Jump to content

Dan Campbell

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dan Campbell

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Exactly as you'd expect: 60+% reduction in revenue
  2. I could see how it might generate interest in photos that otherwise might be buried in the collection. But generally I agree that business is on a downward trend...
  3. Due to a popular science news story about a plant in my port, I had the most sales ever in Sept. Due to the massive pay cut we took in June, Sept revenue was average.
  4. Obviously they're tuning up an AI program to review photos, and they don't care how much inconvenience is causes contributors while they work out the bugs. SS really Really REALLY does not care at all about contributors. What's funny is how the Contributor page still has these weekly articles, "How to take great shots... and then have them arbitrarily rejected by an AI system." If they really wanna save money, just stop publishing those articles.
  5. Wow, I haven't uploaded since the price cut in June. Just popped in to see if things improved. I guess not! Sad.
  6. Initially I hoped to disable my port after my next payout (to be reactivated in the event that payments increase in the future), but now it seems I'll never reach the next payout due to a triple blow to revenue: 1) Sales dropped 50% or more due to Covid19 2) Payments decreased by almost 70% due to new royalty structure 3) Almost all of my uploads get rejected now due to noise, so I don't bother uploading. As a result, my content gets buried and sales decline Now I'm leaning towards just deleting the whole port and taking an early payout.
  7. Imagine how many thousands of ports still produce revenue for SS, and the dead contributors never collect the royalties.
  8. One month later: 326,835,078 So much for collective action... To be fair I'm just waiting for my next payout and then I'm done, at least until compensation increases
  9. I uploaded a batch early in June (before i knew about the 10c fiasco), and the whole thing got rejected for "grain". The grain was no worse than usual. After I learned that I would only be making 10c I didn't bother anymore. IMO it seems like they've tuned the AI to auto reject anything with slight grain. Of course you could try to reduce grain in post processing, or shrink the output, but the message is clear: SS doesn't want my photos anymore.
  10. I was referring to rejected uploads. My point is, this has happened before in the gig economy. Many people made a stink 5 years ago when Rev.com cut pay by almost 50%. Many of them were ostracised by coworkers who peddled a free-market mantra, ignorant of the concept of bargaining. Maybe 10% of the workforce quit. But they were quickly forgotten and replace by a never ending stream of workers from around the world, some from low-income countries who will accept anything. And again last year their pay got cut. Same pattern playing out on SS. I see many here would rather take 10 cents than nothing, not understanding that they'll be getting 5 cents in a few years.
  11. Perhaps you've heard Rev.com took a roughly 30% pay cut in November, after they took a 50% pay cut about 3-4 years ago. And yet there are more desperate people vying to do that gig than ever. Rev.com jobs don't even pay minimum wage half the time. So looking forward, I expect SS will be paying 5 cents in a few years, and then 2 cents by the end of the decade. As for the SS library shrinking, it seems that's what they wanted to happen. It's no coincidence that they've increased rejections this month. Personally, I think it's a dumb choice because even very crappy photos sometimes sell, and even one subscription sale is a huge markup for SS. But they've apparently decided they have plenty to work with and don't need anymore. -cynical voice of the powerless masses in 2020
  12. my 10 cents First photo looks in focus enough to me, although there is a problem with artifacts, probably from the compression process. What software are you using to export the JPG? However, it does seem the focus was on the ads in the foreground, and maybe the reviewers thought it should've been in the center (background). Of course, you can always shrink the output by 20-30% to make it appear more crisp. Finally, I suspect reviewers often reject things out of hand just because they don't like them. Perhaps morale is especially low after the recent 60% pay cut?
  13. Or... you could accept making nothing for a few months and maybe get 25 cents again, maybe even 30. I doubt the OP depends on that extra $25 per week. Long-term the commission is just gonna keep going down
  14. Actually, an image on SS is worth about $1. But you only get 10 cents.
  15. Amateur here with a tiny, mediocre port. From now on I plan to focus only on... Flickr. Originally came here thinking it would be nice to make a little money off my hobby. I learned a lot. Only made $60 in 3 years (I'd guess SS made $200-300 off that?). So it was a waste of time before, but now it's just an insult. Further contributions will only contribute to rising inequality. I plan to wait a month and see how it goes. (Perhaps sales will increase dramatically?) But without a change, SS is not worth bothering with anymore.
×
×
  • Create New...