Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 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

On 5/7/2021 at 8:26 AM, oleschwander said:

‘Beautiful sunset’ - 5 images from Oleg in top 1-5  .... 😆

I count only 🤣 5 in the top 9 now out of 7.6 million images. He must be slipping as he doesn't have the no. 1 spot! Makes up for it in 'man' where the number of his pics at the top seems to be increasing.

What I find quite amazing is that on Android where the images are rated (not on Firefox) his top image in 'man' gets this predicate.............

2019345576_NickPic1412021-05-1615_29_28.jpg.eec7338509057432c032d56c41db32e2.jpg

No different really to when I last looked a couple of weeks ago.

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

umber of his pics at the top seems to be increasing.

What I find quite amazing is that on Android where the images are rated (not on Firefox) his top image in 'man' gets this predicate.............

2019345576_NickPic1412021-05-1615_29_28.jpg.eec7338509057432c032d56c41db32e2.jpg

No different really to when I last looked a couple of weeks ago.

As already explained, the data is incorrect at least for images submitted after 2019 and does not mean anything. For all we know the image cold have sold 10.000 times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2021 at 8:52 PM, Firn said:

As already explained, the data is incorrect at least for images submitted after 2019 and does not mean anything. For all we know the image cold have sold 10.000 times.

Now I have to ask seriously....does that look like an image that sold 10,000 times? Nah.

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

Now I have to ask seriously....does that look like an image that sold 10,000 times? Nah.

It also doesn't look like a picture that should be in the top search results, so I am not going to make any assumptions about a picture that isn't following any logic in the first place, especially not based on data of which I know it's incorrect.

 

 

I understand we would all love to believe that even though this guy has somehow managed to cheat the system, he isn't profiting from it, but I know from my own experience from my portfolio, that a good rank is more important than good quality.
I have awesome pictures that got buried in the black hole of a database and never sold, I have mediocre pictures of the same topic that had the luck to rank high and therefore keep on selling. And from there it's basically like a snake biting it's own tail: The picture ranks high, so it keeps on selling. It keeps on selling, so it keeps ranking high.

Do I believe that particular picture sold 10,000? Probably not. It was just a random number to explain that no matter whether the image sold 1 time, 1000 time or even 1 millipon times, as long as it has been uploaded after 2019, Shutterstock will claim that it has never sold.
But with the sheer amount of pictures he managed to get into the top search results of the most basic keywords, I am pretty convinced that with all his high ranking pictures combined, he is making quite some money on Shutterstock.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Whiteaster said:

Apparently, people in this thread don't realize how very popular you made this guy with all these clicks on his port and images.

He was already on top of every keyword when this thread was made (the very reason why it was made.)  He can hardly become more popular....

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

He was already on top of every keyword when this thread was made (the very reason why it was made.)  He can hardly become more popular....

I am not talking about the search result which doesn't mean sales.

Clicks on images usually increases image ranking (though not permanently) and that is easy to prove.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Whiteaster said:

I am not talking about the search result which doesn't mean sales.

Clicks on images usually increases image ranking (though not permanently) and that is easy to prove.

I can't follow what you are trying to say.
He is already on top of the search results for all relevant keywords. That was the very reason why this thread was made. What will happen if we click on his images? His ranking can't go up any more, he is already on top.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Whiteaster said:

I am not talking about the search result which doesn't mean sales.

Clicks on images usually increases image ranking (though not permanently) and that is easy to prove.

I'm not sure, but I think generally the opposite is true, Whiteaster.

I am very sure that the ratio of clicks/views to downloads of an image has an impact on the ranking of the image. If an image is clicked hundreds of times in a given time period, but no one buys it, the algorithm should be smart enough to determine: Something is wrong with the image. After a certain period of time, the image should drop in the ranking.

In this particular case, however, I don't dare to make a prediction, because obviously all normality seems to have been undermined.

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

If an image is clicked hundreds of times in a given time period, but no one buys it, the algorithm should be smart enough to determine: Something is wrong with the image

From what I know, this is happening only on Alamy and it is a stupid thing IMO.

However, I totally agree with you in "all normality seems to have been undermined".

For the fact that his work is always on first place for one word keyword I agree with the guy from MSG, who said these are "Insider privileges".
I've seen these privileges on other agencies in another form.

Now, about what I said before: popularity is just one part of ranking.

I was searching for an image in a category he doesn't have many images. This is for food:

ranking.jpg.de649bf0d11bd145342eb4e105d85f00.jpg


It is very hard to believe what SS is showing us. We know already that the asset data is bogus but not totally. In this case popularity is high and there’s a lot of interest in this image which is probably also true.

On the other hand "not used yet" is false IMO. If you look at the keyword order, this image has several sales. Here is one.

This image has a terrible quality but many buyers don't have time to search.
In my experience, when SS changes keyword order to keywords used by buyers upon download, that is always correct.

Anyway, this was only my opinion, I don't want to convince anyone, I was just thinking out loud.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
On 5/18/2021 at 8:38 AM, Whiteaster said:

From what I know, this is happening only on Alamy and it is a stupid thing IMO.

 

This image has a terrible quality but many buyers don't have time to search.
In my experience, when SS changes keyword order to keywords used by buyers upon download, that is always correct.

Anyway, this was only my opinion, I don't want to convince anyone, I was just thinking out loud.

 

Alamy click and view without a sale makes sense for lower rank. This tells AL that the photo quality wasn't what the buyer was searching for, but the words match. SS when the word order change, right, that's a sale from words searched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of my photos rank high on the first page of catagories with lots of competition even though my sales are modest.    I think good keywording is an important factor regarding ranking.  However, I found that your photo's ranking shifts depending on how you have your search filters set up.  As an example, a rather typical shot I took of the famous Hollywood sign was the fourth photo on page one.  It sold twice more in a few days so I rechecked it. Strangely it sunk down to page nine.   I swapped some of the search filters and "presto" it appeared on page one again.  Consider filters: Most Relevant vs. Fresh Content, Photos vs. Vectors, Horizontal vs. Vertical; as well as Show All vs. Only Top Quality.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2021 at 3:38 PM, Whiteaster said:

From what I know, this is happening only on Alamy and it is a stupid thing IMO.

However, I totally agree with you in "all normality seems to have been undermined".

For the fact that his work is always on first place for one word keyword I agree with the guy from MSG, who said these are "Insider privileges".
I've seen these privileges on other agencies in another form.

Now, about what I said before: popularity is just one part of ranking.

I was searching for an image in a category he doesn't have many images. This is for food:

ranking.jpg.de649bf0d11bd145342eb4e105d85f00.jpg


It is very hard to believe what SS is showing us. We know already that the asset data is bogus but not totally. In this case popularity is high and there’s a lot of interest in this image which is probably also true.

On the other hand "not used yet" is false IMO. If you look at the keyword order, this image has several sales. Here is one.

This image has a terrible quality but many buyers don't have time to search.
In my experience, when SS changes keyword order to keywords used by buyers upon download, that is always correct.

Anyway, this was only my opinion, I don't want to convince anyone, I was just thinking out loud.

 

Interesting that that photo was on Page 1 of food (45million images) whilst the description is totally inaccurate (no bowl and not mixed nuts only pistachios). Even more crazy is his image a bit lower on that same 'food' page of a street pigeon with no food in sight (looking for food).

https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rock-pigeon-street-looking-foodrock-600w-1684487635.jpg

You can't tell me there isn't something bent!

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

Interesting that that photo was on Page 1 of food (45million images) whilst the description is totally inaccurate (no bowl and not mixed nuts only pistachios). Even more crazy is his image a bit lower on that same 'food' page of a street pigeon with no food in sight (looking for food).

https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rock-pigeon-street-looking-foodrock-600w-1684487635.jpg

You can't tell me there isn't something bent!

I agree, it is bent and as I said, I would call it "Insider privileges".

Everything is possible on these sites and here is proof; who is the author of this (stolen) video?

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1061980879-stem-3d-cells-embryonic-dna-immune-particle

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that sheep video from one "free video" website. Cute lamb standing in a field looking at the camera - Free HD Video Clips & Stock Video Footage at Videezy! 

Probably was not uploaded there by the owner of the footage, but hard to know. The ownership of digital things very fast gets blurred when someone uploads your stuff in some "pixabay" kind of places. Then it will be downloaded thousands of times and no one anymore know who is the original creator. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how 'bleating' blatant those thieves/plagiarists have become with footage. At least with photos some thieves actually went to the trouble of flipping and/or blurring. SS installs software to stop contributors uploading similars but appears not to use software to detect blatant copies. Even the length of all those clips is the same! UFB.

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

Interesting how 'bleating' blatant those thieves/plagiarists have become with footage. At least with photos some thieves actually went to the trouble of flipping and/or blurring. SS installs software to stop contributors uploading similars but appears not to use software to detect blatant copies. Even the length of all those clips is the same! UFB.

This is exactly what I wanted to write, too, Steve. It can‘t be true what‘s going on here!

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...