pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS continues to deteriorate  (Read 96405 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Just_to_inform_people2

« Reply #275 on: November 08, 2022, 15:04 »
+1
Maybe not related but important to know if you didn't. If on a site like Adobe you search with specific keywords you'll get the same results because searches are cached. Clear your cache and you will get the actual current result for your keywords.

Furthermore it depends a lot (at Adobe at least) where you're searching from. You can easily test it when changing the region on the bottom left on the search page. You get different results searching from the US then for say Japan, Germany or England with the exact same keywords.


« Reply #276 on: November 08, 2022, 15:13 »
0
I assume that you will be penalized if you simply upload anything for the sole purpose of increasing your portfolio.
If the SS accepts the job, then the job suits him. The CC bears the cost of storing the work.
Yes, good works should sell better than bad ones. But I would say that stock works should sell better. But when the SS is in such a mess as the last 2 years, the authors of good works also have poor incomes. These are at least those authors whom I personally have known for a long time.


Yes, I also know some formerly very successful contributors who have gone very steeply downhill.

But many of them - like me - have not uploaded anything because they are frustrated with the way shutterstock has dealt with the contributors. And for that they are currently being punished.

This is also understandable for me from the agency's point of view.

But accepting an image and letting it disappear into nirvana immediately afterwards makes no sense. Then they should reject it right away if they think it's bad.

« Reply #277 on: November 08, 2022, 15:32 »
+3
I assume that you will be penalized if you simply upload anything for the sole purpose of increasing your portfolio.
If the SS accepts the job, then the job suits him. The CC bears the cost of storing the work.
Yes, good works should sell better than bad ones. But I would say that stock works should sell better. But when the SS is in such a mess as the last 2 years, the authors of good works also have poor incomes. These are at least those authors whom I personally have known for a long time.

Yes, I also know some formerly very successful contributors who have gone very steeply downhill.

But many of them - like me - have not uploaded anything because they are frustrated with the way shutterstock has dealt with the contributors. And for that they are currently being punished.

This is also understandable for me from the agency's point of view.

But accepting an image and letting it disappear into nirvana immediately afterwards makes no sense. Then they should reject it right away if they think it's bad.

Wilm, I had 2 photos accepted yesterday. I checked their position and I found them on my first page @ #18 and #19.
Photos approved last week are #22, #25, #26.
Photos approved 2 weeks ago are #31, #32, #33 and #40.
None of them are particulary good to deserve a high ranking.

This shows that new stuff is artificially promoted, being given the chance to break through. This artificial boost is fading over time, if no sales happen (or maybe enough views, or other metrics).

So it matters if you upload regulaly, not because the contributor is penalised otherwise, but because new photos, which are artificially ranked higher, may trigger additional sales for older photos, since older photos are presented as an alternative. The buyer will chose the best photo for him, which may be older.

So new photos (especially if they are good enough to get enough attention, while on top of the ranks) may give a boost to old photos, and may trigger a viral second wind to the whole portfolio.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2022, 15:41 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #278 on: November 08, 2022, 16:28 »
0
I assume that you will be penalized if you simply upload anything for the sole purpose of increasing your portfolio.
If the SS accepts the job, then the job suits him. The CC bears the cost of storing the work.
Yes, good works should sell better than bad ones. But I would say that stock works should sell better. But when the SS is in such a mess as the last 2 years, the authors of good works also have poor incomes. These are at least those authors whom I personally have known for a long time.

Yes, I also know some formerly very successful contributors who have gone very steeply downhill.

But many of them - like me - have not uploaded anything because they are frustrated with the way shutterstock has dealt with the contributors. And for that they are currently being punished.

This is also understandable for me from the agency's point of view.

But accepting an image and letting it disappear into nirvana immediately afterwards makes no sense. Then they should reject it right away if they think it's bad.

Wilm, I had 2 photos accepted yesterday. I checked their position and I found them on my first page @ #18 and #19.
Photos approved last week are #22, #25, #26.
Photos approved 2 weeks ago are #31, #32, #33 and #40.
None of them are particulary good to deserve a high ranking.

This shows that new stuff is artificially promoted, being given the chance to break through. This artificial boost is fading over time, if no sales happen (or maybe enough views, or other metrics).

So it matters if you upload regulaly, not because the contributor is penalised otherwise, but because new photos, which are artificially ranked higher, may trigger additional sales for older photos, since older photos are presented as an alternative. The buyer will chose the best photo for him, which may be older.

So new photos (especially if they are good enough to get enough attention, while on top of the ranks) may give a boost to old photos, and may trigger a viral second wind to the whole portfolio.


Hello ZT,

I am absolutely familiar with the mechanisms.

But that a new image is accepted and directly on the day of acceptance lands on the last place in the search is absolutely new to me. And nothing else is my point. This simply does not make sense!

Something about the image is obviously wrong. The image itself is unusable, the keywords are wrong or bad - or whatever. I dont know. As I wrote: I never had that before - it is new after 11 years.

« Reply #279 on: November 08, 2022, 17:18 »
0
Check it tomorrow. There may be a delay until it gets indexed.

« Reply #280 on: November 09, 2022, 06:35 »
0
But many of them - like me - have not uploaded anything because they are frustrated with the way shutterstock has dealt with the contributors. And for that they are currently being punished.
The more I upload videos to SS, the less my income. Probably the SS is punishing me for not loading only masterpieces.  ;D
I think everything is simpler, or the SS is stealing my money, or the search algorithms there work in such a way that the SS manually decides which authors to promote and which ones to push.

« Reply #281 on: November 09, 2022, 06:54 »
+6
or the search algorithms there work in such a way that the SS manually decides which authors to promote and which ones to push.

And what reason would SS have to do this?
SS couldn't care less whether a video is bought from contributor A or contributor B.

« Reply #282 on: November 09, 2022, 09:10 »
+7
or the search algorithms there work in such a way that the SS manually decides which authors to promote and which ones to push.
It's completely nonsense.
You really think that SS should PAY a group of well skilled people that works looking and MANUALLY adjust the search position  :o ;D ;D ;D
I would love to work in that department.

Ah... I can see you next message: "I didn't mean that there is people that do this job, I meant that there is a system that promote some authors more than others!!"

Of course there is. It's completely fair to have this; they HAVE to push the better content, the most quality, and the top selling.
 
IT'S ABSOLUTELY NORMAL: at starting time each one of us has the same possibilities to climb; then, the rest is given by results.

So, you answer by your own: your content is NOT enough good, in quality or sales number, to be rewarded by the search system.

SS, like any other agency, has a business: they have to sell images and clips. Nothing else
And what reason would SS have to do this?
SS couldn't care less whether a video is bought from contributor A or contributor B.

Exactly. They couldn't care less about you or me, they just want to sell the best

« Last Edit: November 09, 2022, 09:44 by derby »

« Reply #283 on: November 09, 2022, 10:17 »
+3
Uncle Pete, I have the right to know something, but not to know something, to forget something, but to remember something. What are your claims to me? I see you are satisfied that they began to pay you less, I am happy for you.  ;D

Thanks for being happy for me.  ;)

Speaking of remembering, I seem to remember someone else who's been banned from here, who used to make all kinds of claims and draw conclusions and ignored logic and reasoning. When they were asked a direct question, the answer would turn into no answer and twisted evasion. Can I try again?

I admit that shutterstock may promote authors from certain countries, or is afraid that they will sue it. In general, I think that either the algorithms have changed, or the buyers have left, or shutterstock is hiding my money from me.

People from countries will sue SSTK?  :o And you say, SSTK is "hiding money" from you?


What countries? How is  SSTK hiding money from you?

No I'm not happy or satisfied, making less on any agency, where did you find anything to come to that wrong conclusion?

No answer from stoker2014?

« Reply #284 on: November 09, 2022, 11:43 »
0
It's completely nonsense.
You really think that SS should PAY a group of well skilled people that works looking and MANUALLY adjust the search position  :o ;D ;D ;D
I would love to work in that department.
I've been experimenting. I wrote in support of the SS that I was not satisfied with the sales, and after a few days I received sales in my account, and in a month the SS reached at least the minimum that was two years ago. Hence the conclusion that certain authors are manually promoted on the SS. Yes, it is obvious that they somehow manually set a temporary rating, after which their works are the first in the search, for example.
I never wrote anywhere that I have bad work. Until the beginning of 2021, CC was giving a very good income every month.
Yes, forum trolls really want to laugh at everyone who writes the truth here, and tell that the author has crap work. But this is a lie.

« Reply #285 on: November 09, 2022, 11:52 »
0
SS, like any other agency, has a business: they have to sell images and clips. Nothing else
I have no complaints about other agencies, I, like most in this thread, only have complaints about the SS. In other agencies, I received and receive a good income. And that means that my work is not crap.
Let me remind you in what topic you write here: "SS continues to deteriorate." If you are satisfied with the income from the SS, then what are you doing in this thread? Create your own theme, like what a cool SS, how well he sells.

« Reply #286 on: November 09, 2022, 11:53 »
0
Why is there a lot of trolls in the topic that discusses bad income on the SS?

« Reply #287 on: November 09, 2022, 13:24 »
+3
Let me remind you in what topic you write here: "SS continues to deteriorate." If you are satisfied with the income from the SS, then what are you doing in this thread? Create your own theme, like what a cool SS, how well he sells.
Oh come on please, stop your personal show  ;D You're a master in confusion, I've never said I'm happy with SS, this year I'm down 30% in earnings. But it's not a disaster, and I follow the thread to listen real opinion, not your conspiracy nonsense claim, or absurde suggestions like "write email, and the day after you will see big sales"  ;D

About the trolls: we all know who is a troll here.
And, you know, only the forum master can kick off a user from a discussion, not you for sure

« Reply #288 on: November 09, 2022, 15:43 »
+3
I have no complaints about other agencies

Really.
You started with first posts in the forum crying against Adobe cause they didn't appreciate so much your great clips and nominate only few for the free section.

trolling trolling trolling....

« Reply #289 on: November 09, 2022, 15:51 »
0
You started with first posts in the forum crying against Adobe cause they didn't appreciate so much your great clips and nominate only few for the free section.
And this is what it's for. What does it have to do with a separate program for a stable monthly income. I must have had more videos nominated than you, so you're jealous.
From you in the subject only flood.

« Reply #290 on: November 09, 2022, 15:55 »
0
I follow the thread to listen real opinion, not your conspiracy nonsense claim, or absurde suggestions like "write email, and the day after you will see big sales"  ;D
1. Unlike you, I write here about my experience and my experiments. You are accusing me of lying.
2. I do not accept flooding and trolling, so I send you to ignore following the rest of your troll friends. Goodbye.

« Reply #291 on: November 09, 2022, 15:56 »
+3
You started with first posts in the forum crying against Adobe cause they didn't appreciate so much your great clips and nominate only few for the free section.
And this is what it's for. What does it have to do with a separate program for a stable monthly income. I must have had more videos nominated than you, so you're jealous.
From you in the subject only flood.

Jealous of you, that understand nothing  ;D 
Adobe doesn't give a monthly stable amount, it's one time offer but you still don't understand nothing  ;D


Thanks for enjoy, bye


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #292 on: November 09, 2022, 18:05 »
+4
Saying that your sales increased after you emailed SS regarding low sales isn't lying. I mean, assuming you haven't made that up, but we'll assume you haven't. But anyway... then interpreting that to mean that SS flicked some kind of switch for you and that they manually decide on the placement or sales performance of individuals isn't far off from a lie. I mean, I can't prove that's not the case, but you also can't prove it is the case.

Feel free to share your facts, feel free to present your opinions (however misguided they may be), but don't present your opinions as facts. And maybe dig a bit deeper into the possibilities for why something is why it is. There's plenty of reasons considerably more likely for your sales increase other than SS feeling sorry for you and deciding to send some more sales your way to make you feel better. I'm guessing they didn't call an emergency board meeting upon receipt of your email. 

« Reply #293 on: November 10, 2022, 03:11 »
0
Saying that your sales increased after you emailed SS regarding low sales isn't lying. I mean, assuming you haven't made that up, but we'll assume you haven't. But anyway... then interpreting that to mean that SS flicked some kind of switch for you and that they manually decide on the placement or sales performance of individuals isn't far off from a lie. I mean, I can't prove that's not the case, but you also can't prove it is the case.

Feel free to share your facts, feel free to present your opinions (however misguided they may be), but don't present your opinions as facts. And maybe dig a bit deeper into the possibilities for why something is why it is. There's plenty of reasons considerably more likely for your sales increase other than SS feeling sorry for you and deciding to send some more sales your way to make you feel better. I'm guessing they didn't call an emergency board meeting upon receipt of your email.
I can prove my words. I have correspondence, there are dates, there are sales statistics on SS. Naturally, I will not attach screenshots, because i am not in court and my privacy is also important to me.
It is unlikely that the SS himself bought my videos after my letters. But my conclusions about not correctly or manually working algorithms, as well as about theft, remain with me. As well as the conclusion that for some reason buyers abruptly left the SS.
Once there was an opportunity to see the income of the SS from the sale of videos, it would be nice to post these statistics for 2018-2022. And if the income of the SS from the sale of videos has not decreased, but the income of the authors has decreased, then the SS is stealing money.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #294 on: November 10, 2022, 05:23 »
+4
Quote
I can prove my words. I have correspondence, there are dates, there are sales statistics on SS. Naturally, I will not attach screenshots, because i am not in court and my privacy is also important to me.

Yeah, I told you I believed you, so don't worry about it!

Quote
But my conclusions about not correctly or manually working algorithms, as well as about theft, remain with me.

Yeah, but you have no way to prove your conclusions so they're just opinions. And it's not even like one of those things where everyone strongly believes something but they can't prove it (Like Zuckerberg being an alien or a robot)... it's just you that strongly believes it and can't prove it, and there's not really anything to give anyone the impression that it might even be happening.   

Quote
And if the income of the SS from the sale of videos has not decreased, but the income of the authors has decreased, then the SS is stealing money.

Did you miss the whole royalty rate reduction and subsequent reset in January every year?! That's basically the very definition of 'the income of the SS from the sale of videos has not decreased, but the income of the authors has decreased'. I mean, I guess that feels a bit like theft, but it's their website and they can do what they want unfortunately.


« Reply #295 on: November 10, 2022, 07:57 »
0
Did you miss the whole royalty rate reduction and subsequent reset in January every year?! That's basically the very definition of 'the income of the SS from the sale of videos has not decreased, but the income of the authors has decreased'. I mean, I guess that feels a bit like theft, but it's their website and they can do what they want unfortunately.
I didn't miss anything. Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions.
So, somewhere there was statistics on the income of the SS from the video, and here it is necessary to cite and analyze it here.
Yes, the site belongs to the SS, so they do what they want.
A normal honest site cannot give a consistently good profit, and then from 2021 it will collapse sharply. This is already a reason for investigation.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #296 on: November 10, 2022, 09:36 »
+3
Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions.

Where did you get this information?

Quote
So, somewhere there was statistics on the income of the SS from the video, and here it is necessary to cite and analyze it here.

Here you go... content.shutterstock.com/investor-report/index.html analyze away!

Quote
A normal honest site cannot give a consistently good profit, and then from 2021 it will collapse sharply.

What?! Well you've said you're not getting a consistently good profit, so by your logic doesn't that make SS a normal honest site? And as for it collapsing sharply in 2021, that may be true for you, and some of the people you've spoken to... but where is your info for this happening to everyone?


« Reply #297 on: November 10, 2022, 10:10 »
0
Where did you get this information?
From my experience. Is this not enough?
Also I read not only this forum.s
You don't shoot a video, don't upload it to SS, which is what you're trying to argue about.

Here you go... content.shutterstock.com/investor-report/index.html analyze away!
OK.
https://d3kqgz5iyf5gxy.cloudfront.net/invester+report+Q3+2022/jarrod-revenue-export.mp4

The income of the SS is growing, while the income of authors is declining. The answer is obvious.

What?! Well you've said you're not getting a consistently good profit, so by your logic doesn't that make SS a normal honest site? And as for it collapsing sharply in 2021, that may be true for you, and some of the people you've spoken to... but where is your info for this happening to everyone?
This forum does not allow editing the post, so if I wrote the text with an error, I cant fix it. I'm saying that a normal honest site can't drastically collapse income.
And for now, we dont see many videographers whose income has not decreased in 2021-2022. What are you trying to prove in the topic of bad SS? Your flood is off topic.


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #298 on: November 10, 2022, 12:45 »
+5
From your experience? No, that's not enough! Please tell me you're not basing "Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions" purely based on when you 'reach the normal percentage of reductions'?

Surely you're getting the point by now... opinions and personal experiences are fine but don't present them as facts unless they are facts. 'I reach the normal percentage of reductions by around March to June'... fine. 'Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions'... not fine, unless you have some stats that are not available to the rest of us.

« Reply #299 on: November 10, 2022, 13:12 »
0
From your experience? No, that's not enough! Please tell me you're not basing "Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions" purely based on when you 'reach the normal percentage of reductions'?

Surely you're getting the point by now... opinions and personal experiences are fine but don't present them as facts unless they are facts. 'I reach the normal percentage of reductions by around March to June'... fine. 'Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions'... not fine, unless you have some stats that are not available to the rest of us.
I do not respond to flood. Therefore, I will not dignify you with an answer.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4769 Views
Last post February 15, 2012, 09:29
by imlumina
11 Replies
4675 Views
Last post November 09, 2012, 16:06
by stockastic
13 Replies
5380 Views
Last post June 24, 2013, 15:35
by Roberto
1 Replies
2949 Views
Last post July 28, 2016, 16:51
by CJH Photography
0 Replies
3805 Views
Last post July 11, 2019, 17:54
by zorba

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors