Author Topic: similars (Read 15245 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...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: similars (Read 15245 times)

Microstockphoto

Zero Talent

angelawaye

Hildegarde

StockPhotosArt.com

zebra007

Brasilnut

Lecaro

Zalee

philopenshaw

derek

Sean Locke Photography

Microstockphoto

Dodie

Ides

Ides

derek

Pauws99

Shelma1

derek

sgoodwin4813

Zero Talent

Zalee

sgoodwin4813

Pauws99

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors