Author Topic: weekly 1 million images vs crap (Read 15774 times)

Artist · « **on:** March 01, 2017, 12:24 »

One of my client today asked me to select few images from shutterstock, he gave me the topic but when I started to search, I found maximum images are just crap.
I searched over 150 newest pages and nearly 80% of the content is useless. There are few users who are uploading thousands of similar style images just covering the whole search making it difficult to find the good content.

Edit: I must say 90% item is useless.. still working to get the good collection

Photodune Reject · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2017, 12:27 »

Now you know why Shutterstock stock prices did so poorly! They are their worse enemy! We have told them a million times on what they are doing wrong but they never listen to us lowly artists...

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2017, 12:39 »

Correct. I wonder how many people complaining that every subject has been covered have ever tried to shop for stock images. I struggle every time. The problem is that only generic stuff has any chance of making sales in enough volume to be profitable for the photographer or illustrator. There's a big chunk of the market not being served.

stockastic · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2017, 12:55 »

It's the final stages of death caused by "one size fits all" pricing. There's no longer any reason to submit high quality work unless it can make a huge number of sales. With no relationship between sale price and cost of production, it can't work, except for a very narrow range of contributors.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #4 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:15 »

you need to look at premium content.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:21 »

i think they are more like istock though, look at this on the front page

Quote

Great stories start here.
Discover over 100 million pieces of amazing content.

and then this, brand new images

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:24 »

derek · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:43 »

This is the SS problem!and as said above they have been infomed a million times. I am sure many buyers are dodging SS right now its just too many files. Who wants to sit there wading through all that.

stockastic · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:54 »

No problem, I'm sure their advanced AI research will soon result in a search engine that recognizes true quality, and junk like this will be filtered out. If you mention "AI" in your marketing enough times, that means it's real - isn't that how it works today?

jonbull · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:59 »

Quote from: Artist on March 01, 2017, 12:24

One of my client today asked me to select few images from shutterstock, he gave me the topic but when I started to search, I found maximum images are just crap.
I searched over 150 newest pages and nearly 80% of the content is useless. There are few users who are uploading thousands of similar style images just covering the whole search making it difficult to find the good content.

Edit: I must say 90% item is useless.. still working to get the good collection

i completely agree...in my opinion if somebody makes a serious agency with old style quality, much less content, super search engine and tight tolerances of keyword, it wil be a bang right now.

jonbull · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2017, 14:01 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 01, 2017, 12:39

Correct. I wonder how many people complaining that every subject has been covered have ever tried to shop for stock images. I struggle every time. The problem is that only generic stuff has any chance of making sales in enough volume to be profitable for the photographer or illustrator. There's a big chunk of the market not being served.

i agree. i make mostly travel in micro and macro. what surprises me is de fat the in micro for any destination 99% are just landmark.
because most of micro are hobbits who travel in most common countries

angelawaye · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2017, 14:03 »

Let me guess, your client gave you a $10 max budget for photos. You need to look at the better sites now... You won't have to sort through crap (which is your time, which is money).

cathyslife · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2017, 14:59 »

Quote from: angelawaye on March 01, 2017, 14:03

Let me guess, your client gave you a $10 max budget for photos. You need to look at the better sites now... You won't have to sort through crap (which is your time, which is money).

You bring up a good point. Buying "premium" content on a client's oft-times small budget doesnt work either. I stopped buying at SS because of the whole crap-wading problem and went elsewhere, where the wading problem isnt quite as bad (yet).

Pauws99 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2017, 15:34 »

Quote from: Photodune Reject on March 01, 2017, 12:27

Now you know why Shutterstock stock prices did so poorly! They are their worse enemy! We have told them a million times on what they are doing wrong but they never listen to us lowly artists...

As far as I can tell investors are (or were) lapping up the idea of more and more content means better now that sales growth is slowing perhaps they will start to dig a bit deeper. Sometimes large corporations don't see the blindingly obvious.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2017, 15:35 »

Quote from: jonbull on March 01, 2017, 14:01

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 01, 2017, 12:39
Correct. I wonder how many people complaining that every subject has been covered have ever tried to shop for stock images. I struggle every time. The problem is that only generic stuff has any chance of making sales in enough volume to be profitable for the photographer or illustrator. There's a big chunk of the market not being served.

i agree. i make mostly travel in micro and macro. what surprises me is de fat the in micro for any destination 99% are just landmark.
because most of micro are hobbits who travel in most common countries

Even for landmarks its surprising often how few pictures there are from less obvious perspectives.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #15 on:** March 01, 2017, 15:48 »

i remember not long ago really, 2012 2013, when you searched the site, you really did see amazing work when searching for images, i was always in awe and felt i had to up my game, if you look now, you kind of feel embarrassed to be part of it

dpimborough · « **Reply #16 on:** March 01, 2017, 15:51 »

This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company

Pauws99 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 01, 2017, 15:57 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 01, 2017, 15:51

This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company

I'm not so sure its inertia so much as going down the wrong path with all that techo gobbledygook about platforms, workflow blah blah rather than worrying about how to deliver great pictures to their customers as easily as possible. If it weren't for the competition being worse they'd be in bigger trouble...don;t forget they are still growing.

Brightontl · « **Reply #18 on:** March 01, 2017, 16:30 »

Welcome to the Dollar shop sir.
No, we really apologize, but you cannot buy here the gold Rolex watch you are looking for

angelawaye · « **Reply #19 on:** March 01, 2017, 16:30 »

Once they accepted 1/10 to get in that was the beginning of the end.

noodle · « **Reply #20 on:** March 01, 2017, 16:50 »

Part of the problem is accointability to shareholders for SS

You see, investors want to see numbers goong up and up - they know nothing about the micro business, but saying that a collection is growing quarter after quarter will sound like " more opportunity to make money" just from sheer size of collection.

SS was a well r un business before going public - now evrything is putting the squeeze on contributers _ from collection size, to virtually no ELs and very very few SoDs

Everything is against us

dragonblade · « **Reply #21 on:** March 01, 2017, 18:20 »

I'm a contributor to SS, not a buyer. Though once in a while, I'll so a search on the site with a random keyword just to see what comes up. Generally, I find good quality images adhering to a high standard or maybe I'm just lucky. I was surprised to see those three poor images posted above - assuming they're from SS's collection? In my view, those particular photos should never be accepted as stock (or any other commercial image use.) I do agree that SS accepting 1 out of 10 photos for newcomers is a bad move and will lead to an accumulation of junk images.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2017, 01:54 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 01, 2017, 15:57

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 01, 2017, 15:51
This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company
I'm not so sure its inertia so much as going down the wrong path with all that techo gobbledygook about platforms, workflow blah blah rather than worrying about how to deliver great pictures to their customers as easily as possible. If it weren't for the competition being worse they'd be in bigger trouble...don;t forget they are still growing.

I actually think it is the opposite. Rather than innovating and finding new ways to serve the market they have concentrated on just adding new images so they can brag about the size of growth. Or maybe they have done both but the flood of image is drowning out any improvements.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2017, 02:32 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 02, 2017, 01:54

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 01, 2017, 15:57
Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 01, 2017, 15:51
This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company
I'm not so sure its inertia so much as going down the wrong path with all that techo gobbledygook about platforms, workflow blah blah rather than worrying about how to deliver great pictures to their customers as easily as possible. If it weren't for the competition being worse they'd be in bigger trouble...don;t forget they are still growing.
I actually think it is the opposite. Rather than innovating and finding new ways to serve the market they have concentrated on just adding new images so they can brag about the size of growth. Or maybe they have done both but the flood of image is drowning out any improvements.

H'mm maybe i've been taken it by the talk...they SAY they are totally rewriting the platform and innovating etc. but I must admit apart from reshuffilng the dashboard the site looks exactly the same for contributors.

derek · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2017, 03:06 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 02, 2017, 01:54

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 01, 2017, 15:57
Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 01, 2017, 15:51
This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company
I'm not so sure its inertia so much as going down the wrong path with all that techo gobbledygook about platforms, workflow blah blah rather than worrying about how to deliver great pictures to their customers as easily as possible. If it weren't for the competition being worse they'd be in bigger trouble...don;t forget they are still growing.
I actually think it is the opposite. Rather than innovating and finding new ways to serve the market they have concentrated on just adding new images so they can brag about the size of growth. Or maybe they have done both but the flood of image is drowning out any improvements.

Yes well this time it looks as if they have been bragging once to much. Stocks well down, takings down and a lousy 57% in the right column. Seems it all goes the Istock way. Unfortunately.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2017, 03:20 »

Quote from: derek on March 02, 2017, 03:06

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 02, 2017, 01:54
Quote from: Pauws99 on March 01, 2017, 15:57
Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 01, 2017, 15:51
This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company
I'm not so sure its inertia so much as going down the wrong path with all that techo gobbledygook about platforms, workflow blah blah rather than worrying about how to deliver great pictures to their customers as easily as possible. If it weren't for the competition being worse they'd be in bigger trouble...don;t forget they are still growing.

I actually think it is the opposite. Rather than innovating and finding new ways to serve the market they have concentrated on just adding new images so they can brag about the size of growth. Or maybe they have done both but the flood of image is drowning out any improvements.

Yes well this time it looks as if they have been bragging once to much. Stocks well down, takings down and a lousy 57% in the right column. Seems it all goes the Istock way. Unfortunately.

SS income is going up still but not fast enough to justify the share price....the warning signs are flashing hard but I think they still have time to get back on track. just so its not all doom and gloom ....http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/sharpspring-integrates-shutterstock-as-exclusive-image-provider-20170301-00882

alno · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2017, 03:45 »

Quote from: Artist on March 01, 2017, 12:24

One of my client today asked me to select few images from shutterstock, he gave me the topic but when I started to search, I found maximum images are just crap.
I searched over 150 newest pages and nearly 80% of the content is useless. There are few users who are uploading thousands of similar style images just covering the whole search making it difficult to find the good content.

Edit: I must say 90% item is useless.. still working to get the good collection

What was the search term? I guess it was too specific, no?
I can't understand what this another collective moaning is about. Why look for crap specifically and then complain it smells?

Love https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&searchterm=love&image_type=all
Computer https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=computer&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Car https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=car&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Man https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=man&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
House https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=house&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Pool https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=pool&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true

Artist · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2017, 03:57 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on March 02, 2017, 03:45

Quote from: Artist on March 01, 2017, 12:24
One of my client today asked me to select few images from shutterstock, he gave me the topic but when I started to search, I found maximum images are just crap.
I searched over 150 newest pages and nearly 80% of the content is useless. There are few users who are uploading thousands of similar style images just covering the whole search making it difficult to find the good content.

Edit: I must say 90% item is useless.. still working to get the good collection

What was the search term? I guess it was too specific, no?
I can't understand what this another collective moaning is about. Why look for crap specifically and then complain it smells?

Love https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&searchterm=love&image_type=all
Computer https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=computer&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Car https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=car&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Man https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=man&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
House https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=house&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Pool https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=pool&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true

I understand.. client asked for a brochure with few other stationary items which was supposed to go well with their branding with a creative feel in terms of colors and design.
I could have searched for popular ones, but I planned to look what's new is coming and landed no-where, I have now forwarded a lightbox from the popular side.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 02, 2017, 04:19 »

Quote from: Artist on March 02, 2017, 03:57

Quote from: Irina Anosova on March 02, 2017, 03:45
Quote from: Artist on March 01, 2017, 12:24
One of my client today asked me to select few images from shutterstock, he gave me the topic but when I started to search, I found maximum images are just crap.
I searched over 150 newest pages and nearly 80% of the content is useless. There are few users who are uploading thousands of similar style images just covering the whole search making it difficult to find the good content.

Edit: I must say 90% item is useless.. still working to get the good collection

What was the search term? I guess it was too specific, no?
I can't understand what this another collective moaning is about. Why look for crap specifically and then complain it smells?

Love https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&searchterm=love&image_type=all
Computer https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=computer&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Car https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=car&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Man https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=man&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
House https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=house&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Pool https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=pool&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true

I understand.. client asked for a brochure with few other stationary items which was supposed to go well with their branding with a creative feel in terms of colors and design.
I could have searched for popular ones, but I planned to look what's new is coming and landed no-where, I have now forwarded a lightbox from the popular side.

I just had a quick look at "new" images on love ...the algorithm is returning way too many similars dozens of a girl in a kitchen (59!) and there is some questionable relevance. I'm not a buyer but I would not find that much use at all

alno · « **Reply #29 on:** March 02, 2017, 04:49 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 02, 2017, 04:19

Quote from: Artist on March 02, 2017, 03:57
Quote from: Irina Anosova on March 02, 2017, 03:45
Quote from: Artist on March 01, 2017, 12:24
One of my client today asked me to select few images from shutterstock, he gave me the topic but when I started to search, I found maximum images are just crap.
I searched over 150 newest pages and nearly 80% of the content is useless. There are few users who are uploading thousands of similar style images just covering the whole search making it difficult to find the good content.

Edit: I must say 90% item is useless.. still working to get the good collection

What was the search term? I guess it was too specific, no?
I can't understand what this another collective moaning is about. Why look for crap specifically and then complain it smells?

Love https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&searchterm=love&image_type=all
Computer https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=computer&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Car https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=car&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Man https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=man&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
House https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=house&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Pool https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=pool&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true

I understand.. client asked for a brochure with few other stationary items which was supposed to go well with their branding with a creative feel in terms of colors and design.
I could have searched for popular ones, but I planned to look what's new is coming and landed no-where, I have now forwarded a lightbox from the popular side.
I just had a quick look at "new" images on love ...the algorithm is returning way too many similars dozens of a girl in a kitchen (59!) and there is some questionable relevance. I'm not a buyer but I would not find that much use at all

Why don't search on page 20 or 1000 of popular ones?

Artist · « **Reply #30 on:** March 02, 2017, 05:03 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on March 02, 2017, 04:49

Why don't search on page 20 or 1000 of popular ones?

You are correct at your point, this is what I landed at last.
But are we bound to follow the popular list only? A popular image was also a new someday, so people download the new and made it popular.

And that's not something you will keep on telling to every buyer. We have got search options so we'll use it.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #31 on:** March 02, 2017, 05:07 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on March 02, 2017, 04:49

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 02, 2017, 04:19
Quote from: Artist on March 02, 2017, 03:57
Quote from: Irina Anosova on March 02, 2017, 03:45
Quote from: Artist on March 01, 2017, 12:24
One of my client today asked me to select few images from shutterstock, he gave me the topic but when I started to search, I found maximum images are just crap.
I searched over 150 newest pages and nearly 80% of the content is useless. There are few users who are uploading thousands of similar style images just covering the whole search making it difficult to find the good content.

Edit: I must say 90% item is useless.. still working to get the good collection

What was the search term? I guess it was too specific, no?
I can't understand what this another collective moaning is about. Why look for crap specifically and then complain it smells?

Love https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&searchterm=love&image_type=all
Computer https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=computer&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Car https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=car&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Man https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=man&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
House https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=house&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true
Pool https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=pool&search_source=base_search_form&language=ru&page=1&sort=popular&image_type=all&safe=true

I understand.. client asked for a brochure with few other stationary items which was supposed to go well with their branding with a creative feel in terms of colors and design.
I could have searched for popular ones, but I planned to look what's new is coming and landed no-where, I have now forwarded a lightbox from the popular side.
I just had a quick look at "new" images on love ...the algorithm is returning way too many similars dozens of a girl in a kitchen (59!) and there is some questionable relevance. I'm not a buyer but I would not find that much use at all

Why don't search on page 20 or 1000 of popular ones?

Why do SS provide a search option that is useless?, why should buyers have to work out search strategies to find what they want? They are meant to be leaders of the industry surely its not too much to ask that they provide a search that delivers quality, relevant new images?

Artist · « **Reply #32 on:** March 02, 2017, 05:14 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 02, 2017, 05:07

Why do SS provide a search option that is useless?, why should buyers have to work out search strategies to find what they want? They are meant to be leaders of the industry surely its not too much to ask that they provide a search that delivers quality, relevant new images?

I think, shutterstock should work on a contributor ranking system and display the images as per the quality of work.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 02, 2017, 05:37 »

Quote from: Artist on March 02, 2017, 05:14

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 02, 2017, 05:07
Why do SS provide a search option that is useless?, why should buyers have to work out search strategies to find what they want? They are meant to be leaders of the industry surely its not too much to ask that they provide a search that delivers quality, relevant new images?

I think, shutterstock should work on a contributor ranking system and display the images as per the quality of work.

Quality is subjective though...I wouldn't think it would be hard to rank on the basis of average sales per image across a portfolio ...that way those that flood the market in the hope of sales by sheer weight of numbers would find themselves falling down the search results and those that try and meet demand in a focused way going up.....

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** March 02, 2017, 08:03 »

Quote from: Brightontl on March 01, 2017, 16:30

Welcome to the Dollar shop sir.
No, we really apologize, but you cannot buy here the gold Rolex watch you are looking for

Maybe it's a policy to drive customers to their premium offering? It might be no bad thing if customers got the message that suppliers can't supply at a loss.

outoftheblue · « **Reply #35 on:** March 02, 2017, 08:28 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 02, 2017, 05:37

Quote from: Artist on March 02, 2017, 05:14
Quote from: Pauws99 on March 02, 2017, 05:07
Why do SS provide a search option that is useless?, why should buyers have to work out search strategies to find what they want? They are meant to be leaders of the industry surely its not too much to ask that they provide a search that delivers quality, relevant new images?

I think, shutterstock should work on a contributor ranking system and display the images as per the quality of work.
Quality is subjective though...I wouldn't think it would be hard to rank on the basis of average sales per image across a portfolio ...that way those that flood the market in the hope of sales by sheer weight of numbers would find themselves falling down the search results and those that try and meet demand in a focused way going up.....

Which poses another question: is it worth uploading high quality pictures to micro? My answer is no.
I'm not saying that I deliberately upload low quality images, but I certainly upload images that require little time and effort to produce.
Should they ask for more quality, they'd need to increase prices and royalties as well, or I'm out.

JimP · « **Reply #36 on:** March 02, 2017, 09:14 »

We can't make enough images to make a profit anymore against the volume of new files pouring in. If you thought it was bad in 2012 and got worse in 2016, just wait.

Buyers have to wade through a sewerage pit to find the here and there good photos. The people here who have pride and do good work are buried under trash. Hopefully the good can stand out if it's not 100 of the same shot like the junkstock.

Whether it's 1 to become a contributor or ten doesn't matter. Weak argument. Every image has to pass review. Maybe people who are in, think it should be a private club and no new members? Don't forget that 90% of the people who signed up to sell on SS have zero images on sale.

How can buyers find me with 1 million new images a week, spammed uploads, bad keyword, same bad shots over and 20-30 of each one. Add that new people will just copy what they think is most popular, best selling, making more of that a wasteland.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #37 on:** March 02, 2017, 09:48 »

Quote

I just had a quick look at "new" images on love ...the algorithm is returning way too many similars dozens of a girl in a kitchen (59!) and there is some questionable relevance. I'm not a buyer but I would not find that much use at all

i actually did the same and fully agree with pauws99 on this subject

derek · « **Reply #38 on:** March 02, 2017, 12:20 »

Dont know what happened but the search right now is awful it return plenty identical sister images in the ten categories I tried out. If I was a buyer I would move on for sure.

Minsc · « **Reply #39 on:** March 02, 2017, 13:41 »

I've download over 1000 images from SS and I've been almost always able to find what I need. It took a bit of work for some, but it's there. I don't know why anyone would use the New section for their main search. Popular is popular is for a reason.

There is a lot of good stuff on SS these days, some of the images rivaling and sometimes surpassing many Macro images.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 02, 2017, 13:44 »

Quote from: Minsc on March 02, 2017, 13:41

I've download over 1000 images from SS and I've been almost always able to find what I need. It took a bit of work for some, but it's there. I don't know why anyone would use the New section for their main search. Popular is popular is for a reason.

There is a lot of good stuff on SS these days, some of the images rivaling and sometimes surpassing many Macro images.

Some people want images that haven't been used over and over again I would think

Minsc · « **Reply #41 on:** March 02, 2017, 13:56 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 02, 2017, 13:44

Some people want images that haven't been used over and over again I would think

If that's the case, then I wish the best of luck to them. Every popular image will get reused eventually, some over 10,000 times. If they want something exclusive, they need to hire a photographer or designer.

dragonblade · « **Reply #42 on:** March 02, 2017, 17:56 »

Quote from: JimP on March 02, 2017, 09:14

How can buyers find me with 1 million new images a week, spammed uploads, bad keyword, same bad shots over and 20-30 of each one. Add that new people will just copy what they think is most popular, best selling, making more of that a wasteland.

It does seem overwhelming when you look at those kinds of figures. Sometimes I think: "What chance have I got?" when my images are amongst a sea of millions. Then again, I'm sure that your images are still selling, right? Just as my images are selling also. So they are being found by buyers (despite the odds.) And that makes me positive. I admit that I only have a very small portfolio on SS (under 200 images) but the sales I am getting inspire me to upload more and hopefully one day, I'll have a decently large portfolio.

noodle · « **Reply #43 on:** March 02, 2017, 18:16 »

Quote from: outoftheblue on March 02, 2017, 08:28

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 02, 2017, 05:37
Quote from: Artist on March 02, 2017, 05:14
Quote from: Pauws99 on March 02, 2017, 05:07
Why do SS provide a search option that is useless?, why should buyers have to work out search strategies to find what they want? They are meant to be leaders of the industry surely its not too much to ask that they provide a search that delivers quality, relevant new images?

I think, shutterstock should work on a contributor ranking system and display the images as per the quality of work.
Quality is subjective though...I wouldn't think it would be hard to rank on the basis of average sales per image across a portfolio ...that way those that flood the market in the hope of sales by sheer weight of numbers would find themselves falling down the search results and those that try and meet demand in a focused way going up.....

They definitely get my 'B' images
Why reward micro with your best when they unreward contributers at every change that takes place?

Which poses another question: is it worth uploading high quality pictures to micro? My answer is no.
I'm not saying that I deliberately upload low quality images, but I certainly upload images that require little time and effort to produce.
Should they ask for more quality, they'd need to increase prices and royalties as well, or I'm out.