pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS continues to deteriorate  (Read 100477 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

U11


« Reply #425 on: January 23, 2023, 10:22 »
0
got enhanced license sold by SS today for below $2

What???


« Reply #426 on: January 23, 2023, 15:22 »
+2
For my four major sites thus far:

Leading the way this month is Adobe Stock - with the help of a decent video sale

Next is iStock - with earnings brought forward from December.

Then Pond5 - which is having a reasonably good month considering it's January.

Finally, in last place is Shutterstock.

« Reply #427 on: January 23, 2023, 16:11 »
0
Im getting adjustments from 2021 now.

Surely so long ago if there was fraud its over and done with now.  Can't help thinking they're just taking whatever they feel as opposed to a system.
I can understand adjustments on a current billing cycle but 2 years ago is taking it too far.

« Reply #428 on: January 23, 2023, 19:22 »
+1
For my four major sites thus far:

Leading the way this month is Adobe Stock - with the help of a decent video sale

Next is iStock - with earnings brought forward from December.

Then Pond5 - which is having a reasonably good month considering it's January.

Finally, in last place is Shutterstock.

And just like that, Shutterstock back in the lead again with a couple of good video sales.

« Reply #429 on: January 24, 2023, 03:33 »
0
In my case, it looks like this:

I have 1322 images. Of these, 1198 images have at least 2 downloads. That is 90.6%. On average, each of my images has 59.2 downloads - including the unsold ones.

I had at some point deleted every image without a download that had been online for a while, because I was sure that these images would never achieve a download again, because I assumed that they would no longer be found in searches. Otherwise, I would have at least about 1500 images online - probably a few more. I left a few relatively newly uploaded images without download online. So now I also have 18 images with exactly one download.

Whether this "cleaning" of the portfolio was useful or beneficial for the portfolio ranking, I don't know. That be's only the algorithm of shutterstock.

I know that the lack of uploading hurts my performance, because I know or suspect how it develops for example with Firn or Ralf, namely positively in contrast to me. But for shutterstock I lack the motivation and therefore I accept declining numbers.

However, with all the whining I must also say: For the fact that I no longer feed the beast, I have to be satisfied with my income. As Doug Jensen would have said: Currently, I'm still harvesting from the seeds I sowed years ago. How long that will work without sowing new seeds, I don't know.

What I have written here is wrong!

I have now looked at my "Top performers" again. But they are not sorted by downloads, but by revenue. On the last page, I had seen pictures with 2 downloads and had therefore wrongly assumed that on the penultimate page and the other pages before that, no more pictures with less than 2 downloads would appear. But that was wrong. For example, on the last page there are 2 images with 2 downloads each for a total of $0.20 and on the second to last page there are images with 1 download for $0.38.

The correct way is like this:

Of 1322 images, exactly 1200 have at least one download. And there are exactly 133 images with only one download. So 1067 images have 2 or more downloads.

« Reply #430 on: January 24, 2023, 07:50 »
+2
In my case, it looks like this:

I have 1322 images. Of these, 1198 images have at least 2 downloads. That is 90.6%. On average, each of my images has 59.2 downloads - including the unsold ones.

I had at some point deleted every image without a download that had been online for a while, because I was sure that these images would never achieve a download again, because I assumed that they would no longer be found in searches. Otherwise, I would have at least about 1500 images online - probably a few more. I left a few relatively newly uploaded images without download online. So now I also have 18 images with exactly one download.

Whether this "cleaning" of the portfolio was useful or beneficial for the portfolio ranking, I don't know. That be's only the algorithm of shutterstock.

I know that the lack of uploading hurts my performance, because I know or suspect how it develops for example with Firn or Ralf, namely positively in contrast to me. But for shutterstock I lack the motivation and therefore I accept declining numbers.

However, with all the whining I must also say: For the fact that I no longer feed the beast, I have to be satisfied with my income. As Doug Jensen would have said: Currently, I'm still harvesting from the seeds I sowed years ago. How long that will work without sowing new seeds, I don't know.

What I have written here is wrong!

I have now looked at my "Top performers" again. But they are not sorted by downloads, but by revenue. On the last page, I had seen pictures with 2 downloads and had therefore wrongly assumed that on the penultimate page and the other pages before that, no more pictures with less than 2 downloads would appear. But that was wrong. For example, on the last page there are 2 images with 2 downloads each for a total of $0.20 and on the second to last page there are images with 1 download for $0.38.

The correct way is like this:

Of 1322 images, exactly 1200 have at least one download. And there are exactly 133 images with only one download. So 1067 images have 2 or more downloads.

None of your stats matter, you deleted images.

« Reply #431 on: January 24, 2023, 13:30 »
+1
In my case, it looks like this:

I have 1322 images. Of these, 1198 images have at least 2 downloads. That is 90.6%. On average, each of my images has 59.2 downloads - including the unsold ones.

I had at some point deleted every image without a download that had been online for a while, because I was sure that these images would never achieve a download again, because I assumed that they would no longer be found in searches. Otherwise, I would have at least about 1500 images online - probably a few more. I left a few relatively newly uploaded images without download online. So now I also have 18 images with exactly one download.

Whether this "cleaning" of the portfolio was useful or beneficial for the portfolio ranking, I don't know. That be's only the algorithm of shutterstock.

I know that the lack of uploading hurts my performance, because I know or suspect how it develops for example with Firn or Ralf, namely positively in contrast to me. But for shutterstock I lack the motivation and therefore I accept declining numbers.

However, with all the whining I must also say: For the fact that I no longer feed the beast, I have to be satisfied with my income. As Doug Jensen would have said: Currently, I'm still harvesting from the seeds I sowed years ago. How long that will work without sowing new seeds, I don't know.

What I have written here is wrong!

I have now looked at my "Top performers" again. But they are not sorted by downloads, but by revenue. On the last page, I had seen pictures with 2 downloads and had therefore wrongly assumed that on the penultimate page and the other pages before that, no more pictures with less than 2 downloads would appear. But that was wrong. For example, on the last page there are 2 images with 2 downloads each for a total of $0.20 and on the second to last page there are images with 1 download for $0.38.

The correct way is like this:

Of 1322 images, exactly 1200 have at least one download. And there are exactly 133 images with only one download. So 1067 images have 2 or more downloads.

None of your stats matter, you deleted images.

that's why RPI & RPD are irrelevant - adding or subtracting images changes the stats but actual income remains the same

« Reply #432 on: January 24, 2023, 17:36 »
0
In my case, it looks like this:

I have 1322 images. Of these, 1198 images have at least 2 downloads. That is 90.6%. On average, each of my images has 59.2 downloads - including the unsold ones.

I had at some point deleted every image without a download that had been online for a while, because I was sure that these images would never achieve a download again, because I assumed that they would no longer be found in searches. Otherwise, I would have at least about 1500 images online - probably a few more. I left a few relatively newly uploaded images without download online. So now I also have 18 images with exactly one download.

Whether this "cleaning" of the portfolio was useful or beneficial for the portfolio ranking, I don't know. That be's only the algorithm of shutterstock.

I know that the lack of uploading hurts my performance, because I know or suspect how it develops for example with Firn or Ralf, namely positively in contrast to me. But for shutterstock I lack the motivation and therefore I accept declining numbers.

However, with all the whining I must also say: For the fact that I no longer feed the beast, I have to be satisfied with my income. As Doug Jensen would have said: Currently, I'm still harvesting from the seeds I sowed years ago. How long that will work without sowing new seeds, I don't know.

What I have written here is wrong!

I have now looked at my "Top performers" again. But they are not sorted by downloads, but by revenue. On the last page, I had seen pictures with 2 downloads and had therefore wrongly assumed that on the penultimate page and the other pages before that, no more pictures with less than 2 downloads would appear. But that was wrong. For example, on the last page there are 2 images with 2 downloads each for a total of $0.20 and on the second to last page there are images with 1 download for $0.38.

The correct way is like this:

Of 1322 images, exactly 1200 have at least one download. And there are exactly 133 images with only one download. So 1067 images have 2 or more downloads.

None of your stats matter, you deleted images.

What you write is correct.

However, my numbers at AS and SS are pretty much identical in terms of images sold. At AS I never deleted an image, so I have 1517 files there. Of those, 320 have no download. 79% have at least 1 download. And at shutterstock, that would be pretty much identical if I hadn't deleted an image there.

Each of my images has brought me more than $100 on average - over a long period of time. I am satisfied with that.

But especially with shutterstock, that's pretty much impossible now with new images. And that was it once. Which brings me back to the title of this thread.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #433 on: January 25, 2023, 11:52 »
0

What you write is correct.

However, my numbers at AS and SS are pretty much identical in terms of images sold. At AS I never deleted an image, so I have 1517 files there. Of those, 320 have no download. 79% have at least 1 download. And at shutterstock, that would be pretty much identical if I hadn't deleted an image there.

Each of my images has brought me more than $100 on average - over a long period of time. I am satisfied with that.

But especially with shutterstock, that's pretty much impossible now with new images. And that was it once. Which brings me back to the title of this thread.

How do you tell what has and hasn't got a DL on Adobe. In fact how would I tell, lifetime DLs and earnings for any image? Say I wanted that data, I don't see how to view it, without some long copy and save on Adobe.

$100 an image is very good, no make that, exceptional, for the number of images and success.

Which brings us back to the title of this thread. Shelma1 / Ms P. would be proud of her continuing thread, that she started. I think this one could be the record for the longest active and most popular. It's never going to be old.  ;D

« Reply #434 on: January 25, 2023, 13:49 »
0

What you write is correct.

However, my numbers at AS and SS are pretty much identical in terms of images sold. At AS I never deleted an image, so I have 1517 files there. Of those, 320 have no download. 79% have at least 1 download. And at shutterstock, that would be pretty much identical if I hadn't deleted an image there.

Each of my images has brought me more than $100 on average - over a long period of time. I am satisfied with that.

But especially with shutterstock, that's pretty much impossible now with new images. And that was it once. Which brings me back to the title of this thread.

How do you tell what has and hasn't got a DL on Adobe. In fact how would I tell, lifetime DLs and earnings for any image? Say I wanted that data, I don't see how to view it, without some long copy and save on Adobe.

$100 an image is very good, no make that, exceptional, for the number of images and success.

Which brings us back to the title of this thread. Shelma1 / Ms P. would be proud of her continuing thread, that she started. I think this one could be the record for the longest active and most popular. It's never going to be old.  ;D

Pete, you can see your files under your dashboard at AS. For me, there are 16 pages - 100 images per page, whereby the last one is of course not full. There you can sort by downloads. And on the last pages there is no more number, but a dash for 0 downloads.

I can't see the revenue per image with AS either. I have an Excel table where I record my monthly downloads and revenues for the 6 agencies. So I know how many downloads and what revenue I have. And my portfolio is about the same size for all agencies and contains the same images with a few exceptions. Only at istock my portfolio is much smaller - about half as big as at AS. And a bit smaller at shutterstock.

The +$100 was not related to AS, but to all 6 agencies together. I hope that I have not formulated this in a misleading way.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #435 on: January 26, 2023, 12:25 »
0

What you write is correct.

However, my numbers at AS and SS are pretty much identical in terms of images sold. At AS I never deleted an image, so I have 1517 files there. Of those, 320 have no download. 79% have at least 1 download. And at shutterstock, that would be pretty much identical if I hadn't deleted an image there.

Each of my images has brought me more than $100 on average - over a long period of time. I am satisfied with that.

But especially with shutterstock, that's pretty much impossible now with new images. And that was it once. Which brings me back to the title of this thread.

How do you tell what has and hasn't got a DL on Adobe. In fact how would I tell, lifetime DLs and earnings for any image? Say I wanted that data, I don't see how to view it, without some long copy and save on Adobe.

$100 an image is very good, no make that, exceptional, for the number of images and success.

Which brings us back to the title of this thread. Shelma1 / Ms P. would be proud of her continuing thread, that she started. I think this one could be the record for the longest active and most popular. It's never going to be old.  ;D

Pete, you can see your files under your dashboard at AS. For me, there are 16 pages - 100 images per page, whereby the last one is of course not full. There you can sort by downloads. And on the last pages there is no more number, but a dash for 0 downloads.

I can't see the revenue per image with AS either. I have an Excel table where I record my monthly downloads and revenues for the 6 agencies. So I know how many downloads and what revenue I have. And my portfolio is about the same size for all agencies and contains the same images with a few exceptions. Only at istock my portfolio is much smaller - about half as big as at AS. And a bit smaller at shutterstock.

The +$100 was not related to AS, but to all 6 agencies together. I hope that I have not formulated this in a misleading way.

$100 is still a nice number.

I forgot that I could look at all images that way. 39% have one download or more.

No lifetime income by image. I don't know how much I care, but it's always interesting. DLs doesn't = Dollars, but in round numbers, if I assume that images will get about the same, that's a close way of seeing what they are worth, just knowing DL numbers.

« Reply #436 on: January 29, 2023, 17:14 »
+6
Looking like the worst month at S/S in many many years.   :(
Yet Adobe Stock just keeps rising and rising. Wondering if I bother sending to S/S?

« Reply #437 on: January 30, 2023, 02:50 »
+3
Looking like the worst month at S/S in many many years.   :(
Yet Adobe Stock just keeps rising and rising. Wondering if I bother sending to S/S?

I strongly feel that bothering to send new material to SS is nothing but a waste of time.

Considering effort / income ratio.

« Reply #438 on: January 30, 2023, 08:46 »
+2
Looking like the worst month at S/S in many many years.   :(
Yet Adobe Stock just keeps rising and rising. Wondering if I bother sending to S/S?

I strongly feel that bothering to send new material to SS is nothing but a waste of time.

Considering effort / income ratio.

For me, January downloads at SS are quite a lot down on January 2022. However, Adobe is at the same level as 2022. Neither better nor worse.

« Reply #439 on: February 01, 2023, 01:28 »
+5
Made $40 on shitterstick in Jan 2023 just about the worst performance ever since I first started in 2011.

Quantity of sales was good enough but 10 cents everywhere

« Reply #440 on: February 01, 2023, 03:01 »
+1
Worst month since February 2015.


« Reply #441 on: February 01, 2023, 09:11 »
+1
My earnings with images at SS were also very poor in January, at the 2021 level.
But my earnings with videos were good, at the level of September 2022.


« Reply #442 on: February 01, 2023, 09:30 »
+1
Awful, worst January for more than 10 years. My overall stock video performance inline with Poll, adobe outperforming all other agencies.

« Reply #443 on: February 02, 2023, 19:55 »
+1
Better than Jan 2022 (Mostly videos)

« Reply #444 on: April 18, 2023, 04:53 »
0
It's interesting to compare the 2020 annual report (that's actually what it always looked like, in terms of appearance) and the 2021 annual report.

The Annual Report 2021 shows on page 44 that there were 400 million images and 24 million videos in 2021 in the database of shutterstock.

If I now go to the shutterstock startpage, 177 million images are displayed. Is this a display error? Or is that really less than half by now???

« Reply #445 on: April 18, 2023, 04:57 »
0
What's going on there? 5 minutes later + nearly 2 million files???

« Reply #446 on: April 18, 2023, 05:26 »
+6
What's going on there? 5 minutes later + nearly 2 million files???

haven't you heard?  SS is now using chatGPT to generate their reports

« Reply #447 on: April 18, 2023, 05:55 »
0
What's going on there? 5 minutes later + nearly 2 million files???

haven't you heard?  SS is now using chatGPT to generate their reports

 ;D

« Reply #448 on: April 18, 2023, 11:05 »
0
It shows as 174.501.443 to me in the gallery.


When you scroll all the way down the bottom of the page it currently says
"We have more than 433 million images as of December 31, 2022."


Not sure where the 220+ million missing images are.

« Reply #449 on: April 18, 2023, 11:50 »
0
I offer 181.156.122 right now. Might be a bug - I dont know.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4864 Views
Last post February 15, 2012, 09:29
by imlumina
11 Replies
4748 Views
Last post November 09, 2012, 16:06
by stockastic
13 Replies
5579 Views
Last post June 24, 2013, 15:35
by Roberto
1 Replies
3046 Views
Last post July 28, 2016, 16:51
by CJH Photography
0 Replies
3919 Views
Last post July 11, 2019, 17:54
by zorba

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors