MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Nikovsk on August 21, 2014, 18:05
-
Today I came to the conclusion that SS is NOT reporting all sales. Here's why:
1 - When I go to the Image Gallery Stats and sort by downloads, it's not really in order. There are files with 0 sales in front of files with 1 sale, files with 2 sales in front of files with 3 sales and so on. No big deal so far.
2 - In my Image Gallery sorted by Popular, I have files with 0 downloads side by side with files with 1 download, being both recent images uploaded in the same batch. Ok getting suspicious now.
3 - Again in the Image Gallery sorted by Undiscovered, those same files with apparently 0 downloads DO NOT appear in the search, meaning they were sold.
Rest assured that I have nothing in the Delayed Earnings tab.
This must be investigated. Check your own stats and you will probably see the same for some specific images. I first noticed a few months ago but thought it was just a one image bug - and after checking again I'm pretty convinced this is happening.
I would like to hear an official explanation for this.
-
Today I came to the conclusion that SS is NOT reporting all sales. Here's why:
1 - When I go to the Image Gallery Stats and sort by downloads, it's not really in order. There are files with 0 sales in front of files with 1 sale, files with 2 sales in front of files with 3 sales and so on. No big deal so far.
2 - In my Image Gallery sorted by Popular, I have files with 0 downloads side by side with files with 1 download, being both recent images uploaded in the same batch. Ok getting suspicious now.
3 - Again in the Image Gallery sorted by Undiscovered, those same files with apparently 0 downloads DO NOT appear in the search, meaning they were sold.
Rest assured that I have nothing in the Delayed Earnings tab.
This must be investigated. Check your own stats and you will probably see the same for some specific images. I first noticed a few months ago but thought it was just a one image bug - and after checking again I'm pretty convinced this is happening.
I would like to hear an official explanation for this.
I completely agree. Something is wrong. Today and yesterday were like weekends. I am 50-80 percent lower than my average.
-
The easiest images to spot are the ones with 0 sales in front 1 sale on the "Image Gallery Stats" tab when you sort by total purchases. Then check your "Image Gallery" sorted by undiscovered and you won't find those files there.
-
what the? really?
-
Today I came to the conclusion that SS is NOT reporting all sales. Here's why:
2 - In my Image Gallery sorted by Popular, I have files with 0 downloads side by side with files with 1 download, being both recent images uploaded in the same batch. Ok getting suspicious now.
I would like to hear an official explanation for this.
yes, just checked, popular has a bunch of non-sellers, and worse, new images which have never seen the light of day.
oh well, i am sure there is nothing wrong with it ;)
just the usual glitch like the robotic reviewers :-X
there is no cause to be alarmed ,chill !!! :-X
-
I see clips appear on that cute little map that shows where sales are made and I never see the cute little entry on the sales grid. I wondered about this lately.
-
Since it was introduced the Image Gallery Stats has been buggy and it's still listed as a beta function, I wouldn't put much faith in the numbers it displays. As to whether all sales are being reported or not I have no idea.
-
I completely agree. Something is wrong. Today and yesterday were like weekends. I am 50-80 percent lower than my average.
Mantis, I don't think the unreported sales are that relevant. From my data it's about 10% of sales maybe? And it's not new, this has been going on at least for 3 months.
I see clips appear on that cute little map that shows where sales are made and I never see the cute little entry on the sales grid. I wondered about this lately.
Zeus, I don't remember ever seeing these suspect images showing up in the map.
Since it was introduced the Image Gallery Stats has been buggy and it's still listed as a beta function, I wouldn't put much faith in the numbers it displays. As to whether all sales are being reported or not I have no idea.
Fair enough. But I have a recent series of 5 images which only one was sold. When I do an "undiscovered" search on SS like a buyer, why only 2 images show up instead of 4? That's 2 unreported sales right there.
Either their whole search system is buggy (which I doubt) or sales are not showing up.
Try it with your own images. This is really worrisome.
-
It always amazes me when contributors discount database errors.
The applications should be pulling the correct information 100% of the time. If not that is conformation that the database information is incorrect, jacked up or that the applications that use that information are not working correctly.
Thanks for sharing this info, I have know for some time that the most popular sort order is not showing the correct sort order. It looks like they have demoted some of my files because they show up below images that have fewer sales.
On inspection I also have some files that supposedly have 0 downloads which are not showing up on the undiscovered page. They pull these files using code that contains a database query. All the files which have zero downloads should be populating the undiscovered page.
-
It always amazes me when contributors discount database errors.
The applications should be pulling the correct information 100% of the time. If not that is conformation that the database information is incorrect, jacked up or that the applications that use that information are not working correctly.
I don't like to blow my own horn, but I have 30 years of experience in software development. And I agree with gbalex 100%. If the data is inconsistent, then something is wrong. And it could be VERY wrong. There's no way to know until the root cause of the problem is correctly identified.
If someone calls you and says he sees smoke coming out of your attic, you don't sit back and tell yourself well, it's just the attic, I don't go up there much.
-
I see clips appear on that cute little map that shows where sales are made and I never see the cute little entry on the sales grid. I wondered about this lately.
Zeus, I don't remember ever seeing these suspect images showing up in the map.
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.
-
I asked shutterstock several weeks ago about apparent footage sales shown on the map, but didn't ever show up on the daily sales page. They replied that when a customer downloads a purchased footage clip, after the initial sale, it still can show up on the map.
-
I asked shutterstock several weeks ago about apparent footage sales shown on the map, but didn't ever show up on the daily sales page. They replied that when a customer downloads a purchased footage clip, after the initial sale, it still can show up on the map.
So if the buyer goes back to get the clip again for whatever reason, it shows on the map but they don't pay for it because they already have?
-
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.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle)
-
there's only one way to catch them red handed : buying a dozen of your images over a few days and see if all the sales are reported correctly, carefully taking screenshots of every step.
this could be a signal that they're desperate to show steady growth to their investors in wall street when they know very well that the stock industry is stable and is not growing at all so in the best scenario SS sales will remain the same or similar over time and there's no reason for their stock quotation to keep growing at all ... actually it's already overestimated by a long shot and it can only go down sooner or later.
-
there's only one way to catch them red handed : buying a dozen of your images over a few days and see if all the sales are reported correctly, carefully taking screenshots of every step.
this could be a signal that they're desperate to show steady growth to their investors in wall street when they know very well that the stock industry is stable and is not growing at all so in the best scenario SS sales will remain the same or similar over time and there's no reason for their stock quotation to keep growing at all ... actually it's already overestimated by a long shot and it can only go down sooner or later.
Be careful, that is not allowed as per the Shutterstock TOS. Better have a friend from another country buy some images to cover tracks.
But I do not think Shutterstock is deliberately under-reporting sales. Database errors could still be an issue. I am constantly amazed by how poor sales are lately. 3 big ales this month take attention away from the fact that my sales are abysmal. If they have data base issues, that would explain.
-
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.
-
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.
I highly doubt a customer support agent is going to tell you that there is an issue, even if there is one. For the simple fact, they will not know. The reply will be polite and telling you all is fine and dandy. As always.
The only benefit is that if enough people send emails, someone from HQ will take note and maybe an explanation in the forum will follow.
ETA: I do think you are correct in saying views also count against their image stats.
-
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…
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle[/url])
So their whole search is Beta? It could be something like what happened to P5, but it's going on for so long that I don't know what to think of. It could be special buyers getting content for free. Who knows? Until we get a detailed explanation from the SS guy, I won't pretend everything is fine.
-
I used five of my own images in a facebook ad campaign. All the sales appeared within a day.
-
e. You may not use the Shutterstock service as a means of transferring your Content to a single customer or to a small number of customers nor may you download your own Content. Such activity constitutes a material breach of the TOS. If you engage in such activity, Shutterstock may avail itself of all rights it has hereunder, including but not limited to terminating your account and/or retaining any accrued but unpaid royalties.
https://submit.shutterstock.com/terms/
-
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…
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle[/url])
So their whole search is Beta? It could be something like what happened to P5, but it's going on for so long that I don't know what to think of. It could be special buyers getting content for free. Who knows? Until we get a detailed explanation from the SS guy, I won't pretend everything is fine.
I don't know if the whole search is Beta, but you cannot rely on Beta software to test anything and draw valid conclusions.
And about the "Undiscovered" in the portfolio page, as I know it exists only in english, in the other languages it is called (something like) "random" (Aléatoire in French, Casuale in Italian, Al azar in Spanish, случайные in Russian, etc.), so if think that the use of the word "Undiscovered" could be a mistake.
-
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?
-
Using Shutterstock images in Facebook ads is free, though we still get paid for the usage.
-
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…
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
So you don't have any 0 downloads image in the middle of the 1's in Image Gallery Stats?
-
*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...
-
*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.
-
*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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Great speech. Still doesn't explain keywords for unsold files.
-
Great speech. Still doesn't explain keywords for unsold files.
More of a 'Warning' instead of a speech in my eyes 8)
-
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 :)
-
*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.
You base your proof only on the wrong numbers in the gallery stats. If those files would not show zero, you would not have detected anything.
Can you be sure that these files (showing zero downloads in gallery stats) have never reported a sale? I.e. have you checked every single day since upload of the file(s) in question in the earnings tab (to my knowledge that's the only way to really see if a specific file was downloaded on shutterstock)?
If not, maybe those sales have been reported, but "only" the numbers of the gallery stats are wrong.
And to gbalex: Assuming that you can get any data out of the shutterstock database with "just a simple database query" is a bold assumption. Given the size of data they have to process and the performance requirements they have, I doubt that data presented to contributors is retreived with simple SQL statements from one big master database...
It's likely a lot more complex, and a lot more likely to include some bugs in a beta-feature.
-
You base your proof only on the wrong numbers in the gallery stats. If those files would not show zero, you would not have detected anything.
Can you be sure that these files (showing zero downloads in gallery stats) have never reported a sale? I.e. have you checked every single day since upload of the file(s) in question in the earnings tab (to my knowledge that's the only way to really see if a specific file was downloaded on shutterstock)?
If not, maybe those sales have been reported, but "only" the numbers of the gallery stats are wrong.
True, files with 1+ downloads are nearly impossible to track and nobody could prove anything only with them. But yes I check stats every day, and new images with no sales are easy to follow, specially with a small portfolio. Sales were never reported unfortunately.
-
Hello All,
Thanks for your questions.
A royalty payment is made for every paid license of Shutterstock product. One of the benefits of working with Shutterstock is that, as a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, we are audited by major accounting firms. Our downloads, licenses, and royalty payouts go through multiple layers of scrutiny to ensure that they are correct, and the officers of the company certify the results of those audits as our financial numbers are reported to the public.
As far as the sort orders are concerned, I'm looking into it, but [I believe] what you're seeing is potentially the result of search testing. Search tests are typically run with a small percentage of the user population. If a test results in more customer downloads, it would be adopted more broadly. The goal of testing is to increase customer downloads, which ultimately delivers more royalties to contributors.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
Thanks Scott for the prompt reply.
But how can a image with no sales have keywords relevance?
Is the Image Gallery Stats not working properly?
Please let us know when you have more information about it.
-
I gave up relying on keyword stats per image.
On an average day 90% of my downloads have no keywords attached and i have a hard time believing someone stumbled on the images all the time browsing categories or random clicking instead of entering a search time so i concluded its unreliable.
Shame as it would be nice to know with accuracy which keywords are and aren't working.
I don't think it impacts on sales, merely the display to the submitter isn't and never has worked.
-
Hello All,
Thanks for your questions.
A royalty payment is made for every paid license of Shutterstock product. One of the benefits of working with Shutterstock is that, as a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, we are audited by major accounting firms. Our downloads, licenses, and royalty payouts go through multiple layers of scrutiny to ensure that they are correct, and the officers of the company certify the results of those audits as our financial numbers are reported to the public.
As far as the sort orders are concerned, I'm looking into it, but [I believe] what you're seeing is potentially the result of search testing. Search tests are typically run with a small percentage of the user population. If a test results in more customer downloads, it would be adopted more broadly. The goal of testing is to increase customer downloads, which ultimately delivers more royalties to contributors.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
poor lighting...
-
Hello All,
Thanks for your questions.
A royalty payment is made for every paid license of Shutterstock product. One of the benefits of working with Shutterstock is that, as a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, we are audited by major accounting firms. Our downloads, licenses, and royalty payouts go through multiple layers of scrutiny to ensure that they are correct, and the officers of the company certify the results of those audits as our financial numbers are reported to the public.
As far as the sort orders are concerned, I'm looking into it, but [I believe] what you're seeing is potentially the result of search testing. Search tests are typically run with a small percentage of the user population. If a test results in more customer downloads, it would be adopted more broadly. The goal of testing is to increase customer downloads, which ultimately delivers more royalties to contributors.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
poor lighting...
+1
And the focus is not where we think it should be.
-
I don't understand why from the contributor side I see the "undiscovered" option in my portfolio (with other three options), but different persons told me that from the customer side this option is not present when searching in a specific portfolio.
So if it is like this it is completely useless, no?
-
Hello All,
Thanks for your questions.
A royalty payment is made for every paid license of Shutterstock product. One of the benefits of working with Shutterstock is that, as a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, we are audited by major accounting firms. Our downloads, licenses, and royalty payouts go through multiple layers of scrutiny to ensure that they are correct, and the officers of the company certify the results of those audits as our financial numbers are reported to the public.
As far as the sort orders are concerned, I'm looking into it, but [I believe] what you're seeing is potentially the result of search testing.
Search tests are typically run with a small percentage of the user population. If a test results in more customer downloads, it would be adopted more broadly. The goal of testing is to increase customer downloads, which ultimately delivers more royalties to contributors.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Could you please explain why a search test which does result in downloads does not record or write those downloads for the image that has been downloaded to your database field "Total Purchases".
And you could you please explain why the sort order by download is not correct.
<th id="downloads" class="sortable sort_desc">
<a href="gallery.mhtml?sort_direction=desc&sort_order=downloads">Total Purchases[/url]
<div class="sort_order"></div>
</th>
-
Hello All,
Thanks for your questions.
A royalty payment is made for every paid license of Shutterstock product. One of the benefits of working with Shutterstock is that, as a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, we are audited by major accounting firms. Our downloads, licenses, and royalty payouts go through multiple layers of scrutiny to ensure that they are correct, and the officers of the company certify the results of those audits as our financial numbers are reported to the public.
As far as the sort orders are concerned, I'm looking into it, but [I believe] what you're seeing is potentially the result of search testing. Search tests are typically run with a small percentage of the user population. If a test results in more customer downloads, it would be adopted more broadly. The goal of testing is to increase customer downloads, which ultimately delivers more royalties to contributors.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
I believe you. I have been with Shutterstock for 9 years, and you are the last stock company I am still with because of the reasons previously mentioned: your site is reliable, there have not been any shenanigans with payments, etc. You have been solid.
But one thing I do want to say is that there are PLENTY of companies out there that are a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, and are audited by major accounting firms, and yet people still get bilked out of money. That used to be a statement that would instill confidence. Today? Not so much.
-
I think SS is working on search optomisation, because while some people are reporting that summer months are worst ever, others are happy with lots of sales. And all of that doesn't sound right.
As for me, August is pretty much disspointing, it has some more days to make it right, but the first half sound like it's Saturday day after day.
-
I guess the major accounting firms does not audit SS site codes! ;)
-
However and whatever they've done I will be $300 down over my average this month. All of a sudden, very few OD's, low subs and minimal special sales. VERY VERY discouraging.
-
However and whatever they've done I will be $300 down over my average this month. All of a sudden, very few OD's, low subs and minimal special sales. VERY VERY discouraging.
I agree, something is rotten in the state of SS. As you said, fewer sales, almost no ODs, let alone SDs. Not only do I sell fewer photos, but also WHAT is selling seems weird to me: If something sells it's probably some obscure and quite old photo, my proven bestsellers are quite dead in August.
Additionally I have three photos (out of ten) stuck in the review queue for more than a week now - that never has happened to me before in the eight years I'm with SS.
-
So if most of us are reporting terrible sales (if any at all) what benefit is all this to SS ? They need telling really.
-
I agree, something is rotten in the state of SS.
It certainly is... I'm not seeing decline of sales but I do see a lot of new files messed up in the Image Gallery Stats. We can hope it's a bug and SS reports the alleged sales or at least be able to provide a reasonable explanation to why the search and sale reports are not working properly.
Because the only reply given by Scott so far lack Focus - subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus.
-
So if most of us are reporting terrible sales (if any at all) what benefit is all this to SS ? They need telling really.
Most of us? Most of us here that take the time to comment maybe, but many MSG members lurk and do not post in these forums. Taken as a whole there are far more contributors at SS then are members of this forum. For everyone not getting sales, someone else is.
-
" For everyone not getting sales, someone else is."
This is the same old nonsense that IS peddle. If anyone says anything not positive some IS cheerleader will chip in to suggest that those doing well say nothing. My experience is that those saying nothing are doing equally badly, they are just so dispirited they can't be bothered.
-
Newbies have no benchmark, they will think they do well, but have no idea of the heydays, they will report good sales and high percentages. Making 50 dollar this month and 100 dollar next month is 100% growth. Making 1000 dollar this month and 1100 dollar next month is 10% growth. 50 dollar is 100% in one case, and 100 dollar is 10% in the other case.
Long time contributors have a benchmark, they will know better if they do well or not, and I don't think the big players will come out and say such things here in a forum or elsewhere for that matter. The only one who did that was Yuri and my guess is, he won't come out again saying he isn't doing well Getty.
One thing is certain, we will not get back the heydays.
Another thing is certain, it is impossible for everyone to see the same amount of growth and success as a few years ago. Simply because there are more images accepted then ever. A few years ago it was around 90,000 images per week. Now it is close to 300,000 images per week, referring to Shutterstock. The contributor base doubled in about 3 years but the paid out earnings did not.
Shutterstock is doing better then ever, in terms of library growth and revenue growth, but the earnings are spread thinner every month for individual contributors. People will make less and less, and it will be harder to keep up, yet Shutterstock will never state that sales per individual have gone down. The only comment they will keep repeating is that they have paid out more earnings than ever. Sure. ::)
-
" For everyone not getting sales, someone else is."
This is the same old nonsense that IS peddle. If anyone says anything not positive some IS cheerleader will chip in to suggest that those doing well say nothing. My experience is that those saying nothing are doing equally badly, they are just so dispirited they can't be bothered.
+1
blame it on upbringing. when as a child TV is blasting u with "don't worry be happy" ..., "put on a happy face " ... shoeless beggar being grateful while looking at another beggar with no legs, etc...
the SS IS cheerleader ms-tocker is that shoeless beggar exemplifying contentment , looking up to his'her SS-IS deity saying, "at least I still have my legs !!!"...
for now ... while his/her colleagues have long gone jumped off the cliff ;)
-
Because the only reply given by Scott so far lack Focus - subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus.
correction :
i think the actual wording is something to the effect of ...
focus is not where we think it should be ;)
-
The iS-cheerleader has regenerated and feels his old posts weren't relevant any more, so deleted them.
I don't think there are any more in msg. Even the main one on iS is quivering a bit.
-
The iS-cheerleader has regenerated and feels his old posts weren't relevant any more, so deleted them.
I don't think there are any more in msg. Even the main one on iS is quivering a bit.
Ha. I see you're still trolling on here. I don't think I said the posts weren't relevant, I thought moving on and restarting with more focus on the important things was what I should do. I've moved on, maybe it's time for you to do the same? Hopefully you have more to offer than just trying to insult other people here?
-
The iS-cheerleader has regenerated and feels his old posts weren't relevant any more, so deleted them.
I don't think there are any more in msg. Even the main one on iS is quivering a bit.
Ha. I see you're still trolling on here. I don't think I said the posts weren't relevant, I thought moving on and restarting with more focus on the important things was what I should do. I've moved on, maybe it's time for you to do the same? Hopefully you have more to offer than just trying to insult other people here?
Sorry, did I mention you?
But if the cap fits ...
-
The iS-cheerleader has regenerated and feels his old posts weren't relevant any more, so deleted them.
I don't think there are any more in msg. Even the main one on iS is quivering a bit.
Ha. I see you're still trolling on here. I don't think I said the posts weren't relevant, I thought moving on and restarting with more focus on the important things was what I should do. I've moved on, maybe it's time for you to do the same? Hopefully you have more to offer than just trying to insult other people here?
Sorry, did I mention you?
But if the cap fits ...
Ok, you're added to my ignore list. I have no desire to argue with trolls. You can continue your insults without me.
-
This is very peculiar forum.
-
Sue been posting for years here. She uses same name as on Istock. She never change her name or went anonymous. I am confused. By what definition is she a troll?
-
Sue been posting for years here. She uses same name as on Istock. She never change her name or went anonymous. I am confused. By what definition is she a troll?
The only other person to accuse me of trolling was Lobo.
;D
(It's not exactly the same name, but I make no effort to be anonymous, nor have I had another account or name here.)
-
Sue been posting for years here. She uses same name as on Istock. She never change her name or went anonymous. I am confused. By what definition is she a troll?
The only other person to accuse me of trolling was Lobo.
;D
(It's not exactly the same name, but I make no effort to be anonymous, nor have I had another account or name here.)
For whatever it's worth I always enjoy your insights.
-
Sue been posting for years here. She uses same name as on Istock. She never change her name or went anonymous. I am confused. By what definition is she a troll?
There was no reason to bring me into this discussion nor to be insulting in doing so. Look around and you can see nearly every day people are leaving this site. Name calling to earn points or for whatever the reason was is not doing anyone any good. I've put her on ignore so hopefully I have no reason to be in this thread anymore and people can discuss the topic at hand without that distraction. Isn't that what this site is for?
-
[…] Look around and you can see nearly every day people are leaving this site. […]
… And every day new people are arriving.
So are forums…
-
Sue been posting for years here. She uses same name as on Istock. She never change her name or went anonymous. I am confused. By what definition is she a troll?
The only other person to accuse me of trolling was Lobo.
;D
(It's not exactly the same name, but I make no effort to be anonymous, nor have I had another account or name here.)
we know SS IS wolves lurk here in sheep clothing , so u never know ;)
-
Sue been posting for years here. She uses same name as on Istock. She never change her name or went anonymous. I am confused. By what definition is she a troll?
The only other person to accuse me of trolling was Lobo.
;D
(It's not exactly the same name, but I make no effort to be anonymous, nor have I had another account or name here.)
we know SS IS wolves lurk here in sheep clothing , so u never know ;)
I think that there are site reps here, however I don't think ShadySue, is one of them.
Both she and ticktock have relevant info to contribute to our conversations. The sites most likely love it, when we are at each others throats.
-
Back on topic
Since shutterstock is representing our work, they really do need to explain how and why their site is writing relevant keyword information to their database field "Downloads per Keyword:"
While they are not recording any sales for the concurrent/linked images to those keywords in the "Total Purchases" database field.
-
Sue been posting for years here. She uses same name as on Istock. She never change her name or went anonymous. I am confused. By what definition is she a troll?
There was no reason to bring me into this discussion nor to be insulting in doing so. Look around and you can see nearly every day people are leaving this site. Name calling to earn points or for whatever the reason was is not doing anyone any good. I've put her on ignore so hopefully I have no reason to be in this thread anymore and people can discuss the topic at hand without that distraction. Isn't that what this site is for?
I see you found your old name again. Somebody told me you were an IS spy. I don't know where these rumors come from. Now somebody says Sue, who's an IS exclusive, is working for SS? That's more then name calling, and out of place.
The iS-cheerleader has regenerated and feels his old posts weren't relevant any more, so deleted them.
I don't think there are any more in msg. Even the main one on iS is quivering a bit.
Right after he was exposed as the same peep. I don't know why Leaf allows anonymous people to swap names, it doesn't change anything. They are still unwilling to stand behind their posts with a real name.
There's no reason for SS to fail to report sales, and using a beta search or site list to claim this is wrong. Premium customers also get preview downloads free. I don't have these errors and I can't look at the keywords used to see if they are from the right pictures. Could be just another database error. SS or IS have no reason to cheat us to make a few pennies more.
-
I don't know why Leaf allows anonymous people to swap names, it doesn't change anything. They are still unwilling to stand behind their posts with a real name.
Good point Mr. Batman.
Now how about keeping me out of this I have nothing to add to this discussion, bringing me into it is just distracting from any real issue there might be.
-
I don't know how this thread turned into a 4 year old fight. Can we please stay focused on the issue here?
It's been a week since the topic was created we're yet to hear a decent reply from SS. If this is just a mistake, why they don't simply come here and explain reasonably why we are seeing all the facts mentioned so far?
Don't get me wrong, SS is the best agency. It's clear, reliable and with a great communication with contributors. I guess we all appreciate that, but we have to know what's happening there so we can all move on.
-
There's no reason for SS to fail to report sales, and using a beta search or site list to claim this is wrong. Premium customers also get preview downloads free. I don't have these errors and I can't look at the keywords used to see if they are from the right pictures. Could be just another database error. SS or IS have no reason to cheat us to make a few pennies more.
Because you do not see these errors does not mean that other people are as fortunate as you are.
Shutterstock takes advantage of the fact that people do not understand databases or site applications.
Image Gallery Stats is not a search and the page has nothing to do with the buyer search. Sales information recorded or written to the shutterstock database for our images should be correct 100% of the time.
The "Image Gallery Stats" page is simply a database query that reports what is stored in the database fields for each image in your portfolio. Thus it is called Image Gallery Stats. It is the information that shutterstock has recorded for each sale we have in our portfolio for each and every image.
The information is pulled based on each individual image ID in your own gallery via your Shutterstock Gallery ID "Shutterstock ID:"
The simple query pulls information from just 6 database fields in several tables in shutterstocks database and this is a very simple thing to do. The fields the query pulls information from are as follows.
"Downloads per Keyword:"
"Total Purchases"
"Total Earned"
"Date Uploaded"
"Image Thumbnail"
"Image Description"
It is not so hard to understand that if the database field "Downloads per Keyword:" has keyword information in it, a buyer has purchased and downloaded a file. Thus the database - field label, Downloads per keyword.
-
I'm with you and I'll try to stay on topic. I thought someone from SS did come here, or am I imagining things? Something about promotional DLs? And even though gbalex makes some points, I'm for now a fan of "Database Errors" until someone can locate a suitable explanation that establishes that A) We are missing DLs and credit is due or B) There's a reporting error of some sort, and we aren't missing income.
I can't make the leap of logic, that SS is not reporting sales is a fair assumption based on some keywords showing for images with no sales, or Undiscovered showing or not showing some image. I mean, didn't someone say they had files with DLs showing in that? I've never seen proof, just someone saying that.
I don't know how this thread turned into a 4 year old fight. Can we please stay focused on the issue here?
It's been a week since the topic was created we're yet to hear a decent reply from SS. If this is just a mistake, why they don't simply come here and explain reasonably why we are seeing all the facts mentioned so far?
Don't get me wrong, SS is the best agency. It's clear, reliable and with a great communication with contributors. I guess we all appreciate that, but we have to know what's happening there so we can all move on.
-
It is strange that some of the newest uploads are showing up in the first spot when sorted by most popular even though they've never been downloaded but I guess it's possible that none of the other files have ever been downloaded before.
-
SS is a good seller but somehow, with many big or small reasons, I do not completely trust the company.
-
SS is a good seller but somehow, with many big or small reasons, I do not completely trust the company.
Have you met the other players yet?
-
SS is a good seller but somehow, with many big or small reasons, I do not completely trust the company.
Have you met the other players yet?
Yeah, 5 years ago.
-
Hi guys,
Sorry for the delay, but we put together a high-level FAQ addressing some questions raised in this and other threads. Doing this FAQ- or article-style is sometimes more practical than addressing lots of individual variations of similar questions, but hopefully this sheds some light on the questions raised. Part of this is a re-post from a thread at SS; but I've also added info specific to the topics in this thread.
Understanding Search
We often get asked how our search rankings work. The first important thing to note is that there isn’t one singular search and discovery experience at Shutterstock. In addition to the core search experience at Shutterstock.com (http://www.shutterstock.com), we have Palette (http://www.shutterstock.com/labs/palette/), Instant (http://www.shutterstock.com/labs/instant/), Spectrum (http://www.shutterstock.com/labs/spectrum/), and People search (http://www.shutterstock.com/labs/people/); mobile apps like our iPad app (http://www.shutterstock.com/app.mhtml); as well as different sort orders such as “New,” “Popular,” “Relevant,” and “Undiscovered.” We also have Bigstock (http://www.Bigstock.com) and Offset (http://www.offset.com). There are many ways for customers to get to your images, including direct visits from Google (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=business+stock+photos), and many ways for them to filter the collection for specific file types like vectors or video. We localize our results for specific countries as well - i.e., it makes sense for Japanese customers searching in Japanese to see the most appropriate results for their own language.
Our search rankings are complex and based on a number of factors. Keywords, freshness, and popularity (downloads) all factor into search results. We focus on providing customers with the best image that matches their needs and we don’t favor specific contributors or portfolios. Location can be a factor when the search query calls for it (for example, ‘streets of New York’), or when region-specific results are appropriate.
We believe that if we always match the best possible media with a customer, over time this will lead to more satisfied customers, and in the end more downloads (and more royalties) for our contributors. That belief has delivered over 400 million paid image licenses to date.
How is my media ranked in each sort order?
The Shutterstock search engine uses a wide variety of factors to match a customer with the media he or she is looking for. This engine is tuned to generate four types of search experiences, or sort orders: New, Popular, Relevant, and Undiscovered. You can think of a sort order as a customized version of the core search experience.
The algorithm that powers the Relevant sort order tries to find the best match between what a customer’s needs and the media that best serves those needs. To do this we leverage a wide variety of factors, including how well the query matches the keywords, but also factors such as downloads or other data. There is no one factor that dictates the position media will appear in the search results; rather, it is a combination of many different factors.
The New sort order is a subset of the Relevant sort order, but with an emphasis toward newer content. Older content can and does appear in the New sort order, but will be ranked lower than relevant newer content.
The Popular sort order is similar to Relevant, but it factors downloads much more strongly than the Relevant sort order. However, highly relevant content with less downloads will still rank well than less relevant content with lots of downloads.
Finally, the Undiscovered sort order is similar to the Relevant sort order, filtered so as to only include results with zero downloads.
Why is my media not showing up higher in the popular sort order even if I have more downloads?
The Popular sort order leverages downloads and other customer signals to boost popular results higher than they would appear in the Relevant sort order. While downloads is a significant factor, it is not the only factor, and a very good relevance match will take precedence. Also, media that is ranked well in one query will not necessarily be ranked well in another. For example, a family at the dinner table might rank quite highly for the query “Family”, but not as high for the query “Family at the Beach”, even if it has more downloads than higher ranked photos in that query.
Why is my photo with zero downloads not showing up in ‘undiscovered’?
The Undiscovered sort order is similar to the Relevant sort order, filtered so that all results have zero downloads. Depending on whether the results above have downloads, for each query media with zero downloads will appear in the same or better position as the ‘Relevant’ sort order. If your media doesn’t appear in the Relevant sort order it won’t appear in the Undiscovered sort order either. Like all sort orders, the search result position will depend primarily on how well the query matches to the media.
Sometimes there’s a delay in the time it takes for our algorithms to register a download, and media will briefly remain in the undiscovered sort order even after it has been downloaded.
Image Gallery Stats
The Image Gallery Stats page as been in beta and can include “preview” or “comp” images provided to trusted companies like major advertising agencies for consideration for purchase. We’ve discussed those images elsewhere in public forums, but those preview downloads are part of enterprise agreements where customers are paying up to hundreds of dollars for a license once they select an image for actual use or purchase (with royalties of up $120 or more). There is no usage license granted until the buyer purchases the image. Preview or “Comp” images for these types of enterprise buyers are very common in the stock industry. Shutterstock contributors earn much higher royalties for downloads when an actual purchase is made.
It’s important to note that your Earnings Summary is the primary place to find your paid downloads; the Image Gallery Stats page should not be used for that purpose.
Download Map
The Download map shows an assortment of recent customer downloads of your images, which could include preview images (see above) and redownloads. The location on the map is an approximation, due to the size of the map and other considerations. Like gallery stats, the download map should be looked at as a source of interesting information, not the place to derive highly precise information about your downloads and earnings.
About Testing, and Making Changes Thoughtfully
Search is powered by a set of services that include machine-learning algorithms: a type of software that is able to improve over time. In a very simple sense, the goal of an algorithm is maximize downloads. To get the right media in front of a customer, the algorithm takes many factors into account, such as how well the keyword matches a search query, or the past success of this particular photo, music clip, or video. For some search queries, customers are looking for newer content or content that has not been used before, and the algorithm will leverage factors such as the age of the media; for other queries, age is less important. There are many, many other factors that the algorithm takes into account, and we are adding more every day. One of the ways we improve our algorithm over time is to add new factors. We are also frequently making small changes in how the algorithm weighs these factors.
In practice, some of the changes we make dont always work out for the best, so when we make a change, we need a way of knowing if it’s a good idea. We achieve this through an experimentation process called A/B testing. In an A/B test, a typically small amount of our customer base is put into an experiment in which we’ve changed the algorithm, and we’ll measure how well it performs relative to a control group. There are often many such experiments going on at Shutterstock, and its probable that you’ve been in more than one if you are a regular Shutterstock user. If a change results in more downloads or improvements in other key metrics, it will usually find its way into the production experience. If not, we’ll move on and try something else. You can think of the process a little like evolution – we are constantly getting slightly better through a process of trial and error in very small amounts. In general, we will only ship an algorithm change if it results in more downloads, and thus more income for our contributors.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
In general, we will only ship an algorithm change if it results in more downloads, and thus more income for our contributors.
That's a little bit ingenious, more downloads or income for SS as a while is not the same as benefiting a contributor on an individual basis.
-
Hi GnirtS,
An individual contributor could be affected by a single tweak to the algorithm, but experiments are generally pretty small in terms of exposure to the customer user base, and as mentioned, our algorithm is constantly maturing. Performance should be viewed over many experiments, and in the sense that downloads are gradually increasing across the entire business, it should almost always be a net positive over time as the customer base expands - there are over 1 million customers looking for images at Shutterstock, and as mentioned, we've passed 400 million paid downloads.
We study a lot of data and individual portfolio performance, and what I've found is that the things that affect performance in a far greater way are often things that you have control over (keywording, image quality, aesthetics, upload regularity, upload timing, subject matter, etc.). There are many portfolios and individual images that will outperform based on the latter. Sometimes, surprisingly so - images with the same subject matter can see huge differences in downloads based on how they were keyworded, composed, retouched, etc.
Best,
Scott
-
Thanks Scott - Topic solved.
-
Thank-you Scott for that very concise search explanation.
-
Hi GnirtS,
An individual contributor could be affected by a single tweak to the algorithm, but experiments are generally pretty small in terms of exposure to the customer user base, and as mentioned, our algorithm is constantly maturing. Performance should be viewed over many experiments, and in the sense that downloads are gradually increasing across the entire business, it should almost always be a net positive over time as the customer base expands - there are over 1 million customers looking for images at Shutterstock, and as mentioned, we've passed 400 million paid downloads.
We study a lot of data and individual portfolio performance, and what I've found is that the things that affect performance in a far greater way are often things that you have control over (keywording, image quality, aesthetics, upload regularity, upload timing, subject matter, etc.). There are many portfolios and individual images that will outperform based on the latter. Sometimes, surprisingly so - images with the same subject matter can see huge differences in downloads based on how they were keyworded, composed, retouched, etc.
Best,
Scott
Hi Scott,
Does "upload timing" have more to do with seasonality? If not can you elaborate?
-
Other than seasonal because of the way SS works (or until very recently when it just stopped working) you never ever wanted your photos approved on a Friday night or Saturday.
Generally new images are given a priority for a certain amount of time before being deranked by popular if they hadn't sold. You could have 100 images go live on a Friday night but due to the search engine by the time people actually started buying on Mondays the images had sunk without trace never to sell. It used to be all about timing stuff to go live on Monday to maximise exposure chance.
-
Hi Scott,
Does "upload timing" have more to do with seasonality? If not can you elaborate?
It could be due to seasonality, or a variety of other factors. For example, "Christmas" search traffic begins in September or October, so you need to decide whether you want to capitalize on print publications or other paper-based products and retailers who might be putting layouts together months in advance, or digital buyers who are looking for images closer to the event itself. Like any business in an open marketplace, you also need to think about how you're differentiating yourself from other sellers in the market. If every other contributor is uploading Christmas ornaments in December, what are you doing differently in terms of timing, content or keywords?
Similarly, weight loss topics tend to peak in January (http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=weight%20loss) as people make their New Years resolutions.
If you're porting a full portfolio from another site, for example, and then put 3,000 images on all subjects up on the site all at once on a Friday afternoon in late July, that's not as thoughtful as spacing your uploads apart and trying to align peak customer traffic with differentiation and demand for your content.
With 1 million customers, we often encourage contributors to treat the marketplace as a great place for doing their own testing. Use Custom Sets and try uploading different topics at different times; pay attention to seasonality; watch Google Trends (http://www.google.com/trends/) and try different topics out; space your uploads apart, etc. Again, the contributors who do that tend to outperform those that don't.
This list is very basic (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/10-ways-to-find-trends-and-inspiration), but if you think about how some of those topics align with seasonality, that's the gist.
Again - sorry - I know some of this is basic, but it definitely helps.
Best,
Scott
-
My autumn photos started selling beginning of August.
This week my xmas and snow stuff started going.
It's the usual 2-3 month lead time for timed events.
-
Yeah, the trick there is that as you get closer to the event, search traffic can rise, but so can competition for a particular topic. I think the key thing is to figure out how to best time your uploads, but also do something different / better, with robust and high quality keywords. Customers can pick out things that are exceptional, different or unique, even within highly covered topics, and the quality keywording ensures that you've covered the bases. It's amazing - you can see it in the download numbers - one image of [insert highly covered topic here] can get thousands of downloads while others of the exact same topic will get dozens. It's because one contributor did more with styling, keywording, image quality, timing, etc..., and customers respond to that image over the others.
The other important thing to note is that with 1 million customers - we're getting millions upon millions of searches. There's still a ton of demand. Some topics (Christmas, arrow icons, etc.) can be highly covered, but there are lots of others that aren't.
-S.
-
Holding back works too. Get a lot of photos on a topic (example autumn). Submit some to go live the beginning on August, keep the rest until the following year then do it again.
Far better that way until waiting until you get a chance to shoot autumn leaves then submitting them all at that time.
-
Oh, that sounds complicated. Will give it a shot and see if "timing' the shots right helps :)
BTW how possible is it that some of my rejects were due to the quality of my post processing rather than the quality of the image itself? Let me find some and post them to this forum
-
....It's amazing - you can see it in the download numbers - one image of [insert highly covered topic here] can get thousands of downloads while others of the exact same topic will get dozens. It's because one contributor did more with styling, keywording, image quality, timing, etc..., and customers respond to that image over the others.......
I have heard this a couple of times, but honestly I think that a lot comes down to luck.
We see that a certain image racks up loads of downloads then try to analyze "why that image and not the other several thousand similar ones?" Using hindsight like that it's easy to come up with reasons that may or may not be true, or only partially be true.
Of course it has to be a quality usable image, but with the size of the library now there are many thousands of other images down in the searches of a similar quality and usability that aren't getting the downloads because that one happened to rack up several downloads initially. If you've studied randomness you know that strings of occurrences do happen more frequently then we would normally assume given their statistical improbability, the statistically probable only plays out as expected over the longer term. These images are promoted in the search after each of these random(ish) downloads, increasing their chances of future downloads.
If you are one of the contributors producing top end images getting one of these is increasingly like winning the lottery, rather than anything you can make happen, past creating content in this top tier. The idea that if we only study the top downloads enough we can come up with a sure fire formula for creating a winning image is just not true.