MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: We are having some impact  (Read 17322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Les

« Reply #125 on: July 15, 2020, 04:16 »
+6
From here on its all downhill and if one accepts this deal then next year you be working for 0.2c per sale and so on! they had it all in the palm of their hand and blew it sky high!
Even if they get over this which they will their name is tarnished forever and buyers will eventually react! in the creative circle a bad name is the very worst that can happen a service and sooner or later they will bite the dust.

wishful thinking -misquoting Keynes 'sooner or later we all bite the dust'

buyers don't care and probably don't even know -  as 'everyone' keeps saying SS is making more $$

Of course, SS is making more money - by stealing from you.


« Reply #126 on: July 15, 2020, 06:04 »
+5
From here on its all downhill and if one accepts this deal then next year you be working for 0.2c per sale and so on! they had it all in the palm of their hand and blew it sky high!
Even if they get over this which they will their name is tarnished forever and buyers will eventually react! in the creative circle a bad name is the very worst that can happen a service and sooner or later they will bite the dust.

wishful thinking -misquoting Keynes 'sooner or later we all bite the dust'

buyers don't care and probably don't even know -  as 'everyone' keeps saying SS is making more $$
The fun part is that they are also pissing off the buyers as a lot of sites show. So pissed employees, pissed buyers and now super pissed contriburors. It'll survive for a few years but this tree is rotting from within and will fall

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk


« Reply #127 on: July 15, 2020, 07:10 »
+8
From here on its all downhill and if one accepts this deal then next year you be working for 0.2c per sale and so on! they had it all in the palm of their hand and blew it sky high!
Even if they get over this which they will their name is tarnished forever and buyers will eventually react! in the creative circle a bad name is the very worst that can happen a service and sooner or later they will bite the dust.

And on Jan. 1 there will be a whole new group of angry contributors, when they are reset to the lowest level and the 10 cent images start rolling in, basically cutting their earnings by half or so.

« Reply #128 on: July 15, 2020, 16:47 »
+9
Some pictures to illustrate where we are. Collection numbers bouncing back don't tell the story. Searches I tracked back when they started the new scheme have fewer results today than they did then, even though the overall numbers look about the same

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283517312130101248

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283475482617368576


« Reply #129 on: July 15, 2020, 17:02 »
0
Some pictures to illustrate where we are. Collection numbers bouncing back don't tell the story. Searches I tracked back when they started the new scheme have fewer results today than they did then, even though the overall numbers look about the same

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283517312130101248

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283475482617368576


Muchas gracias.

SS does not exist, thanks for reporting. Your fight is impressive, thanks. Your information is exquisite, always. however, SS does not exist. Translation, you're talking about a company that doesn't exist.

It must be treated as something from the past. For its end, not even with nostalgia. We all endured, because it was the one that sold the most. Whether or not SS sells is no longer relevant. Does not exist.

You have to talk about SS properly. SS does not exist.

Regards.

« Reply #130 on: July 15, 2020, 17:11 »
+4
Maybe it's hard to understand me. You are important. Your time is important. SS is not important. SS is NOTHING. Zero.

« Reply #131 on: July 15, 2020, 17:15 »
+2


...
SS does not exist, thanks for reporting. ...
It must be treated as something from the past. For its end, not even with nostalgia. We all endured, because it was the one that sold the most. Whether or not SS sells is no longer relevant. Does not exist.

You have to talk about SS properly. SS does not exist.

sounds like trump - if we don't test, there's no covid19

saying it 3 times doesn't make it so

.... and their checks continue to clear

« Reply #132 on: July 15, 2020, 17:26 »
0
Very good. Thank you, you made me laugh. In a way, we must learn even from Trump.


I ask the administrator of this forum to remove this company from the surveys.

I ask the administrator, in the SS Section, put, Shutterstock Section, DOES NOT EXIST AS AN AGENCY.

Radical Denialists, This Agency, HERE, in this forum, DOES NOT EXIST. Only memes and negative SS information are supported.

Exactly how they treat us.

« Reply #133 on: July 15, 2020, 18:41 »
+5
I don't understand how anybody can still rationalize image and video uploading to SS.

Let's say you made a reasonably good image and hope to sell it 100 times over the life of the image. Very optimistically, you can assume an average price of 15c per download. Under these assumptions, you'll make in total measly $15 from that one image. Of course, there will be other images which will sell only once or never.

Hey Les,

Agree totally.  The pure fact that SS has not lowered prices to customers but drastically cut our royalties makes it very clear that this is a massive, greedy money grab from our hard work.  That fact alone is enough for me to delete my work there.  I also closed my Bigstock account today.  I just don't trust SS to not somehow use the images in there as a workaround to the same images deleted on SS. Scumbags.

« Reply #134 on: July 15, 2020, 19:14 »
+7
Not to mention the SS dangled a carrot in front of our noses a few years ago promising that if you work your butts off and sell more images your commission would rise and the minimum payout would increase from $0.33 to $0.36us and so on. They obviously thought their trained monkeys could easily be manipulated. Hence the $0.10us minimum.

« Reply #135 on: July 16, 2020, 01:12 »
+3
From here on its all downhill and if one accepts this deal then next year you be working for 0.2c per sale and so on! they had it all in the palm of their hand and blew it sky high!
Even if they get over this which they will their name is tarnished forever and buyers will eventually react! in the creative circle a bad name is the very worst that can happen a service and sooner or later they will bite the dust.

wishful thinking -misquoting Keynes 'sooner or later we all bite the dust'

buyers don't care and probably don't even know -  as 'everyone' keeps saying SS is making more $$


Of course! there is nobody here living in some fools paradise about our little action is going to topple SS they will still thrive and sell their guts out!  who cares really. Remember Istock many years back?

Anyway you want to back a company like this and upload? you want them to get more money down their pockets and throw you the beans?  fine! but I don't!  my grass is greener elsewhere and a heck of a lot more healthy! :)

« Reply #136 on: July 16, 2020, 02:04 »
+1
This week the weekly amount of images uploaded have a dramatic reduction from almost 900k to 578,128
That's sadly because they had a bug where new approved images would not show up starting Saturday or even Friday and the problem was fixed yesterday, on Tuesday, so new images were added to the database for 4-5 days, even though new images were submitted. So obviously not having new images in the database for more than half a week is having an impact on the number. It's not because of less images having been submitted.

« Reply #137 on: July 16, 2020, 03:10 »
+4
Some pictures to illustrate where we are. Collection numbers bouncing back don't tell the story. Searches I tracked back when they started the new scheme have fewer results today than they did then, even though the overall numbers look about the same

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283517312130101248

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283475482617368576
The new images that are getting uploaded are not just bad images but they are horribly keyworded and described. Hence the issues with search. My guess, Its just plain pathetic garbage to act as filler to fool the public investors while the shares are offloaded.

The extra commission shows as an earning spike, portfolios  swell, profits go up, sell and run



Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk


csm

« Reply #138 on: July 16, 2020, 03:25 »
+5
Wow, down to 500 000 new images added this week.
And at a quick glance, what do I see, a woman feeding goats, an empty mug, some ducks, a broken flower pot, an electric meter, 60 odd images of abstract water colours, go karting, a snail, some hay bales, I could go on. No offence to any of those people who took those images, but they are snaps, and it is an insult to artists who work hard to produce the best work they can, only for it to sit beside work like I've seen.
These aren`t going to bring in the clients.
I haven't been paying attention to Fresh Content for a while, I'm sure the quality has dropped looking at these. Put these images on the front page please, seems to me what they want and what they are getting are two different things.
Please keep sending them in!
And with numbers going up as they are, really how is your image of a hay bale going to be seen and realistically sold?

csm

« Reply #139 on: July 16, 2020, 03:57 »
+2
Got page 10, and thinking how many pages do I need to go back to find the kind of images you seen on the front page?

Looking at these images and then look at lifeatshutterstock on Instagram.
I`d like to see the staff spend more time editing than posh lunches.
If they cannot see the folly in their current business model...

« Reply #140 on: July 16, 2020, 10:51 »
+1
According to the Adobe study, which put a link in this forum, customers acquire their products, generally, in the first third of the search for Recommendations. Therefore, the SS client acquires, in terms of probability, on the first third of the Relevant pages.

conclusion, it does not matter the quality of the great professional phenomena of photography that comment in this forum on Art, and images with the highest image technology, it does not matter exactly the number of handsome and smiling models per image.

While passing the quality control, I see more merit in passing the image of a hay bales made by a mobile phone, which is necessary for when a customer needs a hay bales (alpaca), than investing in equipment, models, and knowledge of whites, thirds, depth and color to be buried by other professionals or not, buried by those that SS decides should be in Relevant.

I do not think that quality is something objective in Art, less in the Microstock business, where there are clients who are looking for "A bee wing on a watermelon on a lonely green table in the Sahara desert". To that client, finding their image has nothing to do with an overexposed image.
I don't think there is a valid microstock quality range for 0.10.

None of the best images in history is characterized by its quality.

100-year-old photographers would never imagine the quality of cell phones.

The best photographers do not hesitate to recognize the advantages of a mobile.


There are things that can be done with a mobile phone that cannot be done with a camera.
Your quality, with all due respect, does not give me more value than a hay bale.
SS's excessive professionalism is what makes SS not exist. I pass olimpicamente of all that that boasts of what it does not have.
SS quality is low, who says so? You? Who are you?

What if newbies, mobiles, factories in Russia, low-income countries.

I think SS is dead, and some professional is crying too much.

« Reply #141 on: July 16, 2020, 11:07 »
+3
Translation, SS is transmitting, that it has all the quality of the universe for the next 20 years, that if more files are uploaded or not, it is not relevant.

In addition, he is indicating with his attitude that he has already shared a lot of benefit with professional photographers for a long time.

SS is indicated with his attitude that he doesn't need you anymore. You must assume it.


« Reply #142 on: July 16, 2020, 20:34 »
0
This week the weekly amount of images uploaded have a dramatic reduction from almost 900k to 578,128
That's sadly because they had a bug where new approved images would not show up starting Saturday or even Friday and the problem was fixed yesterday, on Tuesday, so new images were added to the database for 4-5 days, even though new images were submitted. So obviously not having new images in the database for more than half a week is having an impact on the number. It's not because of less images having been submitted.

I see now :(

« Reply #143 on: July 18, 2020, 00:32 »
0
According to the Adobe study, which put a link in this forum, customers acquire their products, generally, in the first third of the search for Recommendations. Therefore, the SS client acquires, in terms of probability, on the first third of the Relevant pages.

conclusion, it does not matter the quality of the great professional phenomena of photography that comment in this forum on Art, and images with the highest image technology, it does not matter exactly the number of handsome and smiling models per image.

While passing the quality control, I see more merit in passing the image of a hay bales made by a mobile phone, which is necessary for when a customer needs a hay bales (alpaca), than investing in equipment, models, and knowledge of whites, thirds, depth and color to be buried by other professionals or not, buried by those that SS decides should be in Relevant.

I do not think that quality is something objective in Art, less in the Microstock business, where there are clients who are looking for "A bee wing on a watermelon on a lonely green table in the Sahara desert". To that client, finding their image has nothing to do with an overexposed image.
I don't think there is a valid microstock quality range for 0.10.

None of the best images in history is characterized by its quality.

100-year-old photographers would never imagine the quality of cell phones.

The best photographers do not hesitate to recognize the advantages of a mobile.


There are things that can be done with a mobile phone that cannot be done with a camera.
Your quality, with all due respect, does not give me more value than a hay bale.
SS's excessive professionalism is what makes SS not exist. I pass olimpicamente of all that that boasts of what it does not have.
SS quality is low, who says so? You? Who are you?

What if newbies, mobiles, factories in Russia, low-income countries.

I think SS is dead, and some professional is crying too much.


I don't really know what you are trying to say??  SS have not got any excessive professionalism if thats what youre saying?  they have full-time photographers working with them and of course anybody doing photography as a full-time living is classified as a Pro!
The camera is just a tool and extention of youre eye thats all and irrespective of mobile or dslr or whatever.
Having said that yes of course there is a vast difference in quality between a cellphone image and a HD6 with a Phaseone-back, right?

Anyway most of the professional photographers that I personally know at SS have already left including myself. We even started to leave before all this royalty troubles! well over a year back they started to skew the algorithm towards certain countries and members and ever since then it wasn't worth the troubles anymore!

« Reply #144 on: July 18, 2020, 00:50 »
0
I have no problem with your comment. It seems adequate to me. It is not worrying not to understand me. My argument was on another line, but it is not important.

« Reply #145 on: July 18, 2020, 03:39 »
+1
On a slightly hilarious note I see stockphotofan1 is still banging the drum for his paymasters  ;D

https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1

« Reply #146 on: July 18, 2020, 13:34 »
+1

 
...

Anyway most of the professional photographers that I personally know at SS have already left including myself. We even started to leave before all this royalty troubles! well over a year back they started to skew the algorithm towards certain countries and members and ever since then it wasn't worth the troubles anymore!

anecdotal

how many of the top 10,000 photographers on SS do you know??

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #147 on: July 18, 2020, 18:20 »
+5
On a slightly hilarious note I see stockphotofan1 is still banging the drum for his paymasters  ;D

https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1
Interesting: never having heard of that account before, I find myself 'banned' from it.
Must be a 'source close to Jon Oringer'!!!

« Reply #148 on: July 19, 2020, 00:38 »
+3
On a slightly hilarious note I see stockphotofan1 is still banging the drum for his paymasters  ;D

https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1
Lonely guy . Apparently he's blocked a lot of people so that he/she/it can reply to their tweets without response. Talk about one sided conversation

He has no followers, no likes and just seems to have taken upon himself to answer in shutterstock's place. Since they anyhow don't want to do it themselves

Seems like one more way SS botched their people handling and PR. Or maybe its Stan/Jon's frustration account

Shelma1

« Reply #149 on: July 19, 2020, 04:16 »
+3
Im also banned, I guess because I pointed out that he gets barely any sales. Easy enough to see his Twitter account, though, where he spends a lot of time retweeting Jo Ann, so I thank him for that, though he only has 14 followers so hes not helping us spread the message all that much. I feel sorry for the guy.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
78 Replies
17188 Views
Last post December 21, 2007, 19:42
by madelaide
5 Replies
3027 Views
Last post March 23, 2008, 15:42
by madelaide
6 Replies
3255 Views
Last post May 03, 2008, 07:06
by a.k.a.-tom
9 Replies
4317 Views
Last post August 18, 2013, 21:34
by RetroColoring.com
39 Replies
1263 Views
Last post Yesterday at 14:14
by farbled

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle