MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: We are having some impact  (Read 21733 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 14, 2020, 23:13 »
+11
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:

June 1 - 326.401.446 images, 1.146.506 new images per week
June 4 - 325.718.566 images, 1.157.726 new images per week
June 6 - 325.167.887 images, 1.123.492 new images per week
June 8 - 324.236.117 images, 1.062.475 new images per week
June 11- 324.111.510 images, 1.031.537 new images per week
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
June 16- 321.860.122 images, 969.833 new images per week
June 17- 318.526.227 images, 920.525 new images per week
June 18- 318.961.660 images, 903.429 new images per week
June 23 - 320.955.776 images, 921.692 new images per week
June 26 - 321.204.674 images, 886.209 new images per week (updated)

Images amount is reducing, and i think quality too

If this tendency keeps on time, the SS will need to reverse its actions...
« Last Edit: June 26, 2020, 18:33 by Mrblues101 »


Les

« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2020, 01:35 »
+12
The reduction in quality is greater than reduction in volume (which may go eventually up).

« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2020, 01:49 »
+4
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:


June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week


The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035  images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.

« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2020, 02:45 »
0

« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2020, 05:05 »
+5
We also can see it on SS share price
https://www.google.com/search?q=sstk

« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2020, 05:25 »
+4
Stock market was down in general on Friday, it is not SS specific.

Les

« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2020, 05:45 »
+1
SSTK price between 2012 and 2020 going steadily down.

« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2020, 06:45 »
+1
Stock market was down in general on Friday, it is not SS specific.
The attached chart shows last month share price and if you take a closer look you'll see that it is going down since June 8th after it went up since June 2nd

« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2020, 10:32 »
+2
Stock market was down in general on Friday, it is not SS specific.

more generally, SSTK is nothing out of the ordinary compared to the overall stock market level.

The point is that it never made any visible advance b/c shareholder "enthusiasm" about that "brilliant move" of killing off quality suppliers though. (Just have a look at the YoY chart, looks pretty dull anyway :)

Another point, who in their right mind would buy a stock that has a P/E ratio of 75+ (i e you'd have to wait, trust them with your money and kind of sit in a boat with these morons for a flipping 75 years or more before even seeing your money back -- that's not a penny in profits up to that point, in 2095)...

Some investment.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 10:50 by markmagedotcom »

« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2020, 10:46 »
0
Stock market was down in general on Friday, it is not SS specific.
The attached chart shows last month share price and if you take a closer look you'll see that it is going down since June 8th after it went up since June 2nd
Correct! I was only referring to daily change of -2.18% on June 12th.

« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2020, 10:47 »
+1
Stock market was down in general on Friday, it is not SS specific.

more generally, SSTK is nothing out of the ordinary compared to the overall stock market level.

The point is that it never made any visible advance b/c shareholder "enthusiasm" about that "brilliant move" of killing off quality suppliers though. (Just have a look at the YoY chart, looks pretty dull anyway :)

Another point, who in their right mind would buy a stock that has a P/E ratio of 75+ (i e you'd have to wait in sit in a boat with these morons for a flipping 75 years or more before even seeing your money back -- that's not a penny in profits up to that point, in 2095)...

Some investment.
No doubt about that. P/E should be bellow 15 to be attractive.

« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2020, 10:49 »
+9
I think we are loosing track of the fact that by far the majority of the stock is held by insiders.
So what is actually happening is they are taking money directly from artists into their own pockets by way of dividends.
It's a straight up cash grab from us to the people actually making the decisions to reduce our royalties.

In this case the shareholders aren't a third party.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 10:52 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2020, 10:53 »
+8
I think we are loosing track of the fact that by far the majority of the stock is held by insiders.
So what is actually happening is they are taking money directly from artists into their own pockets by way of dividends.
It's a straight up cash grab from us to the people actually making the decisions to reduce our royalties.
And many of them are family members. We are seeing few families getting rich practically doing nothing except sitting in their chairs and waiting for cash. I don't even want to think how far this has gone, it makes me sick.

« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2020, 12:02 »
+12

« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2020, 14:42 »
+1

« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2020, 17:08 »
+3

....

Images amount is reducing, and i think quality too

If this tendency keeps on time, the SS will need to reverse its actions...
whatever your view of the boycott, logic and statistics are still important:   

1. how do you know there's any change in quality

2. current decrease is 0.3% - hardly a tsunami

3. largest number of deletions/disabling will be over next few days - no reason to assume it will continue, and in fact will probably rise when the disablers  become re-enablers


« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2020, 17:15 »
0
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:


June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week


The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035  images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.

only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too


« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2020, 17:56 »
+1
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:


June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week


The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035  images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.

only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too

You ask for evidence but dont look for yourself: just go the Search page Its not a one-off overcount, they only update that stats line roughly once every 24 hours. So at the moment it says there are 323,198,590 images in the collection but the search returns only 321,178,133. Similarly the added weekly was revised downwards in the last hour from 973,279 to 934,868 and is probably now already too high as the downward trend has been consistent since 1 June (when it was 1.16M).

I dont know what constitutes a tsunami in statistical terms but a 19.5% drop in weekly submissions should have the inhabitants of Shittystick island at least looking for a few sandbags.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 18:15 by douglas »

« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2020, 18:28 »
+3
microstock graphic

Are you aware of the Shutterstock terms & conditions that all accounts agree to that say, in part

"You agree that you will not use Shutterstock's Trademarks in any manner that might tarnish, disparage, or reflect adversely on such Trademarks or Shutterstock."

https://www.shutterstock.com/terms

It's possible they won't bother to pursue a legal case, but if you weren't aware that you were probably violating the terms - and wanted to keep your account open for the future - it'd be good to think about the legal aspect of this
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 18:31 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2020, 18:30 »
+11
And we are having an effect. The collection has been growing for years. Now, even though people have been uploading (and there's a lot of repetitive stuff mixed in that just will never sell) the collection is still shrinking

#BoycottShutterstock



« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2020, 23:04 »
+2
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:


June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week


The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035  images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.

only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too

You ask for evidence but dont look for yourself: just go the Search page Its not a one-off overcount, they only update that stats line roughly once every 24 hours. So at the moment it says there are 323,198,590 images in the collection but the search returns only 321,178,133. Similarly the added weekly was revised downwards in the last hour from 973,279 to 934,868 and is probably now already too high as the downward trend has been consistent since 1 June (when it was 1.16M).

I dont know what constitutes a tsunami in statistical terms but a 19.5% drop in weekly submissions should have the inhabitants of Shittystick island at least looking for a few sandbags.
those who make the claim are responsible, not me - why should i do their work?


what numbers are you using to show a 19% drop?
seems like you're you're cherry picking - using a difference in reports for 1 week, but not applying that in previous weeks


 from numbers displayed above:

June 8 - 324.236.117 images, 1.062.475 new images per week
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week

so  1,062,475/993,927 = about a 7% decline in images submitted, < 0.1% in images online


« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2020, 23:45 »
+10
Steve, I'm curious as to what your aim is here with the devil's advocate position. If not portfolio deactivation, what do you suggest is the most constructive course of action for artists who don't want to accept 10 cent commissions for their work?  I'm not trying to be disrespectful, and I apologize if I've missed your answer to this as there has been so much to follow in recent days, I'm just honestly confused about your stance on this issue.

« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2020, 01:03 »
0
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:


June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week


The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035  images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.

only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too

You ask for evidence but dont look for yourself: just go the Search page Its not a one-off overcount, they only update that stats line roughly once every 24 hours. So at the moment it says there are 323,198,590 images in the collection but the search returns only 321,178,133. Similarly the added weekly was revised downwards in the last hour from 973,279 to 934,868 and is probably now already too high as the downward trend has been consistent since 1 June (when it was 1.16M).

I dont know what constitutes a tsunami in statistical terms but a 19.5% drop in weekly submissions should have the inhabitants of Shittystick island at least looking for a few sandbags.
those who make the claim are responsible, not me - why should i do their work?


what numbers are you using to show a 19% drop?
seems like you're you're cherry picking - using a difference in reports for 1 week, but not applying that in previous weeks


 from numbers displayed above:

June 8 - 324.236.117 images, 1.062.475 new images per week
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week

so  1,062,475/993,927 = about a 7% decline in images submitted, < 0.1% in images online

Where do you have this numbers? Try this:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1Sx80IDLCr0-1_ie1a17Rtm4m9fgUwglaxHdyNy2lDCc/htmlview#gid=0

« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2020, 01:52 »
+3
microstock graphic

Are you aware of the Shutterstock terms & conditions that all accounts agree to that say, in part

"You agree that you will not use Shutterstock's Trademarks in any manner that might tarnish, disparage, or reflect adversely on such Trademarks or Shutterstock."

https://www.shutterstock.com/terms

It's possible they won't bother to pursue a legal case, but if you weren't aware that you were probably violating the terms - and wanted to keep your account open for the future - it'd be good to think about the legal aspect of this
Thanks for the info, I decided to delete it. I don't think of keeping my account open, but I would avoid a legal dispute ...

Snow

« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2020, 03:21 »
+10
Steve, I'm curious as to what your aim is here with the devil's advocate position. If not portfolio deactivation, what do you suggest is the most constructive course of action for artists who don't want to accept 10 cent commissions for their work?  I'm not trying to be disrespectful, and I apologize if I've missed your answer to this as there has been so much to follow in recent days, I'm just honestly confused about your stance on this issue.

My guess is these people never stood up for anything in their life so its better for them to contradict our beliefs and actions. They are making up various excuses yet know good and well this change was not at all in their favor and they will lose money, If not now then next year. Even prostitutes would know better.

But I guess if we would all act the same the world would be pretty boring  ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
78 Replies
17774 Views
Last post December 21, 2007, 19:42
by madelaide
5 Replies
3197 Views
Last post March 23, 2008, 15:42
by madelaide
6 Replies
3430 Views
Last post May 03, 2008, 07:06
by a.k.a.-tom
9 Replies
4492 Views
Last post August 18, 2013, 21:34
by RetroColoring.com
39 Replies
2705 Views
Last post August 14, 2020, 14:14
by farbled

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle