MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS not reporting sales? - Solved  (Read 13927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2014, 07:09 »
+2
Image Gallery Stats is Beta
A beta version of a software is far to be a fully working version, so what can we expect of it?
How can you think that it is reliable?

Probably somebody did not yet understood what is the Beta version of a software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle


The Image Stats Page is not rocket science. The gallery stats are a very simple database query. The page pulls information from 5 database fields in a table. 

Pulling the information from the "Total Purchases" field with a query is very simple and requires very little programming skill. The information should be 100% correct or something is wrong with the database, access to the database or the the application which should be writing data to the field.

If the sales application on the the buyer side which is supposed to populate the database field "Total Purchases" is not writing image sales information to the database field. It is not working properly and this is a real problem. It means that either the application is not working, access to the database is limited or the database itself has issues.



dbvirago

« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2014, 07:18 »
+6
I don't think Shutterstock is doing anything malicious either, but there does seem to be something wrong. This seems to happen occasionally and many contributors complain about it here and on the site. This is the third day in a row where I've had no overnight sales. This never happens, not even on a weekend. The sales overnight, which is Europe and Asia, make up about a third of my daily sales. Without those, my daily revenue tanks. Others have reported normal overnight sales, but then nothing during the day. Both of these cases are odd enough, yet happening to enough people at the same time to warrant concern.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2014, 07:27 »
0

The Image Stats Page is not rocket science.
Rocket science or not, "beta" means "beta".

If they were sure that it is perfectly working they will not indicate that it is *beta*
Period.

« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2014, 07:51 »
0
All of this speculation hinges on the assumption that `popular` and `undiscovered` are determined soley by sales and not by sales and views.  No way to know since SS does not report views to us.  Or tell us how the sort works.

But why ask here? Just email SS.  Certainly no one here can give you an answer.

This would be easy to determine. Just sign in as a buyer or have a friend do it and view one of your files that shows up on the undiscovered page. If you view it multiple times and it still shows up you have ruled out views as an image attribute that dictates its inclusion under the undiscovered tab.

« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2014, 08:07 »
+2
There is also a time factor to be considered. My Image Gallery Stats page says that it's only updated once per day, which might be an explanation for the TO's observations.

To be honest, I find it rather courageous to use a title like "SS not reporting sales!" based on the evidence of a beta tool - at least put a question mark there...

« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2014, 08:28 »
+1
There is also a time factor to be considered. My Image Gallery Stats page says that it's only updated once per day, which might be an explanation for the TO's observations.

To be honest, I find it rather courageous to use a title like "SS not reporting sales!" based on the evidence of a beta tool - at least put a question mark there...

In my observations I took files from the same batch, where time is not a factor. Other contributors are having the same results and so would you, if you take the time to look into your files.

The real question is: why unsold files are not appearing in the undiscovered search?
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 08:33 by Nikovsk »

Valo

« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2014, 08:34 »
+1
I have to say, if you don't know the parameters for a file to qualify for the undiscovered tab, it is a long shot to conclude that sales are not being reported, when a file doesn't show up there.

« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2014, 08:43 »
0
I have to say, if you don't know the parameters for a file to qualify for the undiscovered tab, it is a long shot to conclude that sales are not being reported, when a file doesn't show up there.

First because some time ago when you moused over undiscovered it said "be the first to download these images". Second because all my sold files do not appear in the search. Third because all the unsold files are there, except those that are messed up in the Image Gallery Stats. I believe I have a strong case here.

Now let's wait for SS to come here and we'll take it from there.

« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2014, 08:44 »
+1
In my observations I took files from the same batch, where time is not a factor. Other contributors are having the same results and so would you, if you take the time to look into your files.

You see, I did. I have 3457 files in my SS portfolio, 2606 of which have sold at least once. My "undiscovered" tab contains 851 photos, exactly as it should - so color me unconvinced...

« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2014, 08:52 »
+2
In my observations I took files from the same batch, where time is not a factor. Other contributors are having the same results and so would you, if you take the time to look into your files.

You see, I did. I have 3457 files in my SS portfolio, 2606 of which have sold at least once. My "undiscovered" tab contains 851 photos, exactly as it should - so color me unconvinced...

That's because you counted from the end of the 1 files in Image Gallery Stats. If you would be so kind to find a 0 downloads image in the middle of the 1's and search it like a buyer in undiscovered you won't find it there.

« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2014, 08:55 »
0
In my observations I took files from the same batch, where time is not a factor. Other contributors are having the same results and so would you, if you take the time to look into your files.

You see, I did. I have 3457 files in my SS portfolio, 2606 of which have sold at least once. My "undiscovered" tab contains 851 photos, exactly as it should - so color me unconvinced...

That's because you counted from the end of the 1 files in Image Gallery Stats. If you would be so kind to find a 0 downloads image in the middle of the 1's and search it like a buyer in undiscovered you won't find it there.

I counted the sold files from my private database, the mother of all EXCEL-sheets...

« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2014, 08:57 »
+2
So you don't have any 0 downloads image in the middle of the 1's in Image Gallery Stats?

« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2014, 09:30 »
+1
*sigh* After clicking through 30+ pages, I found 4 images (among 600+), some of them even listing the keyword with which they were downloaded. Still, to me this suggests a more innocent explanation, like promotional use...

« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2014, 09:38 »
+1
*sigh* After clicking through 30+ pages, I found 4 images (among 600+), some of them even listing the keyword with which they were downloaded. Still, to me this suggests a more innocent explanation, like promotional use...

Thanks for your feedback (+1) so now we can be sure there are files downloaded and not reported.
I didn't agree to sell images for free.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 09:43 by Nikovsk »

« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2014, 09:43 »
-1
*sigh* After clicking through 30+ pages, I found 4 images (among 600+), some of them even listing the keyword with which they were downloaded. Still, to me this suggests a more innocent explanation, like promotional use...

Thanks for your feedback (+1) so now we can be sure there are files downloaded and not reported.
I didn't agree to sell images for free.
They might also be lost during aborted connections/downloads or for any number of reasons. In my case we are talking about four downloads over the course of eight years...

What is your relation between "lost" downloads and files with 1 download?

Personally, I think that it is an illusion, that a database the size of the SS catalog is (a) bug-free itself and (b) that the data in it is perfect...

« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2014, 09:46 »
+1
Well I have 7 images among 55 with 1 download. That's not including the images with 1 download in the middle of 2's, 2 downloads in the middle of 3's and so on. This has potencial to be over 20% of sales. All that in only 5 months.

« Reply #41 on: August 22, 2014, 10:55 »
-1

I should say that I don't think there is anything amiss with Shutterstock. I'm not sure what the discrepancies are, but I don't think they are malicious.

No, not malicious.  But it is a problem if sales are not being reported right for any reason.  Especially if many people reporting the same issue.

I guess what I'm saying, that you're not understanding, is that the problem me only be superficial and getting your knickers all bunched up over it isn't worth the time or frustration.


« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2014, 12:18 »
0
I used five of my own images in a facebook ad campaign.  All the sales appeared within a day.

why would you pay to use your own photos?

If he have a subscription already, why not?

« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2014, 12:24 »
+2

I should say that I don't think there is anything amiss with Shutterstock. I'm not sure what the discrepancies are, but I don't think they are malicious.

No, not malicious.  But it is a problem if sales are not being reported right for any reason.  Especially if many people reporting the same issue.

I guess what I'm saying, that you're not understanding, is that the problem me only be superficial and getting your knickers all bunched up over it isn't worth the time or frustration.

My knickers are fine.  I didn't start the topic and I am not all that worried based on SS track record.  But silly to ignore a wide spread issue.  MAY be superficial, but still needs investigated.

« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2014, 12:30 »
+3

The Image Stats Page is not rocket science.
Rocket science or not, "beta" means "beta".

If they were sure that it is perfectly working they will not indicate that it is *beta*
Period.

I am convinced that contributors can explain away any issue at shutterstock, the blinders are firmly in place.

In this case your "Beta" has been in place for several years. Any decent developer could have the bugs stomped out on a simple query by the end of the day.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2014, 12:46 »
0
And when they stomp out the bugs what do they do next?

It is called Job Security they fix something and break something else so they can keep working, people have been doing this for years in the Automotive industry with the cars onboard computers and it will never change in todays technological world, just get worse.


The Image Stats Page is not rocket science.
Rocket science or not, "beta" means "beta".

If they were sure that it is perfectly working they will not indicate that it is *beta*
Period.

I am convinced that contributors can explain away any issue at shutterstock, the blinders are firmly in place.

In this case your "Beta" has been in place for several years. Any decent developer could have the bugs stomped out on a simple query by the end of the day.

« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2014, 12:49 »
+10
Personally I have full confidence in Shutterstock as a business, their technical capability and their reporting of all sales within a reasonable amount of time.

I've been with them since Nov 2004 and have never had an issue with them. I just wish I could say the same for some other agencies.

If an agency wanted to reduce money paid to contributors (especially a public quoted business who get audited to high standards) then they would be more likely to start with changes to the royalty structure, claw-backs due to 'fraud', etc, etc.

The SS website has had virtually zero downtime since day 1. All modifications to the site have been achieved seamlessly over many years. They are the last agency I would accuse of either incompetence or deliberate fraud ... which essentially s what the OP is accusing them of.


« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2014, 13:10 »
0
Great speech. Still doesn't explain keywords for unsold files.

Goofy

« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2014, 13:32 »
+2
Great speech. Still doesn't explain keywords for unsold files.

More of a 'Warning' instead of a speech in my eyes  8)

« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2014, 13:51 »
+11
From a technical estimate... the ordering issues described by the OP are probably caused by 1 or both of 2 technical possibilities:

1) Sharding: Different servers store records for different files, since sorting and filtering are often performed by different process, especially at low levels, some unusual ordering may well happen, especially at lower numbers (which are access less often) and at the scale Shutterstock operate. SS have HUGE amounts of data to store and route.

2) Caching: As different searches are performed, various datasets are cached, then the cached records may be consolidated on display to the user. There's nothing odd about this, though does suggest maybe their processes nearer the user could be optimised.

Add to that that if they were hiding sales, it'd probably be a lot more messed up than it already is (as we've seen with smaller agencies a few years ago who were caught hiding (or just losing) sales).

I've met f2f most of Shutterstock's top technical guys over the years (at conferences) and I'm 100% certain they're not doing anything dodgy and only have the best interests of everyone involved at the heart of their operations... besides, Shutterstock makes enough money as it is, stock photo subscription models are usually highly lucrative :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
57 Replies
9462 Views
Last post April 25, 2014, 04:38
by gostwyck
19 Replies
3753 Views
Last post June 10, 2014, 18:58
by emblem
24 Replies
3845 Views
Last post February 16, 2016, 17:29
by Red On
Pond5 Sales Reporting

Started by stockVid « 1 2  All » Pond5

48 Replies
11894 Views
Last post April 17, 2016, 00:40
by thepokergod
11 Replies
2636 Views
Last post August 28, 2016, 14:02
by Minsc

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results