Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would like to apologize to everyone. I didn't want to offend anyone. And I didn't want to stir up controversy. I just wrote about a certain oddity that even I did not discover. I thought you might f

I think his greatest success must be in 'man'...8 out of the 10 top images on page one of 22.148 million photos are from him and all are editorial, non-model-released whilst SS is imploring everyone t

The images we're talking about are average at best. There are better turkey pictures, better brick walls, better crayons, etc. It is almost impossible to get a picture to the top of the search wi

Posted Images

Incredible. He must be making a fortune. Maybe friends on the inside or a load of mates in ad agencies and graphic design shops who download his shot immediately they're approved so that they all go to the top of ''relevant' immediately. Maybe he has 10 or 20 mates that all go for a ten shots free account. If you spread the dls among 10-20 accounts I'd imagine that it's far less sus! The work is good and commercial but there's something not quite kosher here!

Also quite remarkable is that the contributor is from Latvia and if you search 'Riga' most relevant, the first 2 shots on P1 of relevant are theirs too. Both shots of two women and a man on bike could be from anywhere if the word 'Riga' were not the first word of the title. It is simply amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stevemart said:

Incredible. He must be making a fortune. Maybe friends on the inside or a load of mates in ad agencies and graphic design shops who download his shot immediately they're approved so that they all go to the top of ''relevant' immediately. Maybe he has 10 or 20 mates that all go for a ten shots free account. If you spread the dls among 10-20 accounts I'd imagine that it's far less sus! The work is good and commercial but there's something not quite kosher here!

Also quite remarkable is that the contributor is from Latvia and if you search 'Riga' most relevant, the first 2 shots on P1 of relevant are theirs too. Both shots of two women and a man on bike could be from anywhere if the word 'Riga' were not the first word of the title. It is simply amazing.

it's simple, you have to delete and re-create an account every 180 day. Shutterstock bot show to customers new accounts and images. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Masson said:

it's simple, you have to delete and re-create an account every 180 day. Shutterstock bot show to customers new accounts and images. 

The images we're talking about are average at best. There are better turkey pictures, better brick walls, better crayons, etc.

It is almost impossible to get a picture to the top of the search with the flood of pictures that are accepted each week.

In this respect, the statement to simply delete and re-upload is wrong. That is definitely not the solution to the puzzle – that much is certain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

The images we're talking about are average at best. There are better turkey pictures, better brick walls, better crayons, etc.

It is almost impossible to get a picture to the top of the search with the flood of pictures that are accepted each week.

In this respect, the statement to simply delete and re-upload is wrong. That is definitely not the solution to the puzzle – that much is certain.

Can't understand how deleting and starting a new account every half-year could possibly get so many images to the very top of the search.....there's something very fishy about this. Maybe someone has found a way to hack the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stevemart said:

Can't understand how deleting and starting a new account every half-year could possibly get so many images to the very top of the search.....there's something very fishy about this. Maybe someone has found a way to hack the system.

I had the same thoughts, Steve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

I had the same thoughts, Steve.

Everyone here that put their account on hold after the June changes knows what happens when you suspend/delete your account: you lose your place in the search and go back to the bottom of the pile. So, how deleting your account and reappearing with a new one could possibly confer advantage, is beyond me I'm afraid. It's more likely to disadvantage you than confer advantage IMHO.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Music, 

I apologize!  When I read that his images were ranked on the first page of the "Top Images" I thought you were dilutional.  I was wrong, THEY ARE and consistently.  Obviously, I didn't look up his whole portfolio but rather picked out a few very common images and used the most obvious key word. 

Example #1, "Mallard Duck" (his is ranked #1 out of nearly 150,000 images) and as other have pointed out, his images are average at best.  Example #2 "Cow".   His underexposed hardly recognizable cow was ranked # 12 out of 7948 pages or somewhere near 800,000 images.  He has either hacked the system or is getting preferential treatment.  Shutterstock should look into this.  Something is wrong! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there's some secret scoring system for certain contributors that I don't know about, all 'newbies' start at the bottom and work their way up. AFAIK that's the way it's always worked. It may be the case for really exceptional talent and commercial insight that some images may be given extra exposure but I don't see these exceptional qualities in those images so far.

This is a little like the autist-savant that gets banned from casinos because he/she can count cards so well that they're always beating the house..........except that the house (SS) in this case has no interest in banning because they're also making money as well as the individual concerned.

Presumably search ranking is a matter of coding and if this person doesn't have a load of mates buying his images as they're first approved, he must have found a way to insert the 'good genes code' for the search ranking into his images. If he/she has hacked the system, then SS had better hope that he keeps it to himself and his own profit before they 'fix' it because if it gets 'out', there's so many greedy people out there that the whole system would be brought down in a matter of days as the mob attempts, competitively, to get their pics to the top of each search category!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Masson said:

why not? StockSubmitter and go 

This theory doesn't work at all. Even if Shutterstock favored new contributors (which is a wild theory I can't confirm), that would mean that all new contributors would have their images at the top of each search. But that's obviously not the case.
Also, you can guess an upload date by the image ID. His oldest image has the ID 1554710627. I looked around in my port and my images with an ID in the 15.XXX.XXX-range are from March 2020. So his oldest images have been in his port for over a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, stevemart said:

Incredible. He must be making a fortune. Maybe friends on the inside or a load of mates in ad agencies and graphic design shops who download his shot immediately they're approved so that they all go to the top of ''relevant' immediately. Maybe he has 10 or 20 mates that all go for a ten shots free account. If you spread the dls among 10-20 accounts I'd imagine that it's far less sus! The work is good and commercial but there's something not quite kosher here!

Also quite remarkable is that the contributor is from Latvia and if you search 'Riga' most relevant, the first 2 shots on P1 of relevant are theirs too. Both shots of two women and a man on bike could be from anywhere if the word 'Riga' were not the first word of the title. It is simply amazing.

 

2 hours ago, Mr.Music said:

141 week (500 images a week)
you need
to upload your portfolio
haha
and?
You really think that all of your images will go straight up top?

What Ha-ha? 

Application have no limit in upload. 

2 hours ago, Mr.Music said:

141 week (500 images a week)
you need
to upload your portfolio
haha
and?
You really think that all of your images will go straight up top?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Firn said:

This theory doesn't work at all. Even if Shutterstock favored new contributors (which is a wild theory I can't confirm), that would mean that all new contributors would have their images at the top of each search. But that's obviously not the case.
Also, you can guess an upload date by the image ID. His oldest image has the ID 1554710627. I looked around in my port and my images with an ID in the 15.XXX.XXX are from March 2020. So his oldest images have been in his port for over a year.

as you wish

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Masson said:

why not? StockSubmitter and go 

You have a great portfolio, Masson!

But back to the topic:
Woman: place 1 among 40,489,700 images
Flower: 2nd place among 34,169,100 images
Snow: place 1 among 10,080,900 images
Airplane: place 1 among 1,677,000 images
Brick: place 3,4,5 among 4,487,600 pictures

And so on.

That's not normal, is it? If the portfolio size should have an influence on the ranking of individual images, which is claimed again and again, even less, because the portfolio is small compared to – for example – yours. And with respect: Compared to – for example – your images, these top ranked images are, from my subjective point of view, significantly worse in terms of technical quality.

From my point of view, the ranking of all these pictures is not comprehensible at all. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to understand what is going on in this thread.

I see a good portfolio of a good size, started in 2019, good descriptions, good keywording, no duplicates and really nothing that this contributor could be accused of doing wrong on purpose.
Apparently, he is uploading daily (today he has new images compared to yesterday), and that is keeping his portfolio on the first page.
He could be just lucky with his sales but even if the search engine would favor him in some absurd way, I don't see how  this is anyone's business.

Constant uploading in a normal rhythm is the way to go for better exposure not picking on someone who can't defend himself.
I stopped uploading a year ago (after the change) and though I reached last years level (4) quite fast still my earnings fell off the cliff because the total lack of big downloads (RPD = 0.26). I am not interested in further feeding the beast but I am glad to see that it still works out for some cotributors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whiteaster said:

Apparently, he is uploading daily (today he has new images compared to yesterday), and that is keeping his portfolio on the first page.

If you upload an image every day, you are sure to be the very first image in the search - in all categories ..??? 

1 hour ago, Whiteaster said:

I don't see how  this is anyone's business.

Some find this very interesting. Why is it odious to discuss it in line with other topics ..?

1 hour ago, Whiteaster said:

Constant uploading in a normal rhythm is the way to go for better exposure

That's common knowledge. But you're not sure to get on page one - not even page two, three or just because you are uploading constantly ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...