that many people searching for one a one foot tall woman perched on a garden table?

derek · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2017, 06:44 »

its become a joke!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2017, 07:38 »

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012339

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2017, 12:19 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 24, 2017, 07:38

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012339

#

well, clearly the reviewers didnt get that note. someone should mass email all reviewers with that link

i think ss is just crapping all over their contributors, say one thing, do another.

Dodie · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2017, 18:35 »

Quote from: Zalee on March 24, 2017, 06:33

I came across this a couple of days ago... disregard the first half page. I'm not saying the pics are bad quality but I don't understand why you would do this.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?page=1&searchterm=lapwing%20plover&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true&search_source=base_search_form&language=en

If you find that strange, how about this: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/netsay?search_source=base_gallery&language=en&page=1&sort=newest&safe=true

27 pages of clouds in a port of 2,010 pages of similars.

Ides · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2017, 18:42 »

Quote from: Lecaro on March 24, 2017, 05:50

i am curious, we cannot report it anywhere?

No. I made a complaint days ago about these spam images. They told me that if I did not like the repeated images or the images of a certain author, then I was supposed to do a search filter, even though I said that I am a contributor and not a buyer. It is sad and deplorable to see the course the SS is taking.

Ides · « **Reply #15 on:** March 24, 2017, 18:44 »

Quote from: derek on March 24, 2017, 06:44

its become a joke!

You meant, bad joke.

derek · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2017, 01:23 »

All they care about is quantity and this is just one example but there are tons of them. I mean as a contributor you have to be completely deranged to invest money in travel or models props for serious stock shoots and for what? to find youre next to like fifty weed joints all identical.
They must be under some sort of false 90's impression that the bigger the better.

Somebody once said here that all these micro agencies are run by computer geeks and not creatives. I cant remember who it was but my god its beginning to show big time.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2017, 03:17 »

Quote from: derek on March 25, 2017, 01:23

All they care about is quantity and this is just one example but there are tons of them. I mean as a contributor you have to be completely deranged to invest money in travel or models props for serious stock shoots and for what? to find youre next to like fifty weed joints all identical.
They must be under some sort of false 90's impression that the bigger the better.

Somebody once said here that all these micro agencies are run by computer geeks and not creatives. I cant remember who it was but my god its beginning to show big time.

Oringer himself has said he sees SS as a "technology" company......if it were Positioned as a "creatives" business its market price would probably be a 1/10 of what it is ;-)

Shelma1 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2017, 05:53 »

Yes, Oringer is a tech guy, not a creative. He started about ten tech businesses around the same time, and SS is the one that took off...the others failed. At least that's my recollection from some of the articles I've read.

derek · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2017, 07:47 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 25, 2017, 05:53

Yes, Oringer is a tech guy, not a creative. He started about ten tech businesses around the same time, and SS is the one that took off...the others failed. At least that's my recollection from some of the articles I've read.

Thats right! thats what I mean. These guys have probably sat day and night for years red eyed gulping gallons of coffee and turned night time into day and so on. Suddenly they hit it off and Bang! after a year or two they start hiring expertise and know how like in any business ventures....The rest of us bow in awe and call them geniuses!

I would think most of these companies in a way are tech companies.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2017, 12:13 »

Quote from: Dodie on March 24, 2017, 18:35

If you find that strange, how about this: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/netsay?search_source=base_gallery&language=en&page=1&sort=newest&safe=true

27 pages of clouds in a port of 2,010 pages of similars.

That one is truly shocking and exactly counter to what SS says they will accept. I only looked at the first page but they were all the same image - identical except for the writing. Pathetic.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2017, 13:52 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 25, 2017, 03:17

Quote from: derek on March 25, 2017, 01:23
All they care about is quantity and this is just one example but there are tons of them. I mean as a contributor you have to be completely deranged to invest money in travel or models props for serious stock shoots and for what? to find youre next to like fifty weed joints all identical.
They must be under some sort of false 90's impression that the bigger the better.

Somebody once said here that all these micro agencies are run by computer geeks and not creatives. I cant remember who it was but my god its beginning to show big time.
Oringer himself has said he sees SS as a "technology" company......if it were Positioned as a "creatives" business its market price would probably be a 1/10 of what it is ;-)

In a way I agree. Microstock is not as much "art" as it is engineering, production, technique, etc.

Microstock photos are a commodity, a service we provide to various industries, not art, really.

This might not be well received by some aspiring "artists", but if you belive you are an "artist", then microstock might be the wrong choice for you.

Zalee · « **Reply #22 on:** March 25, 2017, 19:41 »

Quote from: Dodie on March 24, 2017, 18:35

Quote from: Zalee on March 24, 2017, 06:33
I came across this a couple of days ago... disregard the first half page. I'm not saying the pics are bad quality but I don't understand why you would do this.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?page=1&searchterm=lapwing%20plover&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true&search_source=base_search_form&language=en

If you find that strange, how about this: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/netsay?search_source=base_gallery&language=en&page=1&sort=newest&safe=true

27 pages of clouds in a port of 2,010 pages of similars.

That really takes the cake! After the clouds it's exactly the same with a grey background, then goes to a white background and on and on...

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 25, 2017, 21:54 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 25, 2017, 13:52

In a way I agree. Microstock is not as much "art" as it is engineering, production, technique, etc.

Microstock photos are a commodity, a service we provide to various industries, not art, really.

This might not be well received by some aspiring "artists", but if you belive you are an "artist", then microstock might be the wrong choice for you.

Perfectly stated.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 26, 2017, 02:58 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on March 25, 2017, 21:54

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 25, 2017, 13:52
In a way I agree. Microstock is not as much "art" as it is engineering, production, technique, etc.

Microstock photos are a commodity, a service we provide to various industries, not art, really.

This might not be well received by some aspiring "artists", but if you belive you are an "artist", then microstock might be the wrong choice for you.

Perfectly stated.

No its not art but its part of the "creative" industries e.g advertising not sure many people think its art....although of course many great artists had to eat so produced flattering portraits of their rich clients...

sarah2 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 26, 2017, 10:22 »

Seems there is a new policy out......

dpimborough · « **Reply #26 on:** March 26, 2017, 11:33 »

Yeah really working well there SS

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Iulian+Dragomir added 30301 images in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Xologon added 13480 in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/TonsOfBackgrounds added 9098 in the last week

In fact just go check the top additions and they've gone crazy

http://www.microstock.top/indeximg.phtml?p=1&sort=added

Its a joke!

I'd post links to SS but I know they'd do nothing about it.

lima · « **Reply #27 on:** March 26, 2017, 12:42 »

this is creative? My 12 years old son can do the same and better!!!!

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Tatiana53

Mrblues101 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 26, 2017, 12:48 »

Quote from: lima on March 26, 2017, 12:42

this is creative? My 12 years old son can do the same and better!!!!

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Tatiana53

Hilarious

kuriouskat · « **Reply #29 on:** March 26, 2017, 17:29 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 26, 2017, 11:33

Yeah really working well there SS

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Iulian+Dragomir added 30301 images in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Xologon added 13480 in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/TonsOfBackgrounds added 9098 in the last week

In fact just go check the top additions and they've gone crazy

http://www.microstock.top/indeximg.phtml?p=1&sort=added

Its a joke!

I'd post links to SS but I know they'd do nothing about it.

I'm not sure those are actually added in the last week? Looks to me as if that shows just a weekly average. I looked at my own name on the list and the weekly total doesn't match what I have uploaded in the last week - not even close.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 27, 2017, 01:56 »

Quote from: KuriousKat on March 26, 2017, 17:29

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 26, 2017, 11:33
Yeah really working well there SS

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Iulian+Dragomir added 30301 images in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Xologon added 13480 in the last week

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/TonsOfBackgrounds added 9098 in the last week

In fact just go check the top additions and they've gone crazy

http://www.microstock.top/indeximg.phtml?p=1&sort=added

Its a joke!

I'd post links to SS but I know they'd do nothing about it.

I'm not sure those are actually added in the last week? Looks to me as if that shows just a weekly average. I looked at my own name on the list and the weekly total doesn't match what I have uploaded in the last week - not even close.

I'm not sure how reliable those stats are the "Top person" adding has been a member since 2011 and added ALL his pics in one one week? It does say "per week" so would assume weekly average.

derek · « **Reply #31 on:** March 27, 2017, 03:05 »

To me all this just spell one thing only: they dont care! as long as money is coming in they really couldnt care less. I am quite sure that within a year or two they will have embarked on the Istock downslope. There is not one single sign that proves otherwise and frankly I will be thinking twice before anymore uploading since it will just drown and disappear.

sarah2 · « **Reply #32 on:** March 27, 2017, 04:52 »

Has anybody read the Policy Clarification on the blog - and/or followup comments? It seems they are enforcing more things now - but maybe not the right things?
After the initial declaration, no further input from SS which is a shame. It sounds like good intentions BUT.......

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #33 on:** March 27, 2017, 09:13 »

someone should post and complain on their forum, like with the keywords spamming, that seems to work. ss seesm to respond in the forums.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #34 on:** March 28, 2017, 11:46 »

Uploaded a single image Easter theme. Rejection was Similar Content -- This image is too similar to other images submitted or already published. There's the answer to your complaints. Next will be complaining that we get rejections for similar to others or too much alike our own.

Artist · « **Reply #35 on:** March 29, 2017, 22:02 »

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90618-policy-clarification-similar-content-submissions/
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012339

Chichikov · « **Reply #36 on:** March 30, 2017, 03:45 »

Yesterday I have sold 4 "similar" photos to the same customer (same situation, people, light and framing, but with a change of clothes).
This demonstrate that somebody wants to have more choice/solutions, and maybe decide then.

Shutterstock missed that!

Mrblues101 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 30, 2017, 12:51 »

Quote from: Chichikov on March 30, 2017, 03:45

Yesterday I have sold 4 "similar" photos to the same customer (same situation, people, light and framing, but with a change of clothes).
This demonstrate that somebody wants to have more choice/solutions, and maybe decide then.

Shutterstock missed that!

Everything depends of how similar they are... i think that similar is not the problem but repetitive content is here.

Chichikov · « **Reply #38 on:** March 31, 2017, 00:47 »

Quote from: Mrblues101 on March 30, 2017, 12:51

Quote from: Chichikov on March 30, 2017, 03:45
Yesterday I have sold 4 "similar" photos to the same customer (same situation, people, light and framing, but with a change of clothes).
This demonstrate that somebody wants to have more choice/solutions, and maybe decide then.

Shutterstock missed that!

Everything depends of how similar they are... i think that similar is not the problem but repetitive content is here.

This is an important point.
In many cases how can they decide what is the limit between similar and different?

Take a photo of "thumb up" then flip it… they are similar or not?
The same image can have a completely different meaning according the way you see it.
And I don't think that 99% of the people looking for a "thumb down" will think to make a search "thumb up" and then flip the image.

GraniteCove · « **Reply #39 on:** March 31, 2017, 05:11 »

Normally I avoid doing similars but after reading this thread I decided to push it yesterday just to see where the line might be. I shot two sets of images, each set with identical lighting, POV, and props. The first set was a lobster roll; one with lettuce and celery and the other without. The second set was mac and cheese; again one plain and the other with the addition of lobster. I chose these particular subjects because although the images are indeed similar I know from experience that buyers for these subtle but important regional variations would not be.

Both lobster rolls made it through but the lobster mac and cheese was rejected due to similar. I didn't learn a thing.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 31, 2017, 05:29 »

Lol. I did the same thing; I submitted two variations of drawings of people, one with all women and one with men and women. Rejected for being similar, even though in your case and mine the images actually had differences that were fairly significant.

What I learned is that Shutterstock probably told reviewers to crack down on similars, so the picky reviewers started punishing regular contributors for submitting a couple of images that were somewhat similar, While the unscrupulous reviewers who accept 500 identical icons with slight variations in background color ignored the request completely and went on accepting mass submissions of identical images anyway, because accepting 500 images at once makes you some quick money.

It's a lot easier for SS to say "we told reviewers to watch for similars" than to do the tedious work of actually finding and deleting offending ports.

Artist · « **Reply #41 on:** March 31, 2017, 05:52 »

Similars has a broad meaning here. Variations should be ok, use same element in multiple art should also be fine and colors also predict the mood. So the reviewer should understand it before rejecting all.

Similar spamming should not be allowed, There few contributors upload 100s of same thing with less to no variation. Shutterstock should ban them, they are the ones who cover all the search pages of newest first.

GraniteCove · « **Reply #42 on:** March 31, 2017, 05:56 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 31, 2017, 05:29

Lol. I did the same thing; I submitted two variations of drawings of people, one with all women and one with men and women. Rejected for being similar, even though in your case and mine the images actually had differences that were fairly significant.

What I learned is that Shutterstock probably told reviewers to crack down on similars, so the picky reviewers started punishing regular contributors for submitting a couple of images that were somewhat similar, While the unscrupulous reviewers who accept 500 identical icons with slight variations in background color ignored the request completely and went on accepting mass submissions of identical images anyway, because accepting 500 images at once makes you some quick money.

It's a lot easier for SS to say "we told reviewers to watch for similars" than to do the tedious work of actually finding and deleting offending ports.

Makes sense to me!

cathyslife · « **Reply #43 on:** March 31, 2017, 11:07 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 31, 2017, 05:29

Lol. I did the same thing; I submitted two variations of drawings of people, one with all women and one with men and women. Rejected for being similar, even though in your case and mine the images actually had differences that were fairly significant.

What I learned is that Shutterstock probably told reviewers to crack down on similars, so the picky reviewers started punishing regular contributors for submitting a couple of images that were somewhat similar, While the unscrupulous reviewers who accept 500 identical icons with slight variations in background color ignored the request completely and went on accepting mass submissions of identical images anyway, because accepting 500 images at once makes you some quick money.

It's a lot easier for SS to say "we told reviewers to watch for similars" than to do the tedious work of actually finding and deleting offending ports.

They need reviewers for the reviewers.

derek · « **Reply #44 on:** March 31, 2017, 12:58 »

They need proper editors I would say but they cost money and its tough parting with money so better to play it cheap. Besides the more acceptance the more pictures the mosre assets.
Nothing new since agencies have been working like this for 30 years.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #45 on:** March 31, 2017, 16:32 »

its same old same old, they go from one end to the other, they will eventually find a balance, but it shows how poor the instructions are or how incompetent the reviewers are

littleny · « **Reply #46 on:** April 01, 2017, 08:40 »

do these people actually make money off these lame spammy images? if so, i may just dump my camera and photoshop very word in the dictionary on various backgrounds.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #47 on:** April 01, 2017, 09:18 »

No, I don't think those images make much, if any, money. I think the reviewers who accept them make the money. Either that or there's a "vast right-wing conspiracy" of reviewers and contributors who submit 500 icons to push back competitors in newest search, get quick bucks for approving 500 images at a time, and then submit decent images right afterwards with another account so their images are at the top of "newest."

Hold on, adjusting my tinfoil hat to get a stronger signal.

cathyslife · « **Reply #48 on:** April 01, 2017, 10:07 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 01, 2017, 09:18

No, I don't think those images make much, if any, money. I think the reviewers who accept them make the money. Either that or there's a "vast right-wing conspiracy" of reviewers and contributors who submit 500 icons to push back competitors in newest search, get quick bucks for approving 500 images at a time, and then submit decent images right afterwards with another account so their images are at the top of "newest."

Hold on, adjusting my tinfoil hat to get a stronger signal.

Well, I don't think that theory requires a tin foil hat, because there HAS to be a reason it is being done, and there HAS to be a reason shutterstock is allowing it. And that reason most certainly HAS to do with money, otherwise who would waste their time?

Mantis · « **Reply #49 on:** April 01, 2017, 23:00 »

Quote from: cathyslife on April 01, 2017, 10:07

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 01, 2017, 09:18
No, I don't think those images make much, if any, money. I think the reviewers who accept them make the money. Either that or there's a "vast right-wing conspiracy" of reviewers and contributors who submit 500 icons to push back competitors in newest search, get quick bucks for approving 500 images at a time, and then submit decent images right afterwards with another account so their images are at the top of "newest."

Hold on, adjusting my tinfoil hat to get a stronger signal.

Well, I don't think that theory requires a tin foil hat, because there HAS to be a reason it is being done, and there HAS to be a reason shutterstock is allowing it. And that reason most certainly HAS to do with money, otherwise who would waste their time?

And its not like there isn't precedence for a double standard. Need i say Istock and Yuri?