Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Elmtree said:

I do remember this selection problem happening at another large agency many years ago. I think it transpired that an employee at the agency was manipulating the search results to favour a particular contributor.

When management found out a full review of the contributor’s collection was carried out and they were downgraded to an appropriate position.

Such collusion is the best explanation I've seen yet.  50/50 split?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

But it appears he has only been able to game the system on SS. I think it does hurt any stock library if the best images (and most relevant) are not brought to the top of a search. I wonde

Posted Images

At this point I cannot decide if the process of staying on the top page is done by keywords, using a bot(at all levels, Google, Latvia ISP. or even a VPN), or some one on the inside. Simply put it is above my pay grade. I have followed the keyword example because it was easy to find, and have posted about it. My first post has had a surprise ending, one account has been terminated, but I can find a second account, same name with less photos with spamming still visible.

So,

This is my take on what has and is happening,  

Perp1 uploads photo - normal keywords - gets accepted??? - waits a month alters the keywords to beach-beach-beach-beach-beach, man-man-man-man, etc-etc-etc, waits until it moves to second page or low down on the first page, relying on the inertia of the views, then goes back and deletes the spam and puts in very well defined replacements. Done on a small scale with multi accounts. My reasoning for this view come from posters here and at MicrostockGroup have suggested that this is only happening at $Stock. I suspect their correction process for keywords, which B.T.W. is very helpful. Hopefully any changed  keywords are still in their data base.

 

Previous Post,

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Andrey+Bocharov/about

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Andrey+Bocharov

   "Uploading a photo a few days ago, then using the keyword tool, the subject being a landscaped creek, after getting the auto suggestions I picked the top three, as beginners do.

To my surprise the keywords were mostly in blocks of repeating words eg. (creek creek creek creek creek) now I am not sure if this is what is called (spamming spamming spamming). If it isn't please disregard my inquiry. If it is allowed can we all do it?.

 

Royalty-free stock photo ID: 1777834955

Royalty-free stock photo ID: 1761731921

Royalty-free stock photo ID: 1759106588

 

 

This article may have nothing to do with the current contributor. The question for me is are they all the same person?.

The second question is acceptance?? I lot of us are going through hell to get our photos approved.

  Jane Rix had a post about this spamming also.

 

Regards freddy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Clupeidae said:

I have taken one of my images, put identical keywords and title on it and my rank is pages down. There's something else going on with his images data that SS reads. Not keyword or title tricks. I don't think SS would do this as a test, there's something else going on. Hacked or tricked somehow. From experience don't assume that being on page one means sales when better pictures are right there obvious. I think he is adding to his data that SS reads but doesn't display and we can't see. They need to fix this.

Yup! I reckon he's a hacker who has hacked the SS code for image placement in the search and just codes his images to place them at the top of the search. Everything is virtual and code today.....doesn't mean to say it's real!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anne-tipodees said:

At this point I cannot decide if the process of staying on the top page is done by keywords, using a bot(at all levels, Google, Latvia ISP. or even a VPN), or some one on the inside. Simply put it is above my pay grade. I have followed the keyword example because it was easy to find, and have posted about it. My first post has had a surprise ending, one account has been terminated, but I can find a second account, same name with less photos with spamming still visible.

So,

This is my take on what has and is happening,  

Perp1 uploads photo - normal keywords - gets accepted??? - waits a month alters the keywords to beach-beach-beach-beach-beach, man-man-man-man, etc-etc-etc, waits until it moves to second page or low down on the first page, relying on the inertia of the views, then goes back and deletes the spam and puts in very well defined replacements. Done on a small scale with multi accounts. My reasoning for this view come from posters here and at MicrostockGroup have suggested that this is only happening at $Stock. I suspect their correction process for keywords, which B.T.W. is very helpful. Hopefully any changed  keywords are still in their data base.

 

Previous Post,

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Andrey+Bocharov/about

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Andrey+Bocharov

   "Uploading a photo a few days ago, then using the keyword tool, the subject being a landscaped creek, after getting the auto suggestions I picked the top three, as beginners do.

To my surprise the keywords were mostly in blocks of repeating words eg. (creek creek creek creek creek) now I am not sure if this is what is called (spamming spamming spamming). If it isn't please disregard my inquiry. If it is allowed can we all do it?.

 

Royalty-free stock photo ID: 1777834955

Royalty-free stock photo ID: 1761731921

Royalty-free stock photo ID: 1759106588

 

 

This article may have nothing to do with the current contributor. The question for me is are they all the same person?.

The second question is acceptance?? I lot of us are going through hell to get our photos approved.

  Jane Rix had a post about this spamming also.

 

Regards freddy.

Very clever and possible. If it is being done like this he would have to alter his keywords to spam much faster than within one month as the time factor + sales appears to be very important in the algo. However, I reckon that he really doesn't have the actual sales to merit his promotion journey from 'new' to 1st place on Page 1. Once they're there at the top they may get sales to justify that top position but I'm still not sure that they could generate enough real sales to keep 8 or 10 images with non-spectacular images at the top of 10-million+ single-image word categories. Not going to attempt the experiment though, cos if they catch you you get banned.🙃

Link to post
Share on other sites

"he would have to alter his keywords to spam much faster than within one month as the time factor + sales appears to be very important in the algorithm."

Steve I missed that, I was generalizing, but in replying I thought maybe he is sneaky enough to spam after a sale. Would that tip the indexing in his favour?. On top of that the buyer would see his 6 other photos in "more from this artist" then he could start to spam those, even if it was only one word. I have read here over the months how slow the internal algorithm is for our ports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, anne-tipodees said:

"he would have to alter his keywords to spam much faster than within one month as the time factor + sales appears to be very important in the algorithm."

Steve I missed that, I was generalizing, but in replying I thought maybe he is sneaky enough to spam after a sale. Would that tip the indexing in his favour?. On top of that the buyer would see his 6 other photos in "more from this artist" then he could start to spam those, even if it was only one word. I have read here over the months how slow the internal algorithm is for our ports.

I must admit that I hadn't thought of your possible explanation ie get approved and then spam the keywords....and then change 'em back so that everything appears normal once at the top. Perhaps it can indeed be done with a combination of get a friend with an account to buy an image asap after approval, then spam the keywords....get to the top and then change them back. Perhaps in a different order....get image approved, spam the keywords, get a sale immediately, go to top of search and change keywords back. Dunno? Maybe someone who worked in coding on the SS algorithm in the past who knows how to turn the system to his own unique advantage with some combination of tricks???

BTW like the name Anne! 😀

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

I must admit that I hadn't thought of your possible explanation ie get approved and then spam the keywords....and then change 'em back so that everything appears normal once at the top. Perhaps it can indeed be done with a combination of get a friend with an account to buy an image asap after approval, then spam the keywords....get to the top and then change them back. Perhaps in a different order....get image approved, spam the keywords, get a sale immediately, go to top of search and change keywords back. Dunno? Maybe someone who worked in coding on the SS algorithm in the past who knows how to turn the system to his own unique advantage with some combination of tricks???

BTW like the name Anne! 😀

It is a nom de plume Steve I use them on the internet to confuse the bad guys to stop them getting my 10cents a week. It is a combination of my wife's name and our first business name that we started when we married in 1970s. We owned a pet shop that imported tropical fish from Brazil and Africa via England. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, anne-tipodees said:

At this point I cannot decide if the process of staying on the top page is done by keywords, using a bot(at all levels, Google, Latvia ISP. or even a VPN), or some one on the inside. Simply put it is above my pay grade. I have followed the keyword example because it was easy to find, and have posted about it. My first post has had a surprise ending, one account has been terminated, but I can find a second account, same name with less photos with spamming still visible.

So,

This is my take on what has and is happening,  

Perp1 uploads photo - normal keywords - gets accepted??? - waits a month alters the keywords to beach-beach-beach-beach-beach, man-man-man-man, etc-etc-etc, waits until it moves to second page or low down on the first page, relying on the inertia of the views, then goes back and deletes the spam and puts in very well defined replacements. Done on a small scale with multi accounts. My reasoning for this view come from posters here and at MicrostockGroup have suggested that this is only happening at $Stock. I suspect their correction process for keywords, which B.T.W. is very helpful. Hopefully any changed  keywords are still in their data base.

 

Previous Post,

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Andrey+Bocharov/about

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Andrey+Bocharov

   "Uploading a photo a few days ago, then using the keyword tool, the subject being a landscaped creek, after getting the auto suggestions I picked the top three, as beginners do.

To my surprise the keywords were mostly in blocks of repeating words eg. (creek creek creek creek creek) now I am not sure if this is what is called (spamming spamming spamming). If it isn't please disregard my inquiry. If it is allowed can we all do it?.

 

Royalty-free stock photo ID: 1777834955

Royalty-free stock photo ID: 1761731921

Royalty-free stock photo ID: 1759106588

 

 

This article may have nothing to do with the current contributor. The question for me is are they all the same person?.

The second question is acceptance?? I lot of us are going through hell to get our photos approved.

  Jane Rix had a post about this spamming also.

 

Regards freddy.

 

I've been wondering the same. Image gets approved, amend keywords to gain favourable search position, change keywords back before anyone notices? 

Shutterstock took fast and decisive action when I reported the cases noted in my other thread, (linked above), so has anyone reported this portfolio to Shutterstock? 

 

This guy has some really nice content, and I could imagine some being very high up in many searches but, (as with all of us, so no criticism intended), some of his content is very ordinary, so getting to number 3 in 35million+ tree images, or number 2 in 24million+ flower images, is quite an amazing achievement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anne-tipodees said:

It is a nom de plume Steve I use them on the internet to confuse the bad guys to stop them getting my 10cents a week. It is a combination of my wife's name and our first business name that we started when we married in 1970s. We owned a pet shop that imported tropical fish from Brazil and Africa via England. 

Ha,ha! Had me fooled because although I realised it was a nom de plume, I thought your name was Anne and because you're in Oz, you had gone for the combination of Anne + antipodes (pronounced antipodees)!! The name used by Northern hemisphere inhabitants (Brits) for the the continent at the opposite end of the globe. 😄

Had you been an Australian living here in NL, I think you might have gone for Anne van Oz! But now I'm being really silly.

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

Ha,ha! Had me fooled because although I realised it was a nom de plume, I thought your name was Anne and because you're in Oz, you had gone for the combination of Anne + antipodes (pronounced antipodees)!! The name used by Northern hemisphere inhabitants (Brits) for the the continent at the opposite end of the globe. 😄

Had you been an Australian living here in NL, I think you might have gone for Anne van Oz! But now I'm being really silly.

This is exactly what I had thought, too! 😀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is rather weird. I logged in with Firefox private browsing, gave permission for all cookies, went to search 'man' in relevant and our star performer pops up again/still in positions 1,2,4 and 5 at the top of Page 1 relevant...but now SS tells me about those 'assets'!

Really popular but never sold! Checked nos 1,2 and 5 and all come in as 'never sold'.431000009_NickPic1352021-05-0314_33_59.thumb.jpg.07c292933a60ccb0982692a1da77db77.jpg

Similar results for contributor's top images on his page 1 too. Even the drone shot of car on snowy forest road (no.1 on page 1top images) has not sold either.

Menogeddit! Why would SS show potential customers on page one of relevant out of millions of images those images that are from one contributor and have never sold. I realise that relevant is not the same as the old 'popular' but why place those 'never sold images' in first place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Steve, as you know, that information under "Asset Data" appears to be nonsense.  I wouldn't trust that info.

If it is reliable, then an explanation for his search placement by rank tweeking without high download numbers appears correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Reimar said:

But Steve, as you know, that information under "Asset Data" appears to be nonsense.  I wouldn't trust that info.

If it is reliable, then an explanation for his search placement by rank tweeking without high download numbers appears correct.

Asset data is pretty much nonsense except when it comes to sales. If they say it hasn't sold, then it likely hasn't sold. All the 'high' interest is coming from us the contributors wondering how the H can this one contributor have so many number one places in the search when they appear to have sold nowt! 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, stevemart said:

Asset data is pretty much nonsense except when it comes to sales. If they say it hasn't sold, then it likely hasn't sold.

Nope, sales are also nonsense.

According to Shutterstock's random data generator my beststellers have not sold, while images of mine that have sold less than 100 times show as having been sold often. It's completely random and says absolutely nothing about whether the images have actually been sold rarely, often or at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Firn said:

Nope, sales are also nonsense.

According to Shutterstock's random data generator my beststellers have not sold, while images of mine that have sold less than 100 times show as having been sold often. It's completely random and says absolutely nothing about whether the images have actually been sold rarely, often or at all.

My sales aren't nonsense on asset data. Anything that hasn't sold really hasn't sold....and if something has only sold once or twice in 9 years they say it's been rarely used.....and if it's been sold hundreds or thousands of times, it gets superstar status....so, it works for me with respect to sales!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, stevemart said:

My sales aren't nonsense on asset data. Anything that hasn't sold really hasn't sold....and if something has only sold once or twice in 9 years they say it's been rarely used.....and if it's been sold hundreds or thousands of times, it gets superstar status....so, it works for me with respect to sales!

Then you seem to be the odd one out, because in the other thread people report having the same phenomenon as me. My beststellers are listed as "not used yet", while images with far less sales are listed as "commonly used". (I don't think I have any listed as "often used", but obviously I did not check all my port) Just look at my port - Not all of my bestsellers are at the top of the page when sorting for "top images", but usually at least 90% of the images a the top are at least regular sellers for me. Just click through it, Shutterstock basically claims I am not selling images at all. I wonder how I managed to reach level 5 when I am not selling anything according to Shutterstock's data? 🤨

But even if for whatever reason it is working correctly for your account, but not for others, it shows that you cannot rely on the data of the contributor we are talking about here. It might be correct like in your case, it might be completely wrong like in my case.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Firn said:

Then you seem to be the odd one out, because in the other thread people report having the same phenomenon as me. Images that sold hundreds of times are listed as "not used yet", while images with far less sales are listed as "often used".

But even if for whatever reason it is working correctly for your account, but not for others, it shows that you cannot rely on the data of the contributor we are talking about here. It might be correct like in your case, it might be completely wrong like in my case.
 

Stevemart's portfolio has been stable in recent years, and those who write in another thread have been working for only a few years or who have new tops over the last year. 
I have already noticed that this calculation does not take into account the last months, and possibly a year. 
If the photo is taken off at this time, the reflection will be distorted. Likewise, if, for example, a year ago, a photo jumped at some point, then its popularity may be shown, although recently it has hardly been sold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tim photo-video said:

Stevemart's portfolio has been stable in recent years, and those who write in another thread have been working for only a few years or who have new tops over the last year. 
I have already noticed that this calculation does not take into account the last months, and possibly a year. 
If the photo is taken off at this time, the reflection will be distorted. Likewise, if, for example, a year ago, a photo jumped at some point, then its popularity may be shown, although recently it has hardly been sold.

That's an interesting theory and could well be correct. I've only been with SS for about 3 years and most of my bestsellers have been uploaded during the last year.

But if this is really how it works, then we know for sure that Oleg's data is incorrect like mine, because his oldest photo is from last year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Firn said:

Then you seem to be the odd one out, because in the other thread people report having the same phenomenon as me. Images that sold hundreds of times are listed as "not used yet", while images with far less sales are listed as "often used". Just look at my port - Not all of my bestsellers are at the top of the page when sorting for "top images", but usually at least 90% of the images a the top are at least regular sellers for me. Just click through it, Shutterstock basically claims I am not selling images at all. I wonder how that can be if I already reached level 5. I must be selling something? 🤨

But even if for whatever reason it is working correctly for your account, but not for others, it shows that you cannot rely on the data of the contributor we are talking about here. It might be correct like in your case, it might be completely wrong like in my case.
 

It gets even more crazy. I looked through my port to see whether the data showed my bestsellers and went from a non-seller to a best-seller and the data said my best seller hadn't sold at all until I hit 'refresh' and then it gave correctly that it was high interest and big seller

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tim photo-video said:

Stevemart's portfolio has been stable in recent years, and those who write in another thread have been working for only a few years or who have new tops over the last year. 
I have already noticed that this calculation does not take into account the last months, and possibly a year. 
If the photo is taken off at this time, the reflection will be distorted. Likewise, if, for example, a year ago, a photo jumped at some point, then its popularity may be shown, although recently it has hardly been sold.

That might be the case because this shot of irises was one of the very last images I uploaded in May 2020. I think it sold 3 times shortly after uploading but nothing in the past six months. Data says that it's never sold.

NickPic140 2021-05-03, 17_20_51.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like any new images I uploaded in 2020 which have sold a few times register as not having sold at all whereas they have had a few sales.

This one was also uploaded in May 2020 and has had 4 sales since then....or zero sales according to 'data'.

 

NickPic144 2021-05-03, 18_27_02.jpg

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...