MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: gnirtS on July 31, 2020, 04:26
-
Saw this on the SS forum (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100762-ai-to-review-confirmed-by-sp/) but worth mentioning.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4361410-shutterstock-inc-sstk-ceo-stan-pavlovsky-on-q2-2020-results-earnings-call-transcript.
-
We all knew that.
-
We all knew that.
We knew but SS always said NO
Shame on SS that they took this decision, many quality work got destroyed due to this stupid AI tool.
-
I used to resubmit everything before the 0.10. A lot of wasted time.
-
So now we all can see they are liars (we kinda knew anyway). Should you trust your work to them? I said no, and deleted my port. #boycottShutterstock #shutterstockBoycott
-
If there is so much cost cutting, it is sure that this business is unstable and unsustainable even for big giants.
-
The highlighted text is a charming euphemism for making reviewers ie actual people (in the US and overseas) redundant and using 'robots' instead. SP is the master of obfuscation. Sstock is such a caring company. Not.
-
Over the years, I worked for 2 or 3 companies that ended up in trouble. You start to recognize the signs. They get rid of the bottled water cooler, no more free popcorn in the employees lounge, etc. Layoffs. Then on payday everyone rushes to the bank to cash their checks before the money runs out. The final straw is when you get to work in the morning, and the doors are locked because rent hasn’t been paid for months. And yet top management still lives the life of luxury. Sigh. :( I generally don’t wish ill will on people, but I really hope this happens to SS. Except the only ones who will pay are the honest-working employees. Oringer et al have squirreled away their billions, so what do they care.
-
We all knew that.
Since when?
Does this explain all the stolen images and similars (spamfolio's with almost exact copies) that got in while some of us get tight reviews with rejection for similar even if it's a totally different angle or concept? Not to mention all the other ridiculous rejections?
So that would mean some get a free pass (no reviews) while others get the bots?
I think if it was AI they would scan the library for exact copies (or flipped horizontally/vertically) and reject, all in a matter of seconds, no?
Again this only makes sense to me if some would get a free pass while others get AI reviews and after complaining human reviews.
-
We all knew that.
Since when?
Since all my 50 images were reviewed in 1 second with the same program that they use on BS.
-
We all knew that.
Since when?
Does this explain all the stolen images and similars (spamfolio's with almost exact copies) that got in while some of us get tight reviews with rejection for similar even if it's a totally different angle or concept? Not to mention all the other ridiculous rejections?
So that would mean some get a free pass (no reviews) while others get the bots?
I think if it was AI they would scan the library for exact copies (or flipped horizontally/vertically) and reject, all in a matter of seconds, no?
Again this only makes sense to me if some would get a free pass while others get AI reviews and after complaining human reviews.
It's been known because they buried that language into their (I believe) SEC filing. I myself have found it multiple times and it is probably buried in the MSG threads somewhere. Calling them out back then, they denied it. Now it turns out to be true after all. So they did, in fact, lie to us all along. Since when? I think it was around 2012 or 2013 or thereabouts. When images that were perfectly sharp, professional prepared and rejected for being out of focus, that started raising red flags. And that is about the time we dug into their reporting to find the phrase automated inspection, or something like that.
-
Or they could have AI review to ingest new, but a human reviews everything that passed, nobody looks at the fails. AI can't review photos, we know that, they know that. Maybe finding similar or focus, lighting and some other, but there's no AI that can review a photo.
-
They used AI, plus they got hit with a class action lawsuit from their human reviewers for allegedly not following U.S. employment law. So the solution for that was to get rid of the pesky humans altogether.
-
... but there's no AI that can review a photo.
Sure there is - if you don't care about what ends up in the collection.
Have you seen the badly lit garbage they've been accepting over the last couple of months?
It should be an embarrassment to any agency to show that type of work, but Shutterstock is happily doing that. In the illustration department, there's misspelled garbage and endlessly repetitive flag combinations or simple patterns
I've been tweeting about this for weeks. Some examples:
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288187977311481856
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288153643045158915
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1287887730462973952
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1286739227300880384
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1284252477575979010
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288683434852798464
There are many more examples (@joannsnover and #BoycottShutterstock) but you get the idea
-
All the agencies will never get AI to work completely to review. Too many edge cases. One mistake with the wrong trademark or restriction and all cost save will be wiped out.
-
I've been tweeting about this for weeks. Some examples:
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288187977311481856
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288153643045158915
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1287887730462973952
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1286739227300880384
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1284252477575979010
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288683434852798464
There are many more examples (@joannsnover and #BoycottShutterstock) but you get the idea
Jo Ann, those examples are absolutely wonderful! Every last one.
That said… I especially enjoyed reading these two, in all of their variations:
NO ONE IS FRIEND IN THIS WORLD BROO EVERYONE IS LIER
Happy Independenec Day
It was fun to contemplate exactly what sort of savvy buyer out there in Shitterstock Land would jump at the chance to feature one of those botched-English graphics in their advertisement.
-
... but there's no AI that can review a photo.
Sure there is - if you don't care about what ends up in the collection.
Have you seen the badly lit garbage they've been accepting over the last couple of months?
It should be an embarrassment to any agency to show that type of work, but Shutterstock is happily doing that. In the illustration department, there's misspelled garbage and endlessly repetitive flag combinations or simple patterns
I've been tweeting about this for weeks. Some examples:
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288187977311481856
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288153643045158915
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1287887730462973952
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1286739227300880384
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1284252477575979010
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288683434852798464
There are many more examples (@joannsnover and #BoycottShutterstock) but you get the idea
Keep them coming, it would be funny if it wasn't`t so sad.
Perhaps the spelling mistakes are from someone having a laugh with the AI :)
Do they actually look at new would do you think at the office? Or do they not care?
I really cannot see how they can proud of accepting this work just so that they can say the numbers are going up.
Few other agents show how big their portfolios are and I don't really care.
Its only SS and Alamy that make a big thing of it.
-
The examiners reviewed in a second, because they had covered the number of possible approvals. If it is a software that it was examining, it simply said rejected in a second, because being able to obtain more than two and a half million files a week, so as not to pay more personnel for image placement and search, they decided that they did not approve more than a million two hundred thousand images a week.
It seems, according to his ambiguous words, that they have a software to eliminate human work. Of Artificial Intelligence nothing. I just know that your software department is not capable of code lines to automatically convert a vector to a visibly acceptable thumbnail, if the user does not upload a huge vector image. Conclusion, AI, nothing at all. A software drill that randomly passes and rejects almost everything.
All the AI related to language learning has been a failure, it has not even been possible to adapt the languages to another language. Less with pictures. From AI, nothing. There are images with text in languages other than English, from AI nothing at all. Not.
As I read, it is a farewell, an obituary. We have earned money because we have reduced the percentage for contributors. Do not expect earnings of this size in the next quarterly analyzes, we work for the long term. Therefore, the translation is, we have earned money because you hired me. I am a great CEO. Now that the CEO has shown that he is someone of value to the company, he can live in the company until its final closure. Its decline is imminent. SS does not exist.
As for AS, now that it is the undisputed King, I hope that the agency looks for clients beyond the cloud and its software, it must look for clients in any corner of the world, those clients who do not know how to work on image editing, but need files. They will, because money is the soul of companies and AS is not a business novice.
Public dismissal of a company that was the most profitable and that its mismanagement withdrew it from the market. Example of death from poorly managed success.
-
I would suspect AI initially screens the photos and sends a recommendation to reviewers to inspect.
Then the outsourced call centre style reviewers are supposed to sanity check it and decide on yes/no but most just accept the AI recommendations without bothering to check the image.
That or a certain percentage goes to human, a percentage stays as AI only.
Its certainly a total lottery since 202 began, perfectly possible to get 100 out of 100 images or clips with 5 different cameras an 10 different environments all rejected at once, usually for one reason and every single one gets accepted when resubmitted 20 seconds later etc.
The review process does no quality control at all.
-
..
It seems, according to his ambiguous words, that they have a software to eliminate human work. Of Artificial Intelligence nothing. I just know that your software department is not capable of code lines to automatically convert a vector to a visibly acceptable thumbnail, if the user does not upload a huge vector image. Conclusion, AI, nothing at all. A software drill that randomly passes and rejects almost everything.
again w silly claims - how do you know what their IT dept can do -- and citing one case does not prove your claim AI doesnt exist -- have you ever actually studied computer science or AI or read any of the many books on it? I have for over 40 years and seen dramatic improvements over that time. i've published articles in 'Computer Language' and 'AI Expert' magazines and used AI for npc in multi player online games, inlcuding one that played bridge
All the AI related to language learning has been a failure, it has not even been possible to adapt the languages to another language. Less with pictures. From AI, nothing. There are images with text in languages other than English, from AI nothing at all. Not.
more nonsense - alexa, siri, google don't have people answering questions in natural languages. Translation programs do an excellent job in many fields and are constantly improving. AI is part of every automobile, ATC. What do think the word autopilot means?
you seem to define AI only if it passes the turing test
-
you seem to define AI only if it passes the turing test
Sadly i know quite a few *people* that wouldn't pass the Turing test...
-
...... @ cascoly
I love your Italian character. A little too challenging for my body. Maybe with age, you are becoming too much of a warrior.
I need your friendship, I need you by my side. I appreciate you and you make me smile.
We gain nothing from this confrontation that leads us nowhere. We are all anonymous. I retired from all wars for a long time.
Your knowledge, on these subjects, I recognize it. AI exists in many fields. Very specific sectors, where the software learns behaviors.
AI is operational today in countless fields and diverse sectors. For concrete things.
SS, you and the Vatican Pope can defend that SS has AI. I tell you that they may have a certain expired software substitute for something specific. Far from AI to impersonate a human in deciding what is salable or not in microstock.
As for its CEO, his subconscious betrays him, when he talks about fresh product for his subscribers, what he means is that he lacks fresh material from many collaborators, but that he feels with the authority to sell what SS decides to customers sell at all times. It does not value its collaborators and it does not value its customers.
Obviously, the CEO knows that his problem is the fresh material that is already leaking to SS today. The clients are very comfortable and they are where everyone is. The day they discover that everyone is in AS, the clients will be in AS.
Returning to the subject of AI, I don't need to be very smart, there is currently no OCR to recognize twisted 3D text, with perspective, or a drawing, inserted instead of a letter in the same word. No power of decision to detect the offensive meaning in a sentence. Image exam AI for the sales decision at microstock is an unattainable dream for humans, today, and for several decades. That AI would have more value than all the internet together plus NASA.
SS does not fool me. They do not want images, the agency believes that it can sell fridges at the north pole. In short, when making the decision to pay 0.10 they know that it is the only thing that generates an extra income for the moment. For now, tomorrow will be another day.
Friend, at least, we agree on the political vision, we see the same in Trump.
-
By the way, if they have AI capable of detecting hate speech, Google or Twitter would buy it if they had money to pay for it, as well as the EU to manage the internet, fake news and article 13.
The day a machine decides whether an unfocused photo is commercially powerful, on that day, humanity will have made an extraordinary breakthrough. More than the one that comes close with 5g, quantum computing. The machines cannot interpret a giraffe-shaped ashtray, no matter how much ego SS has.
-
We all knew that.
We didn't knew that, we just strongly suspected about that.
-
There is something we all agree on. If they have acquired a code to save the examiners, and they call it AI, we are all on the same page and paragraph, the closest thing to Intelligence is a jellyfish.
A random approval and rejection algorithm, a Michigan trucker, an Israel Security Guard, a Las Vegas restaurant chef would do better. His reviews lack common sense. Something that characterizes this Agency, total absence of common sense.
They boast of Intelligence in something that is not real, and they do not have an understanding or the concept of Intelligence. Neither real nor virtual.
Paying 0.10 for my files does not give me confidence that they know the concept Intelligence.
I do not know the level of the reviews at present, nor am I interested. SS does not exist.
They were successful in the past because of something very criticized, and that I value very much, they had everything. Whatever a user was looking for, SS had it. Not anymore, not today. Having all the files gave him value.
The SS decided that of the 1,200,000 images a week, they only made relevant 5k each month. They had a million one hundred and ninety-five images a month, even rejecting 2 million images. It gives them exactly the same, if those images are of quality or not. SS is convinced that they have the power to decide what the customer buys.
SS has no common sense. It is believed that you can do what you want, when you want and how you want. And they are wrong. SS does not exist.
-
Alright maybe I’ve missed this but I still don’t know if AI reviews how all those stolen images and spamfolio’s got online while some of us get tight and unjustified reviews?
Can anyone answer this?
I would perfectly believe AI was reviewing if it wasn’t for that. Are those portfolio’s part of The AI? Or part of keeping up apearance?
Wouldn't it be easy to code the AI reviewer to reject exact copies of other images to avoid stolen images?
Also is this happening only at SS?
To me it always felt like some do not get reviews at all while others have nothing but trouble with reviews and not because of low quality etc... so how do you explain that?
There must be flags on our ports that have influence on exposure (sales) and reviews.
There was (and probably still is) a time that people reported a halt in sales during a certain time period. As if your portfolio gets switched off while another gets turned on, to spread earnings and keep everybody somewhat motivated.
Im sure we have a few here who are familiar with creating search engines or even stock agencies so would love to read their input on this.
-
The reviewer panel has a very large section for comments, orders, suggestions, for those who place the images. They know if a sunflower will appear as a sunflower, or in search of yellow, summer, virus, Christmas.
By this I mean that the reviewer panel is also full of annotations from the department head.
In addition, there are channels with specific Christmas themes, February 14, ......, those channels are always on Relevant. It is rare that their work is not constant if they sell a lot and well. It gives the feeling of channels on demand.
Similar recognition software works very poorly. It is very difficult. And besides, if it is cut and mirrored, it is almost impossible for the machine to determine if it is stolen.
In addition, images that everyone knows, famous images have been for sale.
I think answering your words are very difficult. They do not have the adequate image recognition software. But there is always the myth that it is a machine that examines, as the review is so inconsistent and ridiculous.
On the other hand, they accepted spam to the wild in COVID for example. All to cover the new files and send the client to Relevant.
If they change the name of the virus, it does not matter, the same images in Relevant.
If the World Health Organization calls it COVIDYA-19-20 today, the same relevant files will appear and the images that speak of the new name of the virus are covered with three pages of spam in new content.
Of course, they are all theories, conjectures, conspiracies and I speak of assumptions, and perhaps. I cannot guarantee anything.
-
Of course, they are all theories, conjectures, conspiracies and I speak of assumptions, and perhaps. I cannot guarantee anything.
Thanks for your input.
Some like to put an assumption label on what we write but then if they can’t prove their counter-argument it’s nothing but assumptions as well and does not prove us Right nor Wrong.
-
Of course, they are all theories, conjectures, conspiracies and I speak of assumptions, and perhaps. I cannot guarantee anything.
Thanks for your input.
Some like to put an assumption label on what we write but then if they can’t prove their counter-argument it’s nothing but assumptions as well and does not prove us Right nor Wrong.
You can't prove a negative, so terribly flawed reasoning.
Example: Prove that I don't have a Giant Invisible Frog living in my back yard? His name is GIF by the way. :) How do you prove (counter-argument) that I don't?
The objective view is that someone making a claim, is responsible for the proof, not someone countering that there is no proof of the claim. (https://i.postimg.cc/tRFt4dt9/thumb_up_40_color.gif)
We don't know to what degree if any, that real IA is used. If the answer is, as reviewers, the human kind, make decisions, the program stores that data, it's not AI it's machine learning.
I suspect, as the OP posted and as many others might agree, that software is used for automatic intake accept/reject/pass on to a human.
Some easy rejections would be "lighting" reading a histogram. Size, color space, level horizon (there's a cans of works), contrast, focus? I'm sure there are many others, which could be reasonably accurate within the agency standards. What's that? 80% if it means not paying a human? ::)
Grammar checker on the Title/Descriptions. That's easy and why the English and complete sentence rejections are so messed up. (oops, theory, I have no backing facts)
There's also software for the humans, that makes suggestions and reads qualities and parameters of the images.
I will agree that if the program has flaws, the results will also be consistently flawed. GIGO
Reminder I had accepted images, rejected a week or two later, because the whatever human or automated review made a mistake. That wasn't intake AI taking back the approval.
We don't know. We don't know if this started in 2012 or 2019. All we know is the SS report claims to be using software assistance and AI. They have listed their proprietary software for many years as a way they cut costs in reviewing.
The reviewers lawsuit, little details are available, was because they were paid as contractors not employees. The CA claim was based on that detail. https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-shutterstock-misclassifies-content-reviewers-owes-unpaid-wages (https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-shutterstock-misclassifies-content-reviewers-owes-unpaid-wages)
“As a result of [the defendants] misclassifying their Class Members as ‘independent contractors,’ [the defendants] have failed to itemize the total hours worked, overtime hours, and missed meal and rest periods on wage statements furnished to [the plaintiff] and similarly-situated Class Members.”
Of course filed in California the home of lawsuits because of the courts political leanings there.
-
Alright maybe I’ve missed this but I still don’t know if AI reviews how all those stolen images and spamfolio’s got online while some of us get tight and unjustified reviews?
Can anyone answer this?
I would perfectly believe AI was reviewing if it wasn’t for that. Are those portfolio’s part of The AI? Or part of keeping up apearance?
Wouldn't it be easy to code the AI reviewer to reject exact copies of other images to avoid stolen images?
unfortunately, it would be costly - in development and server time plus SS isnt particularly motivated to fix the problem.
you'd have to search millions of images for each new image and do a cpu intensive comparison of each one. hacks would make it easier (eg skip if first 2K bytes are not similar) but there'd still be a hefty price.
additionally, we know what similars are, but the actual bits are probably very different - turning the object a few degrees makes a very different set of pixels
-
... but there's no AI that can review a photo.
Sure there is - if you don't care about what ends up in the collection.
Have you seen the badly lit garbage they've been accepting over the last couple of months?
It should be an embarrassment to any agency to show that type of work, but Shutterstock is happily doing that. In the illustration department, there's misspelled garbage and endlessly repetitive flag combinations or simple patterns
I've been tweeting about this for weeks. Some examples:
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288187977311481856
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288153643045158915
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1287887730462973952
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1286739227300880384
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1284252477575979010
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1288683434852798464
There are many more examples (@joannsnover and #BoycottShutterstock) but you get the idea
Which is this one, in your opinion? System error, upload error or it's supposed to be this way, AI and it was accepted? ::) ;D
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/wall-decor-digital-tile-design-600w-1787673998.jpg)
I was looking at new, since you started mentioning that.
If the image above disappears, someone found it. If not, there we are.
-
Which is this one, in your opinion? System error, upload error or it's supposed to be this way, AI and it was accepted? ::) ;D
AI, Illustrations in my experience tend to pass review unhindered, unless there are similars. I would speculate that the lack of exif data has something to do with it.
-
I recognize that this subject is beginning to be something personal to me.
If SS uses AI, the toads dance flamenco. It would have everything accepted if it were AI, in addition, it would make your AI dance flamenco too.
Any teenager from any corner of Bangladesh or Romania, Turkey, Israel, ...... we would have already put that AI to dance, to sleep, to feed it, to bathe it, on vacation, and we clothed it every night with the blanket and two kisses.
In addition, we would have prepared you to always place relevant images and not approve as many images from other collaborators, except from friends. We would take their AI for a walk, give it an ice cream and a coffee and study how they have achieved such a prodigy. We would make a source copy of your genes, to see your source code.
Then we would leave it in place, so that the parallel data does not detect the changes in the hosting, after six minutes, the CDNs from any corner of the planet would already give an updated version of the MariaDB database, an examination of the letter in 6 minutes.
Your CEO must give press conferences without sipping soup at the same time. Show off with ambiguous words to prove anything.
They are more computer scientists, software professionals at Adobe and more people, and more companies. Adobe takes less time to examine an illustration than an image, simply because they have more images to examine than illustrations, different equipment, however, it is evident that AS has new personnel in photographic examination, more numerous equipment in the last days.
So this is proof in your sentence of different teams of examiners. In your sentence, you yourself speak of different exams, a machine gives you the same illustration as it photographs, in short, it can neither see the file, nor understand, nor do anything with illustration or photography, in relation to microstock examination. Zero.
If your software reads the data from the .JPG to approve illustrations or photographs, we would have already reached the approval of the files in 5 hours. I don't hire the SS software team for web page design. They do not give me any confidence in their work. They must be trying to spend less money in this department too.
Two different teams, illustration and images. I highly doubt that an illustration has noise, blur. Her rejection is for the same nonsense as the rest, similar, title in English, keywords with advertising, brand and children's things, to comply with the order not to exceed 1,200,000 images a week.
Neither a microstock agency examines with IA, and less, SS, that they are not able to do anything in a coherent way. It has neither the financial nor the technical means.
Humanity cannot place machines today to decide whether an image can be sold or not.
A filtering software to detect a wifi icon in the batch of uploaded files and similar cancel, can be. Little more. If it were IA, we would have already made the IA, the CEO and the SS dance flamenco.
However, you can still think that SS has AI. Think what you want. They didn't approve files because they didn't want so many files. Only 1,200,000 a week. The rejections were absurd. An AI can't do that job today, right or wrong.
SS examines humans with orders not to pass more than 1,200,000 a week.
In short, they may approve everything, they are waiting for new orders, they cannot continue to throw good material in the trash. They are short of fresh material. I hope that those who upload material will confirm it when the HUMAN exam orders change.
The 0.10 Agency would like, in addition to sincerity without resorting to half-truths, to have modern software, for example, for the detection of similar and stolen images in the showcase of the database.
They would like to have an AI capable of examining. For starters, they don't need a SS if they have that tool, which would be a change in humanity. Something historical. At the moment, let the language translators improve. And then the text readers, OCR. AI to examine on microstock is science fiction today.
-
IA can do the job of CEO in SS. Worse than him, it is impossible. AI cannot impersonate humans to examine microstock files. We are going to wait for them to learn in the vehicles to decide in case of an accident and collision, how to handle the AI situation in the vehicles. We will have security first in the technological devices of the vehicles, fight to avoid terrorist attacks in vehicles with technological devices.
Let AI learn to interpret driving. Let him learn how to remove noise from an image. Learn how to spot the red words and codes in random wiretapping for monitoring humans of potentially dangerous targets. And let the time pass before AI can see, understand, and decide on an image.
It will be the last place where an AI can act, related to art. It is the most human thing we have, the sentiments.
-
The day that a machine sees the Eiffel Tower as something beautiful, instead of an iron that hinders the main focus of the landscape, then, we will have made the software begin to interpret the likes, common sense, trends and feelings of humans.
-
The 0.10, believe themselves Heavenly Gods of the Galaxy, but you do not play their game, they are not Divine Gods in the Galactic Heavenly Universe. Let them do their job well, instead of showing off with half truths. If they had AI capable of deciding that a logo is good for sale, and that it's on the side to make the design easier for customers, that the image is not off-centered by mistake, then, I would say, SS are Gods of the Galaxy.
I'm going to do things, I'm too busy to mess around with SS.
-
This amused me. Not all reviews are unfair.
In other news, a "contributor" who literally doesnt understand composition. (or it seems anything else).
It does show how low the bar is now for contributing though.
-
That image can be commercial, for forums dealing with photography and image composition.
:)
-
The 0.10, believe themselves Heavenly Gods of the Galaxy, but you do not play their game, they are not Divine Gods in the Galactic Heavenly Universe. Let them do their job well, instead of showing off with half truths. If they had AI capable of deciding that a logo is good for sale, and that it's on the side to make the design easier for customers, that the image is not off-centered by mistake, then, I would say, SS are Gods of the Galaxy.
I'm going to do things, I'm too busy to mess around with SS.
you continue to deny AI exists - please give us YOUR definition of AI and what is required to be accepted as AI
-
My interpretation does not exist. I do not have a particular interpretation, nor proper of the concept of AI. I don't have a different concept of AI in microstock agency.
A software with the appropriate parameters to accept or reject a file for sale in a Microstock Agency. A software that by itself is interpreting, improving and learning about the work done, always supervised by humans, learning its function.
There is no team on the planet today capable of coming out of the Alpha version of this supposed AI for microstock in 10 or 12 years. And without guarantee of success.
It is unfeasible today, even if you have money, technique and talent to achieve this purpose.
Simply an extraordinary job to make him understand the difference of the concept DEATH, by the title of a file, "Death to the Collaborators who criticize SS", "Death of potatoes by snails" or "Trapeze artist facing death in the Rio Canyon Little.
For a machine to see explicit sex, it is something that any multinational company of the platforms that we all know would gladly pay for, simply a software that determines a file that contains explicit sex would be a great advance.
Nowadays, explicit sex is usually seen where there is none, and sex from someone naked with a painted body sneaks in. The Hate Speech thing, another great advance, that Google and the others would like to have. Not only in English, but an insult in an image to Christmas. The machines only read completely flat text nowadays, and with many errors, not design text. It is impossible, there is no money, no technique to examine with AI in microstock.
As for SS, your team, when you modify something, don't even check the software in other languages, with longer words, the save button on the panel is missing. They are very disastrous, perhaps for not spending money.
To get an AI to examine, it would be chaos for SS. They must test privately in Alpha version, and for several decades they would be developing code. And with no guarantee of success. Of course, the money from this investment is not suitable for SS. The investment is more expensive than the entire company. Also, if they get it, it has more value than SS.
It is better to examine randomly, since there are no real possibilities of this technology in our days.
AI, software, that develops a preset function, and that learns by itself.
In this case, he cannot learn anything, nor develop his mission, he cannot understand that a swarm of bees are not strange artifacts in the movie. Teaching them to see birds, flies in the landscape was already an extraordinary advance, only each of the functions, if it could exist, would be a great advance. Now put all these advances to examine files, it is simply impossible.
Seeing an anonymous mask and detecting it as wrong for copyright, is easy, but it is not easy if the mask is on its side, or if the mask is at a protest rally in the streets of London. Any victory in each field would be a great achievement. Logically, it is not possible today to replace a human in microstock exams.
Teaching him that there are humans with a pale complexion and mustaches that is not an anonymous mask, it would be an achievement to achieve this. Multiply this example exponentially for each specific case that may occur to you. Without insisting, that there may be text in the illustrations, impossible to read. You must teach her the parameters for bikini on the beach. Define the bodies on a beach as non-gangbang and learn to identify these images. To learn about sex between animals and humans, since you can see affection in a zoophilia archive. It is simply unattainable today.
Interpreting child abuse in an inappropriate image or insinuation would be extremely helpful to security agencies on the planet.
-
Calling the SS selection algorithms AI is a bit magnanimous. There are other terms which would be more fitting.
-
Calling the SS selection algorithms AI is a bit magnanimous. There are other terms which would be more fitting.
Exact.
-
It is likely that they have some filter, mainly from similar files in the same shipping batch.
A filter before the supervisor. But with a lousy result. And that its CEO does not care. Not distinguishing an mp3 and mp4 illustration as very different things.
However, to avoid spending money, they may have a filter that interprets the approach. Also a noise filter.
However, it is humans who examine. And if you want it to be a software, randomly does it better than the examiners.
They simply reject some files to almost all the collaborators, because they do not want to expand the team of placing images, a team that has to pay money, with 3 million images a week, they accept 1,200,000 a week and that money stays in the box. With ridiculous rejections.
We will see how they examine now. In the coming months. With fewer files in your entry.
-
My interpretation does not exist. I do not have a particular interpretation, nor proper of the concept of AI. I don't have a different concept of AI in microstock agency.
A software with the appropriate parameters to accept or reject a file for sale in a Microstock Agency. A software that by itself is interpreting, improving and learning about the work done, always supervised by humans, learning its function.
There is no team on the planet today capable of coming out of the Alpha version of this supposed AI for microstock in 10 or 12 years. And without guarantee of success.
It is unfeasible today, even if you have money, technique and talent to achieve this purpose.
Simply an extraordinary job to make him understand the difference of the concept DEATH, by the title of a file, "Death to the Collaborators who criticize SS", "Death of potatoes by snails" or "Trapeze artist facing death in the Rio Canyon Little.
For a machine to see explicit sex, it is something that any multinational company of the platforms that we all know would gladly pay for, simply a software that determines a file that contains explicit sex would be a great advance.
Nowadays, explicit sex is usually seen where there is none, and sex from someone naked with a painted body sneaks in. The Hate Speech thing, another great advance, that Google and the others would like to have. Not only in English, but an insult in an image to Christmas. The machines only read completely flat text nowadays, and with many errors, not design text. It is impossible, there is no money, no technique to examine with AI in microstock.
As for SS, your team, when you modify something, don't even check the software in other languages, with longer words, the save button on the panel is missing. They are very disastrous, perhaps for not spending money.
To get an AI to examine, it would be chaos for SS. They must test privately in Alpha version, and for several decades they would be developing code. And with no guarantee of success. Of course, the money from this investment is not suitable for SS. The investment is more expensive than the entire company. Also, if they get it, it has more value than SS.
It is better to examine randomly, since there are no real possibilities of this technology in our days.
AI, software, that develops a preset function, and that learns by itself.
In this case, he cannot learn anything, nor develop his mission, he cannot understand that a swarm of bees are not strange artifacts in the movie. Teaching them to see birds, flies in the landscape was already an extraordinary advance, only each of the functions, if it could exist, would be a great advance. Now put all these advances to examine files, it is simply impossible.
Seeing an anonymous mask and detecting it as wrong for copyright, is easy, but it is not easy if the mask is on its side, or if the mask is at a protest rally in the streets of London. Any victory in each field would be a great achievement. Logically, it is not possible today to replace a human in microstock exams.
Teaching him that there are humans with a pale complexion and mustaches that is not an anonymous mask, it would be an achievement to achieve this. Multiply this example exponentially for each specific case that may occur to you. Without insisting, that there may be text in the illustrations, impossible to read. You must teach her the parameters for bikini on the beach. Define the bodies on a beach as non-gangbang and learn to identify these images. To learn about sex between animals and humans, since you can see affection in a zoophilia archive. It is simply unattainable today.
Interpreting child abuse in an inappropriate image or insinuation would be extremely helpful to security agencies on the planet.
You write like a lawyer. Long winded and really nothing is achieved. Just goes in circles forever...
-
I know I get nothing. Thank you. Also, understanding myself is very difficult. I know.
I'm going to do things, it's still an extraordinary waste of time.
-
I have decided to accept Octopus as a pet. I'm wrong, SS has AI in file monitoring.
A mistake on my part, sorry. I was confused, the night confuses me.
SS has AI in file exams.
-
My interpretation does not exist. I do not have a particular interpretation, nor proper of the concept of AI. I don't have a different concept of AI in microstock agency.
....
unbelievable!!!! i thought you were serious, but have absolutely nothing in support? i won't bother to read your screeds from here on in
-
I am not used to having my own technical definitions of computer terminology and / or telecommunications, depending on the day or as a menu, to my liking, on objective concepts, established, known, supported and accepted terms. I work, study and live with them, I do not modify them according to my preferences or tastes or mood.
You make me laugh. Thank you.
-
I have decided to accept Octopus as a pet. I'm wrong, SS has AI in file monitoring.
A mistake on my part, sorry. I was confused, the night confuses me.
SS has AI in file exams.
Perhaps this user is an AI.. or getting text from ai.. :)
Very funny lol :)
-
I have decided to accept Octopus as a pet. I'm wrong, SS has AI in file monitoring.
A mistake on my part, sorry. I was confused, the night confuses me.
SS has AI in file exams.
Perhaps this user is an AI.. or getting text from ai.. :)
Very funny lol :)
It's just bad translation no? at least I hope it is!
-
There are two versions, we accept ship as a pet, and we accept octopus as a pet.
I like the octopus version.
I give up, accepted, SS uses AI. I'm fine, thanks.
Regards.
https://youtu.be/i7VlHbEF6Bo
-
I have decided to accept Octopus as a pet. I'm wrong, SS has AI in file monitoring.
A mistake on my part, sorry. I was confused, the night confuses me.
SS has AI in file exams.
Perhaps this user is an AI.. or getting text from ai.. :)
Very funny lol :)
It's just bad translation no? at least I hope it is!
Their AI translator wasn't working at the time :)
-
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
-
I will not speak of the English language, to avoid disturbing the most susceptible.
I am going to speak the Spanish language.
Own language, with history, but adapted to the 21st century, with academic regulations updated every year.
Full of vocabulary, nuances, gray scales, not to mention double meanings, slang, street vocabulary or colloquial language.
A language with verbs, a series of rules and grammar to be understood correctly between interlocutors, being concise, clear and descriptive, trying to avoid the possible ambiguity of other languages.
The all-powerful Google calls it a translator, but it is actually an adapter. Your browser adapts to the client's IP. It works very well, but you know that a word in Spanish has a different meaning in an American country than in Spain.
Therefore, Google checks the IP to determine in its search what a user is looking for. Interprets, analyzes and corrects for decades.
Imagine SS with an AI just to get closer to understanding the English language.
Therefore, with this test it is enough for me to know that today if SS rejects a file, you must be clear about what @Tenebroso tells you, it is a human who rejects you.
SS would like to have something that would be a dream for the agency. And that you are enjoying it myth transmitted between users. Half truths.
I'm glad you're all in a good mood. Regards.
-
I have decided to accept Octopus as a pet. I'm wrong, SS has AI in file monitoring.
A mistake on my part, sorry. I was confused, the night confuses me.
SS has AI in file exams.
Perhaps this user is an AI.. or getting text from ai.. :)
Very funny lol :)
It's just bad translation no? at least I hope it is!
i doubt it - a translation would at least have some meaning - this is just gobbledygook - a more likely candidate is a bad AI essay writer working from keywords
i ran a large section of the oringer statement thru google translate moving from english --> russian --> slovak --> english with no loss
apocryphal(?) tales of early english/russian ai translator:
english -->russian --> english
"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" --> "The vodka's good, but the meat is rotten"
"out of sight, out of mind" --> "blind idiot"
-
AI translation has been one of my interests, so i did a bit of exploring on a rainy day. First a short quote from a Goethe webpage:
Man soll alle Tage wenigstens ein kleines Lied hören, ein gutes Gedicht lesen, ein treffliches Gemälde sehen und, wenn es möglich zu machen wäre, einige vernünftige Worte sprechen
The webpage's translation to english (not clear if human or AI)
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words
google translation from the german
Every day you should at least hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine painting and, if possible, speak a few reasonable words
i wondered how 'exquisite' became "fine", so extracted the phrase and the google translation of "treffliches Gemälde sehen" is "see excellent painting" but becomes 'fine' in the translation!
Next i translated german --> polish --> english
Listen to a short song every day, read a good poem, see a great picture, and if possible, say a few reasonable words
I repeated the process and got a slightly different text. Looks like there's a random element for choosing non-essential words:
Every day you should at least hear a short song, read a good poem, see a beautiful picture and, if possible, say a few reasonable words
The basic meaning is preserved in my simple test quote with only slight changes that didnt destroy the meaning. I then tried it on a more complex text and show the results in off topic
-
Greetings @cascoly you keep brightening my day. Thank you.
I sincerely appreciate your taking part in this conversation.
After communicating that you were not going to read my comments, it is an honor for me that you confirm my theory on the difficulty of languages and the great effort over decades only with languages by the owners of the planet, Google.
I know that you hope to learn much more from me. I will decide from today if one day have a few beers with you and laugh at these moments or you will be part of those users who do not harbor any interest or contribution in my life. At the end of the post I will explain the reasons for this decision.
You do not confirm anything by bragging about translations, it is a simple opinion, without any proof. You have not clarified, who determines that the translation is correct and error-free. My experience in Arabic or Russian circles is exactly as you claim. They are people who appreciate the contribution and value the effort in communicating in a language that you do not know.
Criticisms of the language are generally given only with English, and generally by Americans. I do not know if they are children of the first, second, third or fourth generation of immigrants. But the antics and the ridiculousness of the language occur only with English, and generally with Americans. Some users. According to my experience. Therefore, the translator does his job, but the SS does not have enough money to start in this sector. But generally, with a specific ideology, which is far from ours. Yours and mine. I mean ideology, knowing how to be and behavior.
I agree with you, a great effort in interpreting the language by machines and a great progress in our days. Very far from bordering on perfection. It's a breakthrough.
Assuming that SS uses Google technology to understand the titles, it is still not clear that its supposed AI will show you as optional words for an image: EU flag, Union stars, Europe, euro,..... when the image is a starfish.
Assuming that a machine understands part of the language, understanding it is something of the human beings at the moment, I explain to you, it is very far from interpreting an abuse, insult, macho language, hate speech, ... It translates or understands it, but it does not It can analyze whether it will create a social conflict for the Agency to put a specific file up for sale.
Therefore, any anti-feminist title, even if it is correct English, is not an accepted title for sale by microstock.
Conclusion, I don't even go into the quality or archive without commercial content. This is only human, there is no machine that can define if something fuzzy is salable. In our days. Thank you for your interest in continuing to want to learn.
Nonsense, say the fools. If you insinuate that I am stupid, if you comment again that what I say is nonsense, I will stop teaching you more things and I will ignore you. It depends on you.
You must understand and learn that Google Translate has these problems, translating your phrase..... "this is just gobbledygook" is one of the problems of languages. Adapting languages is very complicated.
Google translates it as gibberish and also as stupidity. I understand that it is my problem and not your intention. I am sure there is no problem between us. Hug.
Adapting the languages is extremely difficult, far from the intentions of making money from SS. AI for this specific case is not viable for humans today.
A greeting.
-
I ran two recent Trump's quotes through Google translator.
The first one from from English to German, then back to English and the second from English to Spanish and back to English.
"I actually took one test when I -- very recently, when I -- when I was -- the radical left were saying, is he all there? Is he all there? And I proved I was all there, because I got -- I aced it. I aced the test."
"Ich habe tatsächlich einen Test genommen, als ich - vor kurzem, als ich - als ich - die radikale Linke sagte: Ist er alles da? Ist er alles da? Und ich habe bewiesen, dass ich alles da war, weil ich - Ich habe es geschafft. Ich habe den Test bestanden. "
"I actually took one test when I - recently, when I - when I - said the radical left: is it all there? Is it everything there? And I have proven that I was everything because I - I have I did it. I passed the test. "
“When you say that we lead in [coronavirus] cases, that's because we have more testing than anybody else.
"So when we have a lot of cases, I don't look at that as a bad thing. I look at that as, in a certain respect, as being a good thing because it means our testing is much better.
"So I view it as a badge of honour. Really, it's a badge of honour.
"It's a great tribute to the testing and all of the work that a lot of professionals have done."
“Cuando dices que somos líderes en casos [de coronavirus], eso se debe a que tenemos más pruebas que nadie.
"Entonces, cuando tenemos muchos casos, no lo veo como algo malo. Lo veo como, en cierto sentido, como algo bueno porque significa que nuestras pruebas son mucho mejores".
"Así que lo veo como una insignia de honor. Realmente, es una insignia de honor.
"Es un gran homenaje a las pruebas y todo el trabajo que muchos profesionales han realizado".
“When you say we are leaders in [coronavirus] cases, that's because we have more evidence than anyone.
"So when we have a lot of cases, I don't see it as a bad thing. I see it as, in a sense, a good thing because it means our tests are so much better."
"So I see it as a badge of honor. It really is a badge of honor.
"It is a great tribute to the tests and all the work that many professionals have done."
Little bit mangled, but all in all, pretty good translations. Much better than what was possible 20 years ago.
Actually, some of the re-translated sentences sound better than the original ones by Trump.
-
Good contribution.
Trump is difficult to translate. Leaves many sentences unfinished, uses expressions, slang language and it is not easy. Instead, it is a widely used translation. A POTU, google, translates it countless times a day in the world. They can correct a lot in every hour. It is a text in high demand for Google, the Trump stuff.
However, Google uses AI in the translator. It depends on the day, if your developers leave you a bit of freedom, there are days when you can get into trouble, invent many things and the translator can get you into trouble. Google can say outrageous things, depending on the day.
In conversations with people of other languages, there are days on WhatsApp that we warn ourselves about the translator, be careful with Google, which seems to have abused wodka. Groups that try to speak simple things, so that each user can understand it after translating. We use simple phrases, and changing words, so that the translator can handle the translation. language adaptation is very complex.
If the text is very long, you make more mistakes, the translation is immediate. Exquisite work. There are forums for the topic of collaborating in improving the translator. Much money and many resources. google would be happy to give its technology to SS in exchange for its image AI, Google also needs it and it is impossible to see images nowadays with any clarity by the software, less examine for sale. But that's how friendly its CEO is, with ambiguous words implying that they examine with AI. They have no money to start the project.
It costs them less money to be examined by humans. As other agencies do, including Adobe, which is a developer platform and has brought a lot of innovation and development to the planet in terms of proprietary software and extensions and cutting-edge technology. Adobe are software platform, elite, and they would like machines to see text in the image, 3D letter compression or design, for example.
-
@Snow always asks the same thing, with so much SS technology, and it is not about cutting images or mirrors, similar images, and sometimes many non-similar ones appear, they appear identical, the same, copies and thefts.
To check its AI effectiveness, if you cut an apple in half, it will recommend you in keywords, love, February 14, Valentine's Day. Because, you see something that reminds you of a heart. But it is software that interprets the images and suggests possible text, nothing more, it is not AI examining.
SS wants to earn money, not collaborate with humanity by achieving something that today would be an extraordinary technological advance.
Your investors don't have enough money to start a project of this size. It is not your job.
-
Image of a waterfall, horizontal and vertical. The examiner passes the first. They are simply your orders. In order not to expand the department staff to place images in their corresponding searches, they only wanted a third of the images. They had plenty of advantage over competitors in file volume, they wanted only the best, not a waterfall horizontally and vertically. Within the minute it could be approved in a subsequent shipment, or after three months. IA does not affect the time, a rejection for IA would be rejection always, at the minute or within three months.
-
For the SS CEO who speaks in an established script while sipping soup, if he had an AI capable of examining files suitable for sale, both Tesla and NASA would hire their developers, if they cannot leave on contract, they would buy the company.
These developers are not able to make the web work properly, at the slightest change. And every time, you notice that his team is getting lower and lower profile. They are not capable of widening to JPG format with adequate thumbnail visibility if the vectors are not loaded with a huge size. Simply very low profile.
According to a company drowning.
An AI capable of deciding on a logo, suitable or not for sale, would be the cover of all the media on the planet. And world prestige and a place in history.
The next step would be for the machines to make designs that are sold, of quality, current and that pleases humans.
-
...
Little bit mangled, but all in all, pretty good translations. Much better than what was possible 20 years ago.
Actually, some of the re-translated sentences sound better than the original ones by Trump.
one reason the translations are reasonable is he speaks like an underperforming 5th grader
-
[...] AI can't review photos, we know that, they know that. [...]
This is true but it does not mean they will not do it anyway :(!
-
My hypothesis is, they decided to reduce the number of images anyway, so as not to expand the staff to place images in the searches, it is slower than examining. The Agency was uploading images close to 3 million a week. It was very personal. They invented not accepting similar. And everything got complicated. By being absurd rejections, we users create the myth of AI. The CEO at the end uses this myth to his advantage.
-
It is also very likely that it was a test to verify the behavior of customers by reducing the number of weekly files for sale, studying paying 0.10 if 800k a week does not influence their sales. If 800k a week did not impose a flight of clients, it was the moment of 0.10 and the door was open to collaborators who wanted to move away.
-
...
Little bit mangled, but all in all, pretty good translations. Much better than what was possible 20 years ago.
Actually, some of the re-translated sentences sound better than the original ones by Trump.
one reason the translations are reasonable is he speaks like an underperforming 5th grader
Very true. To make the job more difficult for the translator, this time I used Tenebroso's post, and translated it to French and back to English.
The translator made the Tenebroso's flowery text even more convoluted.
For the SS CEO who speaks in an established script while sipping soup, if he had an AI capable of examining files suitable for sale, both Tesla and NASA would hire their developers, if they cannot leave on contract, they would buy the company.
These developers are not able to make the web work properly, at the slightest change. And every time, you notice that his team is getting lower and lower profile. They are not capable of widening to JPG format with adequate thumbnail visibility if the vectors are not loaded with a huge size. Simply very low profile.
According to a company drowning.
An AI capable of deciding on a logo, suitable or not for sale, would be the cover of all the media on the planet. And world prestige and a place in history.
The next step would be for the machines to make designs that are sold, of quality, current and that pleases humans.
Pour le PDG SS qui parle dans un script établi tout en sirotant de la soupe, s'il avait une IA capable d'examiner les fichiers susceptibles d'être vendus, Tesla et la NASA embaucheraient leurs développeurs, s'ils ne pouvaient pas partir sous contrat, ils rachèteraient l'entreprise.
Ces développeurs ne sont pas en mesure de faire fonctionner correctement le Web, au moindre changement. Et à chaque fois, vous remarquez que son équipe devient de plus en plus discrète. Ils ne sont pas capables de s'étendre au format JPG avec une visibilité adéquate des vignettes si les vecteurs ne sont pas chargés avec une taille énorme. Profil tout simplement très bas.
Selon une entreprise en train de se noyer.
Une IA capable de décider d'un logo, adapté ou non à la vente, serait la couverture de tous les médias de la planète. Et le prestige mondial et une place dans l'histoire.
La prochaine étape serait que les machines réalisent des designs qui sont vendus, de qualité, actuels et qui plaisent aux humains.
For the SS CEO speaking in an established script while sipping soup, if he had an AI capable of examining files that might be sold, Tesla and NASA would hire their developers, if they couldn't leave. under contract, they would buy the company.
These developers are not able to make the web work properly at the slightest change. And each time, you notice that his team becomes more and more discreet. They are not able to expand to JPG format with adequate thumbnail visibility if the vectors are not loaded with huge size. Simply very low profile.
According to a company in the process of drowning.
An AI capable of deciding on a logo, suitable or not for sale, would be the coverage of all the media on the planet. And global prestige and a place in history.
The next step would be for the machines to make designs that are marketable, quality, current, and appealing to humans.
-
That demands a lot from the translator.
:)
That made me laugh.
I'm with the Duolingo, learning.
-
This thread is getting weirder by the day :o
As far as I'm concerned they might be using AI now but haven't been doing so in the past or maybe very few times. I am still convinced there are (were) reviewers pushing their friends and fellow countrymen while rejecting their competition or those they don't like because of country of origin or whatever, simple as that. You know what else these reviewers can do with your work? bury it deep down in search. They will also accept work that they know won't sell much if at all. Hence the low quality crap that's being accepted. Similars, stolen, etc... they don't care but they will pick on your images if they get the chance and reject them.
Then there's the reviewers who just don't have a clue what they are doing and reject for no good reason or the wrong reason or just try to achieve their daily quota on your expense.
I am amazed that those who have been in this business long enough still don't notice this.
Check who's being featured! check who's in top of search! check who's complaining about reviews, check who's not or who defends them! Check their country! You don't have to be a scientist to start noticing patterns.
Of course there's still the honest and qualified reviewer who does a proper job and reject for the right reasons but these are rare in this business.
Those who get a free pass think they are just better then the rest and recommend others to up their game ::) Until they get rejects, oh boy!
This goes for Micro, Macro and even Boutique (book covers etc...)
Also and sorry for derailing but these days your presence on social media is far more important then the quality of your work and that will affect your exposure as well.
Actually I'm making all this up so please let me get back to my fantasy world...
-
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading
-
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading
All rejected or accepted?
If only some were rejected or accepted then sure this could be AI but all no, I don't buy it. That's just a reviewer happen to have your images in front of him/her, maybe during summertime where uploads are far less then other times.
I believe AI would improve things and not reject for irrational reasons or not have a preference for certain contributors while disliking others.
I would rather have AI reviewers that only check for quality, metadata and similar (stolen) then those human reviewers mentioned above.
But I guess my experience was different then most, lucky you ;)
My port would have been double, even triple in size then it is now if it wasn't for them. Not because of the rejections because I knew they were wrong but because I had to contact support (reviewer admin) each time to get them online and I lost a lot of motivation. And now with the 0.10c deal and the bright future we have ahead of us I almost lost all motivation.
So their plan worked, they got rid of many contributors that way, be it via agency policy or reviewer's own agenda.
-
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading
I remember the big long threads on this forum, "reviewers are stupid" and similar headlines. Back then, many of us told you that they examine fast because they examine Make Money style, at random, with bets on who shoots the fastest. They were waiting for someone to charge and were in a hurry to examine. Regardless of the test result, regardless of the quality of the test, regardless of people's work. Without respect for collaborators.
Perhaps they even had bets from whoever examined the most users. Already on those threads, some user answered you, that a machine cannot do so badly. Already at that time someone commented that a monkey did better. You, you insisted, that they examined you very quickly and it was a machine. Well, they were examining you humans fast. In five seconds or sooner. They know you're online, they know you're uploading files and they were examining you SS style, without looking. The examiners have voluntarily left or expelled en bloc.
There have been times of almost 13 days to examine. And after the course, they would quickly examine if the course was made up of many examiners. Some newbie on the first day would tell you three errors, error in the title, error in the keywords, noise. On the third day, similar. It was a quick test. If you took too long to examine, other colleagues would examine faster. They made more money.
-
@Snow
I subscribe your words.
I'm surprised we're still like this It is so logical, it is seen from afar, after a simple observation.
I would add 1000 more examples, but I am observing that the users of this forum do not observe much.
When they talked about tweaking the algorithm, it was nothing more than a red light on your channel on the SS workers panel. Well, lots of red lights. The reasons may be many. From that line of red traffic lights, you had no visibility in the shop window, your relevant images would disappear and it is likely that if you left the agency, the supervisors would obtain an economic bonus for meeting objectives. Perhaps, for taking sales away from a friend.
It is not that you and I are on the same page, we are in the same paragraph and word.
The impression is of gangster behavior. Simply, a conjecture.
-
If an AS examiner has doubts about an image. Marks it for review by the section chief. Two days later, the head of the department enters your channel, probably in the presence of the examiner and tells him if it is a valid file or not.
This represents a reliable company, with a good system and a pleasant environment. Fair examinations, within the mistakes that anyone can make.
Exquisite level of professional workers.
-
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading
All rejected or accepted?
All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!
-
I beg you to meditate on the following points:
- The department of illustration examiners examined the files somewhat better.
- You talk about a fair test. Impossible for a human to examine with any justice a large number of photographs in a few seconds of time. Impossible to analyze with common sense.
- You talk about absurd exams.
- Conclusion, the human examiner pressed the reject button for the entire batch, without looking. Simple. A human.
- The batch rejects button is used by several agencies and is available in all agencies.
They just didn't have a job, as soon as you uploaded photos, they all rejected you. Examiners read the comments on this forum and your blog.
Before another examiner reviewed your images, they were waiting for you. Rejection of the entire upload. Absurd rejection in 5 seconds. A human.
-
Are we asking SS to worry about us? Have you ever replied to your forum? Acknowledging a possible error, apologies and that the Agency will try to improve the photography exams?
SS doesn't give a * about your exam and the rejected photos. They are dead, 123RF started treating collaborators that way, and we all know the result. SS does not exist, it is chaos, and its website closes any day.
-
I have spent entire nights uploading files and in a moment, all files approved. I re-upload files and in a moment, all approved, I re-upload files and in a moment, all approved, I re-upload files and in a moment all rejected. The examiner was another, the end of the work shift, examiners replacement, no more uploading files that night. Humans.
-
As I see that this topic is of little interest, I will continue with my monologue.
Has the Agency decided to change the time-out period for the AI exam to more than 5 seconds so as not to disturb anyone?
The supposed AI at present, how it is adjusted, examines at 20 minutes. Is it a slower AI? No, they just don't have files to review, and they don't examine at a time like months ago. Now, they are short of material and dedicate a little more common sense. They are human as in the rest of the Agencies.
SS believes that customers buy what the Agency decides the customer to buy. They do not value the work of collaborators or clients. They think they are unbeatable.
-
...
Little bit mangled, but all in all, pretty good translations. Much better than what was possible 20 years ago.
Actually, some of the re-translated sentences sound better than the original ones by Trump.
one reason the translations are reasonable is he speaks like an underperforming 5th grader
Very true. To make the job more difficult for the translator, this time I used Tenebroso's post, and translated it to French and back to English.
The translator made the Tenebroso's flowery text even more convoluted.
...
i thought about doing that but was afraid it would bring down the translator
-
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading
All rejected or accepted?
All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!
If I know there from you I can reject in one second ;D
-
Actually, it suits me very well that this guild is not an expert in software code. A few days ago we decided not to open a Platform to sell images for a limited number of collaborators.
We have come to the conclusion that in Microstock we are the kings of the planet AS and I, my team has decided to open three different Platforms at the same time, different conditions and different systems, to compete with ourselves.
As well as a website specialized in image searches for clients that will be the neuralgic center of the three platforms.
We do not have AI, but we do have knowledge and effort.
The planet still doesn't know that in microstock, AS and I am the bosses.
-
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading
All rejected or accepted?
All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!
Do you think that if you had sent more images, they would have approved one? It is not No, and someone decided to reject all your images as soon as they were uploaded. Be it 12 or 129.
-
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading
All rejected or accepted?
All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!
Do you think that if you had sent more images, they would have approved one? It is not No, and someone decided to reject all your images as soon as they were uploaded. Be it 12 or 129.
It seems they're using a combination of AI with humans. First filter is AI and rejects for the easy stuff like editorials with wrong captions and software that detects graffiti. These are the super quick rejections I wrote about.
However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.
More borderline cases gets sent to humans for a closer look.
SS seem to be streamlining their workflow by cutting costs - they are a technology company after all. By no means am I completely against AI, after all they receive 100,000s submissions a day, but seems strange that they've outright denied it for a long time on the SS forum (Jeff).
-
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading
All rejected or accepted?
All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!
Do you think that if you had sent more images, they would have approved one? It is not No, and someone decided to reject all your images as soon as they were uploaded. Be it 12 or 129.
It seems they're using a combination of AI with humans. First filter is AI and rejects for the easy stuff like editorials with wrong captions and software that detects graffiti. These are the super quick rejections I wrote about.
However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.
More borderline cases gets sent to humans for a closer look.
SS seem to be streamlining their workflow by cutting costs - they are a technology company after all. By no means am I completely against AI, after all they receive 100,000s submissions a day, but seems strange that they've outright denied it for a long time on the SS forum (Jeff).
Here's another quote from Cobra above:
If I know there from you I can reject in one second ;D
There's your answer!
Why do you think it's impossible to push a button to reject all your files in one second?
After the sixth time your work got accepted? why you think? they got bored with you and accepted, nothing more.
Don't try to make up complicated theories as to why your work was rejected. Keep it simple, it's just a human being who likes to mess around.
Aren't you the one that posted about stolen images/portfolio's and got banned for it? You call that fair treatment? So knowing that you don't think there are reviewers out there messing around as well?
I also still believe our ports are flagged and some do not get reviews at all while others get tight reviews.
-
I suspected AI about a year ago when some dozen of my images were reviewed within 5 seconds of uploading
All rejected or accepted?
All rejected for silly reasons. No human can review a dozen images in 5 seconds!
Do you think that if you had sent more images, they would have approved one? It is not No, and someone decided to reject all your images as soon as they were uploaded. Be it 12 or 129.
It seems they're using a combination of AI with humans. First filter is AI and rejects for the easy stuff like editorials with wrong captions and software that detects graffiti. These are the super quick rejections I wrote about.
However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.
More borderline cases gets sent to humans for a closer look.
SS seem to be streamlining their workflow by cutting costs - they are a technology company after all. By no means am I completely against AI, after all they receive 100,000s submissions a day, but seems strange that they've outright denied it for a long time on the SS forum (Jeff).
Here's another quote from Cobra above:
If I know there from you I can reject in one second ;D
There's your answer!
Why do you think it's impossible to push a button to reject all your files in one second?
After the sixth time your work got accepted? why you think? they got bored with you and accepted, nothing more.
Don't try to make up complicated theories as to why your work was rejected. Keep it simple, it's just a human being who likes to mess around.
Aren't you the one that posted about stolen images/portfolio's and got banned for it? You call that fair treatment? So knowing that you don't think there are reviewers out there messing around as well?
I also still believe our ports are flagged and some do not get reviews at all while others get tight reviews.
+5
-
From their SEC filing in 2012. I'm sure that has advanced significantly in eight years.
"We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers"
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm)
-
However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.
[/quote]
And this is one of the problems with the whole industry today.
In today's whiny self entitled world one actually tries on an average of 3 times to get rejected work accepted and up to 6 times and eventually they will get accepted.
All that tells me is you need to up your game or find another hobby.
-
File rejections, in SS, from the notification of not accepting similar files, is not relevant to determine the quality of the accepted or rejected files.
In microstock, it is a very complicated subject, to determine what is quality, a professional, novice files.
Microstock is a business. Spam professionals are business professionals. Determining what is a quality file is very complicated in microstock.
Regarding the subject of reviewers, in this forum, I remember reading that a user and part of his family scan photographs of old books, without copyright, and have an agreement with SS for this work.
This is proof that reviewers don't review all users.
There are users, that the reviewers do not know in his short life as an image reviewer worker. Therefore, there are users with a green traffic light for review, or reviewed by section heads, or not reviewed. It would also be good to know if 0.10 is for all users or if there are users exempt from this new commission rate.
I doubt that by the third week of reviewing images, a reviewer's brain is in place. I think it can end with the lucidity of a person reviewing thousands of images a day, a week, a month, another month. I think it is a wreck for the mind and should be reviewed, a high-risk job and a maximum daily schedule should be regulated for this job, appropriate breaks, and vacation and disconnection periods should be regulated. It is a high risk job for the health of workers.
In addition, you would win in the quality of the reviews, if you take care of this guild of reviewers, perhaps the most important section of the microstock, more important than the work of the collaborators or the CEO.
This business is extremely complex. For me, illustrations changing the color of the soccer players' jerseys from each team in each country does not seem spammy. 4 images in Relevant from the same collaborator do not seem to me, spam in a search where there are not many images, it does seem to me to be spam 4 images in the relevant section of the same author and similar ones in the search section of the G5 or COVID.
Each topic is to be discussed for seven lifetimes.
-
When it comes to AI testing, between all of us, we'd have cheated the machine by now. Simply put, SS wanted no more than 1,200,000 images a week. Rejecting all users, images, whether of quality or not.
It would also be nice to know, the concept, Quality, in microstock.
In microstock, it would be nice if IA could examine, if SS accepted valid files.
In microstock, it would be nice if IA could examine, if SS accepted ALL valid files. The Agency is not for the concept of investing in salary to expand the staff.
But I'm afraid that they were testing whether having less images interfered with the loss of customers. To nail the 0.10 and that losing fresh image is not a loss of customers.
-
However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.
And this is one of the problems with the whole industry today.
In today's whiny self entitled world one actually tries on an average of 3 times to get rejected work accepted and up to 6 times and eventually they will get accepted.
All that tells me is you need to up your game or find another hobby.
[/quote]
My port is open for all to see.
I'm of the particular opinion that breaking news editorial images take in the heat of the moment shouldn't be rejected for stupid reasons such as noise. I can't take out my tripod in a protest and have a perfect exposure/composition at ISO 100!
-
"I'm of the particular opinion that breaking news editorial images take in the heat of the moment shouldn't be rejected for stupid reasons such as noise. I can't take out my tripod in a protest and have a perfect exposure/composition at ISO 100!"
In the old days the big guns would hire 20 models and stage this protest thus perfect professional lighting and ISO 100. They would have a crew of about 5 people as well. I bet 99% of the photographers now would never consider doing this especially for a $.10 from SS.
-
I'm of the particular opinion that breaking news editorial images take in the heat of the moment shouldn't be rejected for stupid reasons such as noise. I can't take out my tripod in a protest and have a perfect exposure/composition at ISO 100!
I agree, however SS is hardly an industry source for breaking news photos... not even a close second or third source.
-
I don't care about the review method they use... but i care about the 0.10 issue
-
I'm of the particular opinion that breaking news editorial images take in the heat of the moment shouldn't be rejected for stupid reasons such as noise. I can't take out my tripod in a protest and have a perfect exposure/composition at ISO 100!
I agree, however SS is hardly an industry source for breaking news photos... not even a close second or third source.
Was merely a hypothetical example, although I have noticed that some of these more candid street shots were rejected so I wouldn't even bother with breaking news.
Agreed that SS isn't right agency for breaking news and they have an editorial arm anyway (REX Features now Shutterstock Editorial).
-
You can do a test and upload image with some mistake - add some artificial element in photo or ad some grammatical error in hand written text in drawing. Do more tests (because many times it can be accepted even by human), but if at least one test is rejected, you can say that there is some human behind. Kind of captcha test.
Actually I did it unintentionally not long ago - I wrote the hand written text in drawing with error (but same word in title and keywords was correct) and only Bigstock and iStock rejected it. 13 others accepted it. Unfortunately it was after I stopped to upload on SS, so I don't have result from SS.
-
"I'm of the particular opinion that breaking news editorial images take in the heat of the moment shouldn't be rejected for stupid reasons such as noise. I can't take out my tripod in a protest and have a perfect exposure/composition at ISO 100!"
In the old days the big guns would hire 20 models and stage this protest thus perfect professional lighting and ISO 100. They would have a crew of about 5 people as well. I bet 99% of the photographers now would never consider doing this especially for a $.10 from SS.
a bigger problem is they expect every editorial to adhere to journalistic practice - no manipulation, blurring, isolation, etc. many times editorials are just images such as crowds where releases are impossible, or a cityscape w trademarks
-
From their SEC filing in 2012. I'm sure that has advanced significantly in eight years.
"We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers"
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm)
Yes I remember that. Also many others have a pre-check for things like colorspace, size, and whatever they could care about, before anything gets near a reviewer human.
It seems they're using a combination of AI with humans. First filter is AI and rejects for the easy stuff like editorials with wrong captions and software that detects graffiti. These are the super quick rejections I wrote about.
However, some of these can get through on an average of a third try. The maximum I've submitted to be accepted was 6 times.
More borderline cases gets sent to humans for a closer look.
SS seem to be streamlining their workflow by cutting costs - they are a technology company after all. By no means am I completely against AI, after all they receive 100,000s submissions a day, but seems strange that they've outright denied it for a long time on the SS forum (Jeff).
A rational assumption, trim costs, who cares if the pre-check is faulty.
However I always liked the theories that some people come up with like, the reviewer doesn't like you personally. So out of only 200,000 contributors or maybe it's only 30,000? You name comes up and zap, everything rejected. Or because the reviewer has a friend who does the same kind of shots. (go figure that one?)
But my personal favorite is, quick money, reject a whole batch, that's review money.
Or while Daddy is watching football, the kids can play at being a reviewer for awhile? ;D
(https://i.postimg.cc/MTx6Hccv/weekend-reviewer-girl.jpg)
Let me say, the system is flawed and even after eight years of making it better, it's still flawed, and inconsistent.
-
I think Pete has the right of it. I was a reviewer long ago and this was true then.Wwe got paid a set amount per accepted and per rejected. Different amounts. When a batch of 500 or 1k images came in, you picked one image and if it was acceptable, click all and approve, or reject. I can only assume that if reviewers are still paid per image, it should be unsurprising when a review takes a second or two.
One thing I do disagree with him about, in smaller shops we most definitely had favorites or people we didn't like. Time was money. Spammers actually made a reviewer more money. I can easily see (without accusing any particular company) how instantly approving thousands of similar images might be possible. Easy money.
What surprises me, and has always surprised me, in a volume discount business why people even waste time resubmitting or even looking to see what's been approved. My model was always "fire and forget", and it stood me well until SS's recent changes (down to only two images in my portfolio now, trying to determine which one to keep). But there is always more than one way to do this. It's just finding what way works best fot you. :)
The AI was for things like minimum file size, etc. Probably still is, but hopefully better.
-
A rational assumption, trim costs, who cares if the pre-check is faulty.
However I always liked the theories that some people come up with like, the reviewer doesn't like you personally. So out of only 200,000 contributors or maybe it's only 30,000? You name comes up and zap, everything rejected. Or because the reviewer has a friend who does the same kind of shots. (go figure that one?)
But my personal favorite is, quick money, reject a whole batch, that's review money.
Or while Daddy is watching football, the kids can play at being a reviewer for awhile? ;D
Let me say, the system is flawed and even after eight years of making it better, it's still flawed, and inconsistent.
@Pete after all this time you are still clueless old timer so stick with your hobby and your niche while you still can but don't think for a minute you know how this business works. I might not know all the ins and outs but I do know a lot more then you do.
Like I said before it amazes me how little some of you microstock "vets" really know about this business. I already knew this a few months in but then I fought for my work so had a lot of discussions with support and other contributors.
Tell me, why wouldn't a reviewer do those things? Do you think admins are looking over their shoulder? Do you think with the small pay their reviewers get they will punish them? Do you still believe in the fairytale that everything in stock is fair play? Reviewers are cute little angels eagerly waiting for your outstanding work? Almost every serious contributor out there knows what I'm talking about, been there done that but you seem to be running around with blinders. Ask some 3D guys for starters but you can't be bothered right, it's a lot faster to just ridicule other people's posts. Well if that makes your day, sure why not Pete, have a go at it! ::)
@Farbled Why we resubmit? Why you think? Keep in mind there are people who take this business very seriously and often spend a day or more even on one image. Why go all the way? we had to, that's the difference between making 100 bucks or a 1000 bucks a month. But you are right in that many of us shouldn't even be in this business, we are expecting too much.
You contradict almost every point Pete made but still think he was right?
If you have been a reviewer you know I'm right. I was asked to review myself (not top or even middle tiers btw) and got a sneak peek into the workflow but that's all I'm going to say.
Take care and be safe lads, I'm off!
-
@Pete after all this time you are still clueless old timer so stick with your hobby and your niche while you still can but don't think for a minute you know how this business works. I might not know all the ins and outs but I do know a lot more then you do.
Like I said before it amazes me how little some of you microstock "vets" really know about this business. I already knew this a few months in but then I fought for my work so had a lot of discussions with support and other contributors.
Tell me, why wouldn't a reviewer do those things? Do you think admins are looking over their shoulder? Do you think with the small pay their reviewers get they will punish them? Do you still believe in the fairytale that everything in stock is fair play? Reviewers are cute little angels eagerly waiting for your outstanding work? Almost every serious contributor out there knows what I'm talking about, been there done that but you seem to be running around with blinders. Ask some 3D guys for starters but you can't be bothered right, it's a lot faster to just ridicule other people's posts. Well if that makes your day, sure why not Pete, have a go at it! ::)
@Farbled Why we resubmit? Why you think? Keep in mind there are people who take this business very seriously and often spend a day or more even on one image. Why go all the way? we had to, that's the difference between making 100 bucks or a 1000 bucks a month. But you are right in that many of us shouldn't even be in this business, we are expecting too much.
You contradict almost every point Pete made but still think he was right?
If you have been a reviewer you know I'm right. I was asked to review myself (not top or even middle tiers btw) and got a sneak peek into the workflow but that's all I'm going to say.
Take care and be safe lads, I'm off!
Lol, I guess I should bow to your oh so great judgement. After all, what would I know after being very clear about my incomes over the years. But hey, you don't like other contributors, I get that, you make it very clear what you think of others who don't think like you do. That's why I really struggle to take you seriously. Now go off and cry some more about how dumb we all are.. And if you are spending all day on an image that "may" net you ten cents (or thirty-eight which is somehow more palatable) then you go right ahead. And I'm the one who doesn't know the industry... right.
-
@Pete after all this time you are still clueless old timer so stick with your hobby and your niche while you still can but don't think for a minute you know how this business works. I might not know all the ins and outs but I do know a lot more then you do.
Like I said before it amazes me how little some of you microstock "vets" really know about this business. I already knew this a few months in but then I fought for my work so had a lot of discussions with support and other contributors.
Tell me, why wouldn't a reviewer do those things? Do you think admins are looking over their shoulder? Do you think with the small pay their reviewers get they will punish them? Do you still believe in the fairytale that everything in stock is fair play? Reviewers are cute little angels eagerly waiting for your outstanding work? Almost every serious contributor out there knows what I'm talking about, been there done that but you seem to be running around with blinders. Ask some 3D guys for starters but you can't be bothered right, it's a lot faster to just ridicule other people's posts. Well if that makes your day, sure why not Pete, have a go at it! ::)
@Farbled Why we resubmit? Why you think? Keep in mind there are people who take this business very seriously and often spend a day or more even on one image. Why go all the way? we had to, that's the difference between making 100 bucks or a 1000 bucks a month. But you are right in that many of us shouldn't even be in this business, we are expecting too much.
You contradict almost every point Pete made but still think he was right?
If you have been a reviewer you know I'm right. I was asked to review myself (not top or even middle tiers btw) and got a sneak peek into the workflow but that's all I'm going to say.
Take care and be safe lads, I'm off!
Lol, I guess I should bow to your oh so great judgement. After all, what would I know after being very clear about my incomes over the years. But hey, you don't like other contributors, I get that, you make it very clear what you think of others who don't think like you do. That's why I really struggle to take you seriously. Now go off and cry some more about how dumb we all are.. And if you are spending all day on an image that "may" net you ten cents (or thirty-eight which is somehow more palatable) then you go right ahead. And I'm the one who doesn't know the industry... right.
Oh boy, you couldn't be much further from the truth. It's for fair reviews I have been fighting for all along, as with earnings. But in the end a lot of us don't seem to care anymore or never cared so I joined them. No new uploads to SS though, just to be clear.
What did you do? put your work on your website for free, good move, we should all do that, that'll teach m!
You don't have to take me seriously because I sure don't take you seriously after giving your work away for free but now decide to sell it again. What's next? Donation? or was that already part of it?
You were clear about your earnings over the years, good but what does that mean exactly? Many are posting their earnings on SS forum these days, nothing special.
I said that many of us don't belong in this industry or did you miss that part? 0.10c is ridiculous and so is 0.38c, hell even 1 dollar is nuts.
Don't act like you represent all other contributors and don't try to paint me as the bad guy here. I don't dislike others, on the contrary I admire a lot of them and I bet a lot more then you do which I'm guessing is probably none.
Apparently I just don't seem to like you though but that's perfectly fine, I can live with that.
I will satisfy your needs for today and let you have a go at it. I can't waste the energy because it's already 88 degrees over here.
So have a good one mate, Pete as well, enjoy!
-
Oh boy, you couldn't be much further from the truth. It's for fair reviews I have been fighting for all along, as with earnings. But in the end a lot of us don't seem to care anymore or never cared so I joined them.
What did you do? put your work on your website for free, good move, we should all do that, that'll teach m!
You don't have to take me seriously because I sure don't take you seriously after giving your work away for free but now decide to sell it again. What's next? Donation? or was that already part of it?
You were clear about your earnings over the years, good but what does that mean exactly? Many are posting their earnings on SS forum these days, nothing special.
I said that many of us don't belong in this industry or did you miss that part? 0.10c is ridiculous and so is 0.38c, hell even 1 dollar is nuts.
Don't act like you represent all other contributors and don't try to paint me as the bad guy here. I don't dislike others, on the contrary I admire a lot of them and I bet a lot more then you do which I'm guessing is probably none.
Apparently I just don't seem to like you though but that's perfectly fine, I can live with that.
I will satisfy your needs for today and let you have a go at it. I can't waste the energy because it's already 88 degrees over here.
So have a good one mate, Pete as well, enjoy!
Bahaha, thank you for proving my point so well.
I have never said I represented all contributors and I never will. My only contention is that there is more than one way to make money here. Anyone who knows me in the 15 plus years I have been posting here, knows that. You are the one here constantly belittling other contributors in the name of solidarity, even though you did not delete your portfolio like others did (including me), you just moaned about how everyone else was dumb and why bother, so you left it up. So, in my book that makes you one of the bigger hyprocites around here since we are parsing older posts.
And as far as my free stuff goes, thanks for looking. I guess trying nothing at all is better than trying things that may or may not work. What happened when you did your research on free platforms? How many new contribs did you draw over (refer) to micro (which is perhaps the most useful thing you can do to combat the supposed devaluation of stock by the free sites)? How many clickthroughs did you get to your own site from freebies? how many legacy images have you put up that made money over the years but no longer, and therefore are more useful as advertising yourself?
And we both know you can waste the energy, because now you have a little soapbox to throw stones at people all the time. The nasty remarks take away from the occasional good points you make. Back on mute you go kid.
-
@Pete after all this time you are still clueless old timer so stick with your hobby and your niche while you still can but don't think for a minute you know how this business works. I might not know all the ins and outs but I do know a lot more then you do.
Hey, I can't see a link to your port. How about showing us how much more you know?
-
Or while Daddy is watching football, the kids can play at being a reviewer for awhile? ;D
so, the pandemic should mean daddy has no sports so should be doing better reviews?? (and mommys watch sports too & SS probably has 2-3 female reviewers)
-
It's nice to see that dissension and enmity aren't peculiar to the Shutterstock forum
Makes me feel at home.
-
It's nice to see that dissension and enmity aren't peculiar to the Shutterstock forum
Makes me feel at home.
but... but.. they started it ;)
-
@Pete after all this time you are still clueless old timer so stick with your hobby and your niche while you still can but don't think for a minute you know how this business works. I might not know all the ins and outs but I do know a lot more then you do.
Like I said before it amazes me how little some of you microstock "vets" really know about this business...
ok, you're back to insulting rather than discussing
but you can't be bothered right, it's a lot faster to just ridicule other people's posts. Well if that makes your day, sure why not Pete, have a go at it! ::)
Well if that makes your day, sure why not snow, have a go at it!
If you have been a reviewer you know I'm right. I was asked to review myself....
a great loss to the industry, i'm sure since you know so much more than anyone else
Take care and be safe lads, I'm off!
again?
-
What I am learning from all the contributions presented here is that SS acquired a software that eliminated a percentage of images based on filters established for detecting the repetition of a word twice in the title or in the keywords. A filter that eliminated images that it detected as similar. Perhaps a filter that did not observe sharpness in a certain percentage of certain quality at any point in the image.
These image removal filters prior to reviewer examination were sold to SS as AI software to assist in material review.
The unfortunate function of these filters is the cause of some stupid rejections and it is determined that it is the SS AI that tests with serious defects.
Interesting, thank you.
-
but I do know a lot more then you do.
Apparently not, or you would know it should be “but I do know a lot more THAN (not then) you do. 😂
-
but I do know a lot more then you do.
Apparently not, or you would know it should be “but I do know a lot more THAN (not then) you do. 😂
Wow Cathy, you too? that surprises me. I expect nothing less from the usual trolls in here but you joining them and having a go at me as well? I thought you were one of the good people here like Jo Ann.
We all do what we do best...
I'll make more room for the trolls and better educated people by removing myself.
Thanks Tyler for having this available to us contributors. Like I said before many of us would be in the dark if it wasn't for this forum. I don't know what I was thinking though joining the discussions because I knew it would turn out like this. This is exactly why many stick to reading instead of posting. Lesson learned ::)
To all contributors, best of luck in everything you do, we're all in this together (most of us anyway) and stay safe!
-
but I do know a lot more then you do.
Apparently not, or you would know it should be “but I do know a lot more THAN (not then) you do. 😂
Wow Cathy, you too? that surprises me. I expect nothing less from the usual trolls in here but you joining them and having a go at me as well? I thought you were one of the good people here like Jo Ann.
We all do what we do best...
I'll make more room for the trolls and better educated people by removing myself.
Thanks Tyler for having this available to us contributors. Like I said before many of us would be in the dark if it wasn't for this forum. I don't know what I was thinking though joining the discussions because I knew it would turn out like this. This is exactly why many stick to reading instead of posting. Lesson learned ::)
To all contributors, best of luck in everything you do, we're all in this together (most of us anyway) and stay safe!
LOL people can dish it out, but when a grammar error is pointed out, they leave. He’s over there ragging on farbled, but for some reason, he thinks I shouldn’t be able to jump in. How many times have I been on the butt end of the bullies here? Too many to count. And look, he even got a +1 for his knockdown of me. You need a thick skin to be in this forum. I don’t stay because of all the great friendships I hope to make, though there are some decent, intelligent, talented people here. I only stay because I still sell images. Otherwise, why stick around for all the abuse?
I particularly love the folks who love calling those of us who have been in microstock for 15+ years “clueless old timers.” LOL
-
"I particularly love the folks who love calling those of us who have been in microstock for 15+ years “clueless old timers.”
I am clueless but not too old yet :)
-
"I particularly love the folks who love calling those of us who have been in microstock for 15+ years “clueless old timers.”
I am clueless but not too old yet :)
In violation of MSG bylaws......+100
-
I have zero problem being called out when I am wrong, which is more often than I would wish, but I never resort to insults unless they are thrown first, or at least I try to.
I know I am like a brick in a calm pool usually, but I dislike when people castigate an entire group simply because they are frustrated with an agency. I am heartened to see others thinks the same.
Perhaps snow is achieving his goal of promoting solidarity after all, just not in the way he expected. :)
-
"I particularly love the folks who love calling those of us who have been in microstock for 15+ years “clueless old timers.”
I am clueless but not too old yet :)
Sort of like the cool kids of microstock trash talked about us 'trads' 15 years ago?
-
"I particularly love the folks who love calling those of us who have been in microstock for 15+ years “clueless old timers.”
I am clueless but not too old yet :)
Sort of like the cool kids of microstock trash talked about us 'trads' 15 years ago?
And yet here you are, a “trad”, on a microstock forum. Just like all the other “trads.” Can’t be all bad, can it? I bet you’ve taken your fair share of money from low life microstock sites, right? ;D
-
.
-
"I particularly love the folks who love calling those of us who have been in microstock for 15+ years “clueless old timers.”
I am clueless but not too old yet :)
Sort of like the cool kids of microstock trash talked about us 'trads' 15 years ago?
And yet here you are, a “trad”, on a microstock forum. Just like all the other “trads.” Can’t be all bad, can it? I bet you’ve taken your fair share of money from low life microstock sites, right? ;D
Looks to me you so very much missed the point.
-
"I particularly love the folks who love calling those of us who have been in microstock for 15+ years “clueless old timers.”
I am clueless but not too old yet :)
Sort of like the cool kids of microstock trash talked about us 'trads' 15 years ago?
And yet here you are, a “trad”, on a microstock forum. Just like all the other “trads.” Can’t be all bad, can it? I bet you’ve taken your fair share of money from low life microstock sites, right? ;D
Looks to me you so very much missed the point.
Nope got it loud and clear. ;)
-
A rational assumption, trim costs, who cares if the pre-check is faulty.
However I always liked the theories that some people come up with like, the reviewer doesn't like you personally. So out of only 200,000 contributors or maybe it's only 30,000? You name comes up and zap, everything rejected. Or because the reviewer has a friend who does the same kind of shots. (go figure that one?)
But my personal favorite is, quick money, reject a whole batch, that's review money.
Or while Daddy is watching football, the kids can play at being a reviewer for awhile? ;D
Let me say, the system is flawed and even after eight years of making it better, it's still flawed, and inconsistent.
@Pete after all this time you are still clueless old timer so stick with your hobby and your niche while you still can but don't think for a minute you know how this business works. I might not know all the ins and outs but I do know a lot more then you do.
Like I said before it amazes me how little some of you microstock "vets" really know about this business. I already knew this a few months in but then I fought for my work so had a lot of discussions with support and other contributors.
Tell me, why wouldn't a reviewer do those things? Do you think admins are looking over their shoulder? Do you think with the small pay their reviewers get they will punish them? Do you still believe in the fairytale that everything in stock is fair play? Reviewers are cute little angels eagerly waiting for your outstanding work? Almost every serious contributor out there knows what I'm talking about, been there done that but you seem to be running around with blinders. Ask some 3D guys for starters but you can't be bothered right, it's a lot faster to just ridicule other people's posts. Well if that makes your day, sure why not Pete, have a go at it! ::)
@Farbled Why we resubmit? Why you think? Keep in mind there are people who take this business very seriously and often spend a day or more even on one image. Why go all the way? we had to, that's the difference between making 100 bucks or a 1000 bucks a month. But you are right in that many of us shouldn't even be in this business, we are expecting too much.
You contradict almost every point Pete made but still think he was right?
If you have been a reviewer you know I'm right. I was asked to review myself (not top or even middle tiers btw) and got a sneak peek into the workflow but that's all I'm going to say.
Take care and be safe lads, I'm off!
Oops, dropped a nuclear bomb and then left? OK well, I'll answer, because maybe you'll come back in another form with a new name?
"@Pete after all this time you are still clueless old timer so stick with your hobby and your niche while you still can but don't think for a minute you know how this business works. " You are at least 3/4ths right? I am a clueless, old timer, and I do shoot a niche, and yes it is a hobby.
Why not share the ins and outs instead of personal attacks and bragging about how much you know. That would help many people here? Positive and production, share your knowledge?
Your knowledge of reviewers comes from support and other contributors, that's terribly flawed. Unless you believe that reviewers actually know who you are, or me, or know any of us by name and care. They are reviewing, thousands of people, hours a day, that's the files that get past the computerized review or what people call AI. (more like artificially stupid at this point) So the accusation that a IS reviewer would reject images similar to his, and would reject images, similar to a friend, so they could get more sales, it true paranoia.
Million of images, maybe a day, and someone here thinks, we are individuals and have identities that a reviewer cares about, because they might like us or not? Well that explains why my clueless hobby shots of the niche, are accepted... ;) They like me better. Not that I upload clear, clean, colorful, sharp images.
Of course, if I'm rejected, it's because of AI, favoritism or someone (in India) who's against me, not because of the actual image or quality.
-
So the accusation that a IS reviewer would reject images similar to his, and would reject images, similar to a friend, so they could get more sales, it true paranoia.
And whatever the process is now, the process used to be that a reviewer would make maybe 5 cents per image. If anyone wanted to make any kind of money, they had to fire through images fairly quickly. At one point, EONS ago (another clueless old timer here) I checked into being a reviewer for SS. I’m pretty sure they were paying 5 cents an image. After I did the math, I didn’t bother. It just wasn’t worth the time, for me. If I didn’t have rent and other bills to pay, sure.
-
5 cents? :o :o :o
Do they have applications on the web or what? Never have seen them. How people become reviewers? ?
-
This whole industry is a s.
-
Or while Daddy is watching football, the kids can play at being a reviewer for awhile? ;D
so, the pandemic should mean daddy has no sports so should be doing better reviews?? (and mommys watch sports too & SS probably has 2-3 female reviewers)
Either you took that too literally as true or I missed your point. :) Daddy or Mommy can take a break on the weekend and let the kids play at being a reviewer on the home computer. ;)
I used to think that the staff in NY was actually doing reviews, and then on weekends, they were off (like the people who watch the site or the forums, who are invisible on weekends) then they came back on Monday. That would mean the offshore contracts were still working most of the time. Just a thought, no evidence or anything, or maybe I just saw what I wanted to see?
Like I've said before, I switched to trying to only upload on Monday through Thursday, which means nothing, as I no longer have weekend reviews to compare. Considering that since June I'm pretty much uploading nothing, any days, the whole question is moot. I never did sets, so I couldn't do tests for days, with various similar images.
Just going to point out that AI would be the same, no matter what day we uploaded? ;D
-
So the accusation that a IS reviewer would reject images similar to his, and would reject images, similar to a friend, so they could get more sales, it true paranoia.
And whatever the process is now, the process used to be that a reviewer would make maybe 5 cents per image. If anyone wanted to make any kind of money, they had to fire through images fairly quickly. At one point, EONS ago (another clueless old timer here) I checked into being a reviewer for SS. I’m pretty sure they were paying 5 cents an image. After I did the math, I didn’t bother. It just wasn’t worth the time, for me. If I didn’t have rent and other bills to pay, sure.
That was the number kicked around back then.
And I'd imagine they cut that 5c down since 2008 and set higher quotas. If the rumors are right, just like the image factories, from places that are happy with the 10c, reviews have been transferred to outsourced businesses, in India for example. Cut expenses, put the work on getting something accepted, after inconsistent reviews, on the artists backs.
The original claim was back when IS was on top, and people wrote that the reviewers were rejecting their images, because of protecting reviewers friends or reviewers own markets. Some things never change. Rejections are because of insiders. Sales are because of the favorites being pushed to the front. It's all rigged... to favor someone else. ::)
-
I used to think that the staff in NY was actually doing reviews, and then on weekends, they were off (like the people who watch the site or the forums, who are invisible on weekends) then they came back on Monday. That would mean the offshore contracts were still working most of the time. Just a thought, no evidence or anything, or maybe I just saw what I wanted to see?
just search on linkedin "Image Curator at Shutterstock" or "shutterstock reviewer"
-
Just worth noting that an AI isnt guaranteed to give the same output every time its run.
It learns and adapts to inputs meaning you'd expect output to change the more its run. Also a lot use stochastic techniques which introduce a bit of deliberate randomness.
Not saying its the case here but the "if its AI you'd get consistency" argument isnt true.
-
Just worth noting that an AI isnt guaranteed to give the same output every time its run.
It learns and adapts to inputs meaning you'd expect output to change the more its run. Also a lot use stochastic techniques which introduce a bit of deliberate randomness.
Not saying its the case here but the "if its AI you'd get consistency" argument isnt true.
Worth mentioning that AI doesn't train itself and doesn't change by day of the week, or one hour files are accepted, next they are rejected. AI doesn't accept half of a set one day and reject the rest of the set, the next day. AI changes slowly. AI is more consistent because it's determined by unemotional computer logic.
AI won't reject the same files twice and third time, suddenly change to accepting them. ;D
Nope I disagree with you.
-
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.
-
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.
And your evidence or proof of this being true is?
-
Our royalties.
-
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.
Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.
-
Just worth noting that an AI isnt guaranteed to give the same output every time its run.
It learns and adapts to inputs meaning you'd expect output to change the more its run. Also a lot use stochastic techniques which introduce a bit of deliberate randomness.
Not saying its the case here but the "if its AI you'd get consistency" argument isnt true.
Worth mentioning that AI doesn't train itself and doesn't change by day of the week, or one hour files are accepted, next they are rejected. AI doesn't accept half of a set one day and reject the rest of the set, the next day. AI changes slowly. AI is more consistent because it's determined by unemotional computer logic.
AI won't reject the same files twice and third time, suddenly change to accepting them. ;D
Nope I disagree with you.
ok, AI or human? SS reviews today (minutes after submitting)
1. a shoot of closeups or orange and yellow nasturtiums: several orange rejected for lack of editorial caption, all other oranges and all yellows accepted
2. macro of a yellowjacket and of a fern both rejected for lack of property release
-
Just worth noting that an AI isnt guaranteed to give the same output every time its run.
It learns and adapts to inputs meaning you'd expect output to change the more its run. Also a lot use stochastic techniques which introduce a bit of deliberate randomness.
Not saying its the case here but the "if its AI you'd get consistency" argument isnt true.
Worth mentioning that AI doesn't train itself and doesn't change by day of the week, or one hour files are accepted, next they are rejected. AI doesn't accept half of a set one day and reject the rest of the set, the next day. AI changes slowly. AI is more consistent because it's determined by unemotional computer logic.
AI won't reject the same files twice and third time, suddenly change to accepting them. ;D
Nope I disagree with you.
ok, AI or human? SS reviews today (minutes after submitting)
1. a shoot of closeups or orange and yellow nasturtiums: several orange rejected for lack of editorial caption, all other oranges and all yellows accepted
2. macro of a yellowjacket and of a fern both rejected for lack of property release
Sounds like computer reviews, missing the intelligence part. :) Makes me wonder why a flower, or wasp, tells the computer, it looks like something that needs a release?
So far the only artificial intelligence part that seems to be working, is too arbitrary and restrictive. That's the similar, that detects colors and patterns and shapes. I think if I tried, I could get a frog image and a green pepper (hypothetical) to be rejected as similar, if the colors are close enough and somewhat similar setting.
But anyway, the less similar images, is a good thing. Remember when we could find inch by inch sets, or hundreds of the same basic setup, re-positioned? Sure there are going to be less accepted new images, SS doesn't want more of the spam and slop. Buyers don't want more of the same, they want more variety.
What ever happened to the marijuana bud guy? Or the guy driving down the city street, with a GoPro on his dashboard? Terrible!
-
ok, AI or human? SS reviews today (minutes after submitting)
1. a shoot of closeups or orange and yellow nasturtiums: several orange rejected for lack of editorial caption, all other oranges and all yellows accepted
2. macro of a yellowjacket and of a fern both rejected for lack of property release
Computers are stupid. Even more than Oringer.
-
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.
Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.
@LaurinRinder was a reviewer? Why doesn't he answer what they got paid on Bigstock? After they sold to SS the contract is done, not secret.
-
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.
Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.
@LaurinRinder was a reviewer? Why doesn't he answer what they got paid on Bigstock? After they sold to SS the contract is done, not secret.
It's called a NDA and would be voided when the company was bought by Shutterstock. So maybe Laurin will see this and help us with an answer from the inside, not guesses and work at home websites that are terribly out of date. Also in all his research for the books and people he knows, he should be able to tell us the real answer.
-
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.
Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.
@LaurinRinder was a reviewer? Why doesn't he answer what they got paid on Bigstock? After they sold to SS the contract is done, not secret.
Why would he answer? Every time he posts here, people call him names.
-
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.
Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.
@LaurinRinder was a reviewer? Why doesn't he answer what they got paid on Bigstock? After they sold to SS the contract is done, not secret.
Why would he answer? Every time he posts here, people call him names.
Names?