MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: StockBoy on March 02, 2015, 23:29
-
Over a year ago I speculated that SS was using some sort of software algorithm to review images, and most people thought I was cracked, but a few took notice.
At some point someone interviewed someone over at SS who eluded to the existence of a piece of software used to review the images and that seemed to confirm my suspicions. It all started when it seemed like all of the sudden a lot of people were getting strange rejections for all kinds of strange reasons, it was almost like an actual person never really looked at the images . . .
That was a while ago, a long while ago. Some folks are still getting these "odd" rejections now and then, and some of us just seem to get them all the time. It did seem strange that a lot of contributors who had been with SS for 10 years or more were all of the sudden producing "crap" out of focus, noisy, poorly lit images.
My latest conspiracy theory is that SS is "throttling" accounts. If you get "odd" rejections, and you complain, or they fail to answer your email questions, and you complain, or just about anything happens, and you complain . . .
. . . it seems that over the next few days, and weeks your sales take a nose-dive for some un-explained reason. Sure you could explain it away as just normal market shift, and if you track it you couldn't pinpoint a logical reason for these "odd" market-fluctuations that cause you sales to dip, but somehow it just seems to consistent with problems and interactions with real people over at SS.
As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."
Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.
I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.
-
I have emailed SS a number of times on rejections I felt were unwarranted. In most cases they agreed and reversed the decision. In a couple of cases they stuck with the reviewers' decision and pointed out why. After looking at the images again I either agreed or at least could see why there might be an issue.
At no time has my account been throttled due to my 'complaints'.
While I like a good conspiracy theory as well as the next person the glaring hole in yours is that SS could not give a rodents rear end about your images, your account, your complaints or anyone else either. They have more new photographers joining everyday than they need and they are not going waste their time throttling anyone for whatever reason. If you tick them off enough they will just close your account and be done with you.
-
Over a year ago I speculated that SS was using some sort of software algorithm to review images, and most people thought I was cracked, but a few took notice.
At some point someone interviewed someone over at SS who eluded to the existence of a piece of software used to review the images and that seemed to confirm my suspicions. It all started when it seemed like all of the sudden a lot of people were getting strange rejections for all kinds of strange reasons, it was almost like an actual person never really looked at the images . . .
That was a while ago, a long while ago. Some folks are still getting these "odd" rejections now and then, and some of us just seem to get them all the time. It did seem strange that a lot of contributors who had been with SS for 10 years or more were all of the sudden producing "crap" out of focus, noisy, poorly lit images.
My latest conspiracy theory is that SS is "throttling" accounts. If you get "odd" rejections, and you complain, or they fail to answer your email questions, and you complain, or just about anything happens, and you complain . . .
. . . it seems that over the next few days, and weeks your sales take a nose-dive for some un-explained reason. Sure you could explain it away as just normal market shift, and if you track it you couldn't pinpoint a logical reason for these "odd" market-fluctuations that cause you sales to dip, but somehow it just seems to consistent with problems and interactions with real people over at SS.
As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."
Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.
I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.
I can say that for Fotolia! Not for SS.
-
Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.
Yeah, and it's true that China and Saudi Arabia held a majority of Shutterstock shares 8) 8)
-
I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.
Done!
-
Over a year ago I speculated that SS was using some sort of software algorithm to review images, and most people thought I was cracked, but a few took notice.
At some point someone interviewed someone over at SS who eluded to the existence of a piece of software used to review the images and that seemed to confirm my suspicions. It all started when it seemed like all of the sudden a lot of people were getting strange rejections for all kinds of strange reasons, it was almost like an actual person never really looked at the images . . .
That was a while ago, a long while ago. Some folks are still getting these "odd" rejections now and then, and some of us just seem to get them all the time. It did seem strange that a lot of contributors who had been with SS for 10 years or more were all of the sudden producing "crap" out of focus, noisy, poorly lit images.
My latest conspiracy theory is that SS is "throttling" accounts. If you get "odd" rejections, and you complain, or they fail to answer your email questions, and you complain, or just about anything happens, and you complain . . .
. . . it seems that over the next few days, and weeks your sales take a nose-dive for some un-explained reason. Sure you could explain it away as just normal market shift, and if you track it you couldn't pinpoint a logical reason for these "odd" market-fluctuations that cause you sales to dip, but somehow it just seems to consistent with problems and interactions with real people over at SS.
As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."
Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.
I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.
That seems to be part of the game they play yup. That goes for all agencies!
-
There is surely a part of software automation in the review process, to analyse the size, the resolution, the type of file, etc.
Then it is very possible that some zombiviewers act like automatic zoftware…
-
Over a year ago I speculated that SS was using some sort of software algorithm to review images, and most people thought I was cracked, but a few took notice.
At some point someone interviewed someone over at SS who eluded to the existence of a piece of software used to review the images and that seemed to confirm my suspicions. It all started when it seemed like all of the sudden a lot of people were getting strange rejections for all kinds of strange reasons, it was almost like an actual person never really looked at the images . . .
That was a while ago, a long while ago. Some folks are still getting these "odd" rejections now and then, and some of us just seem to get them all the time. It did seem strange that a lot of contributors who had been with SS for 10 years or more were all of the sudden producing "crap" out of focus, noisy, poorly lit images.
My latest conspiracy theory is that SS is "throttling" accounts. If you get "odd" rejections, and you complain, or they fail to answer your email questions, and you complain, or just about anything happens, and you complain . . .
. . . it seems that over the next few days, and weeks your sales take a nose-dive for some un-explained reason. Sure you could explain it away as just normal market shift, and if you track it you couldn't pinpoint a logical reason for these "odd" market-fluctuations that cause you sales to dip, but somehow it just seems to consistent with problems and interactions with real people over at SS.
As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."
Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.
I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.
I don't think this is a secret. When they went public they disclosed "proprietary inspection software" and I think it was Gablax who posted the link. Whether they are using it or not is really the discussion, not that they do or don't have the technology....just to be clear.
-
WE CALLED SS REVIEWERS A DIRTY NAME......AND NOW THEY'RE REJECTING ALL OUR STUFF
(http://lotroplayers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/signs1.jpg)
-
Over a year ago I speculated that SS was using some sort of software algorithm to review images, and most people thought I was cracked, but a few took notice.
At some point someone interviewed someone over at SS who eluded to the existence of a piece of software used to review the images and that seemed to confirm my suspicions. It all started when it seemed like all of the sudden a lot of people were getting strange rejections for all kinds of strange reasons, it was almost like an actual person never really looked at the images . . .
That was a while ago, a long while ago. Some folks are still getting these "odd" rejections now and then, and some of us just seem to get them all the time. It did seem strange that a lot of contributors who had been with SS for 10 years or more were all of the sudden producing "crap" out of focus, noisy, poorly lit images.
My latest conspiracy theory is that SS is "throttling" accounts. If you get "odd" rejections, and you complain, or they fail to answer your email questions, and you complain, or just about anything happens, and you complain . . .
. . . it seems that over the next few days, and weeks your sales take a nose-dive for some un-explained reason. Sure you could explain it away as just normal market shift, and if you track it you couldn't pinpoint a logical reason for these "odd" market-fluctuations that cause you sales to dip, but somehow it just seems to consistent with problems and interactions with real people over at SS.
As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."
Oh yeah, the moon landing is fake, bigfoot is real, and so it the Loc Ness Monster, and Elvis is still alive and living in Topeka.
I will now fashion a tin-foil hat to keep the aliens from reading my thoughts, I suggest you do the same.
That seems to be part of the game they play yup. That goes for all agencies!
Regarding the bolded statement, I doubt SS has a team looking for trouble makers. It would be exceedingly difficult and costly for them effect punitive damages on trouble makers in a pool of 50K contributors. What would constitute a troublemaker? Subjectivity? Do they have specific criteria? Who monitors the this? Who decides Joe-Blow is or is not a troublemaker or fits the criteria? They simply would be wasting resources on this.
Now, it is probably doable...I mean the RC system and ranking used to play a role in image/artist placement during search. FT was a good example of this and Deposit Photos I recall offered "selective placement" for those who were invited and submitted to them. So it's certainly doable if the technological model is right, but I just don't think SS would waste a "formal process" to enact punitive punishment on select contributors, although it certainly does feel like it at times. Punitive is more around what Fotolia does/did to contributors who voiced disagreement with them...."THE MIGHTY CHAD BIRDCALL" just closed your account without ANY explanation from the terms.
-
I was going to hit the AGREE button but fear retaliation.
-
So a billion dollar publicly traded company is picking on contributors who ask questions about rejections? :o
-
So a billion dollar publicly traded company is picking on contributors who ask questions about rejections? :o
He did say there was a high level of conspiracy theories.
-
So a billion dollar publicly traded company is picking on contributors who ask questions about rejections? :o
Didn't you get booted from FT Ron?
I don't think the OP was talking about rejections in specific. It could be anything from complaining on their forums or via support to exposing their methods publicly.
-
Pretty much the way I see it and they have answered on the SS forum and here that a human looks at every reviewed image. (not every image, the computer rejects some for failure to meet minimum standards, saves time and labor) Now if it's too small or some other flaw, duplicate, or who knows what other technical reason, that a computer can pre-test.
Why are they paying 200 reviewers if it's a computer?
As for following and punishing, I'm in the group with the rest who think SS is too big to care, or take action against what people write on a forum, or on their blogs. We already know that other top four sites have closed accounts for blog posts and messages on forums.
Anyone ever been kicked off SS for the same?
Yes I've had some strange and bizarre rejections, (the weekend conspiracy theory) and the last time I asked for a rejection review outside of those, strange ones, I got a nice detailed answer why, and what I should do to fix it.
There is surely a part of software automation in the review process, to analyse the size, the resolution, the type of file, etc.
Then it is very possible that some zombiviewers act like automatic zoftware…
-
So a billion dollar publicly traded company is picking on contributors who ask questions about rejections? :o
I saw similar situations in big companies. Reasons were different: from corporate security to games of employees
-
I saw similar situations in big companies. Reasons were different: from corporate security to games of employees
You bring up a good point. No, Shutterstock, the billion dollar publicly traded company doesn't give a crap, they are busy making their trips to the bank and to their summer homes, but think about Lobo-esque type employees who 1. feel they have the "power", and some contributors need to be taught lessons, or maybe 2. employees who feel they should be getting a higher wage for their work, given that the company IS a billion dollar one, so they are spiteful towards other people. Then you got your passive-agressive people. And so on.
Sometimes it sure FEELS like a reviewer or someone at SS might have it in for contributors. Could these tinfoil hat scenarios happen? Certainly, and I think in small instances it probably does. For the most part, no, it's probably just coincidence.
-
I rarely get rejections, never wrote to them to complain about anything, and grow my portfolio regularly. Yet I am down almost 50%.
Either this theory is not true or they just don't like me.
-
I rarely get rejections, never wrote to them to complain about anything, and grow my portfolio regularly. Yet I am down almost 50%.
Either this theory is not true or they just don't like me.
which comes to my theory that the email approval eff-up is just the part of the crumbling system...
your down almost 50% ... and for others too i am sure...
is not because they don't like you but that clients are not getting to see what they want to see
due to IT eff-up.
sales are down ... if not for the rare $20 to $120 single large earning... that
as someone here pointed out before... is rescue to a bad month to month for many if not some of us.
-
As cracked at it sounds, I think SS is "flagging" certain accounts and those accounts get much "harsher" reviews, or the images get shuffled to the bottom of the database if you appear to be a "trouble-maker."
Well there's two thoughts here.
Do agencies keep an eye on people who appear to them as trouble-makers? Yes, absolutely. I think we have some good examples of people being booted from forums or even the agency itself.
Would they modify the system to flag a problematic account? Why not? I design software and businesses do it all the time. What about the nutjob who calls their tv/phone/cellphone provider several times a day every day and complains non-stop about everything? Good chances are their account is flagged with some internal problem code. Another example but the opposite. Big spenders at a casino. They get flagged as a high roller and get all kinds of perks. So it's entirely possible when it comes time to review Mr. Troublemaker's images they may come with an alert for the reviewer who can then auto-reject them and move on.
-
What about the nutjob who calls their tv/phone/cellphone provider several times a day every day and complains non-stop about everything? Good chances are their account is flagged with some internal problem code.
confirm.
that's exactly what we did in one of my jobs in IT multinationals many years ago, actually our CRM software was specifically designed to keep track of this kind of issues and as far as i know from former colleagues this is the norm in any big respectable company otherwise it would be a total mess to deal with clients.
-
Why waste time and resources on bullying people and not just boot them off then? If they would auto reject everything someone submit they wont even be making money of them. So you keep them at a cost just to bully them?
-
From company management POV it is not wasting. I did contract jobs in many companies, and saw a lot. In 90% of them HRs and managers believe that negative attitude from top is positive for company. They don't care how it affects employees, more important that they should feel "the power". I feel myself lucky that i do freelancing.
-
i never had strange rejections...
i've just got a batch of some 3d printing machine rejected because of color/light/white balance: these pictures were actually really manipulated in color correction by be so it was not a surprise the rejections, i just tried it, because i thought that if these images would have passed the review they were more "sellable" as the final result is not common and "cool"...but it was rejected, so i've corrected white balance and now they're on my port.
the only not positive thing is that my sales are stable while but i'm uploading much more...but this is just due to a massive uploading from thousand contributors
-
Why waste time and resources on bullying people and not just boot them off then? If they would auto reject everything someone submit they wont even be making money of them. So you keep them at a cost just to bully them?
If they got rid of everybody that spoke negatively online about an agency they would be getting rid of a lot of people. That then would circulate on social media and cause outrage, more negative opinions, and more people getting dumped. It eventually would blow up and be bad for everybody. If instead they just quietly and ambiguously give people a time-out it gets the same result without the bad PR. The person just stops submitting, complains a little, then quietly goes away and becomes some other agency's problem.
-
Why waste time and resources on bullying people and not just boot them off then? If they would auto reject everything someone submit they wont even be making money of them. So you keep them at a cost just to bully them?
If they got rid of everybody that spoke negatively online about an agency they would be getting rid of a lot of people. That then would circulate on social media and cause outrage, more negative opinions, and more people getting dumped. It eventually would blow up and be bad for everybody. If instead they just quietly and ambiguously give people a time-out it gets the same result without the bad PR. The person just stops submitting, complains a little, then quietly goes away and becomes some other agency's problem.
i don't think it can go on forever like it is now, if we look at POD sites the trend is very clear for instance so why it shouldn't end up the same way for stock agencies sooner or later ?
besides, we're witnessing a visible drop in sales of DSLRs in favor of smartphones, what will be the direct impact on stock ? less newbies with cheap canon rebels ? less stockers ?
-
Were there, or coming very close. It was inevitable .
-
I upload to the top 11 sites and of late SS will reject about 80 percent of my images. The other 10 sites will accept nearly 100 percent of the same images. If my images suck that is fine but when the other good sites accept them something is stinky in Denmark. The good part is that I see sites like Istock Dreamtime and fotolia selling better for me this year than in past. I have to believe SutterStock has put some type of robot inspectors in their system. But you know what always happens when you enlist robots ..they rebel and take over your company........
-
Very good image resampled from 24 to 8 mpx gets rejected for focus.
A week later the same image now resampled from 24 to 7 mpx is aproved.
Different reviewers have different criteria, but that's just my 2 (euro)cents.
-
Yesterday was exceptionaly good. Today was the extreme opposite with just a pathetic, soul destroying 0.33 cents. This is def becoming the pattern I am noticing.
-
Very good image resampled from 24 to 8 mpx gets rejected for focus.
A week later the same image now resampled from 24 to 7 mpx is aproved.
Different reviewers have different criteria, but that's just my 2 (euro)cents.
if the focus checking is automated using an algorithm downsizing to 8mp won't help much, i guess it will check for areas with higher pixel density vs blurred areas with visible bokeh (background vs foreground) ... maybe at 7mp it reaches the minimum requirements for acceptance ? are you sure those images are actually properly focused ? are you sure they aren't getting soft during resize ?
-
All my batch of images are rejected as well as 2 editorial ones needing "proper editorial caption" of which I had already done correctly.
-
I usually do not have strange rejections... It happensa that I see strange acceptance :)