Jump to content

Updates to our Similar Content Policy


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, jean-francois.me said:

or stick to obsolete values,  and become extinct.  but at least you'll have your principles. 

Really? Those people who agree to downgrade and simplify everything, may extinct. First, they lose the sense of beauty and quality, then they forget difference between good and bad, then they lose the practical experience accumulated by mankind, and as a result become a lazy and helpless one-day butterflies. 
In other words, we are more likely to die out if we start making the cheapest shit for each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

they always can buy vertical or horizontal,  or square  or many other format that SS Offers to the buyer.  

they have that option already    

Seriously!!!??? 

Posted Images

On 8/5/2019 at 4:25 PM, Anna Shutterstock said:

In order to improve the overall quality of the Shutterstock image collection, we are updating our policy for review of similar content. We avoid accepting Similar Content because it creates a poor user experience for customers and contributors by having large volumes of nearly identical images or clips. Browsing through large volumes of repetitive search results is time-consuming, and prevents customers from purchasing relevant content that fits their needs.

We are outlining tighter guidelines for what we consider to be similar content and this policy will now also apply to footage submissions. You can review the details of the policy changes and check out visual examples in the Contributor Support article Why was my content rejected for Similar Content?  This policy will go into effect starting on August 12, 2019.

As a result of these stricter guidelines, some of you may encounter rejections of some types of content that was previously accepted. Please take the time to review explanations and examples provided in the support article and contact us if you have additional questions.

And as always, thanks for your continued support and participation in our marketplace!

If i upload this image by one file, it not will similar? Can I upload same type of images? PS one with shadow and one without in one file

avo3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 12:22 AM, Phil Lowe said:

Maybe you missed this part...

2019-08-07_14-26-28.thumb.jpg.bfff2fd7de8474c370473223d689b5fa.jpg

Still looking for @jeffde to tell us if he was speaking for himself or Shutterstock when he threw in his support for your "logic and reason."  Because if he was speaking for himself, he was perfectly within his right to do so, but in disagreement with Shutterstock's written contributor guidelines, part of which is cited above.

But if he was speaking for Shutterstock, I'd like to know when we will see the cited guidelines changed to mirror your point of view.  In either case, only he can answer this and I think he needs to.

so SS is already doing it as stated on their website.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jean-francois.me said:

so SS is already doing it as stated on their website.

What they post in their contributor guidelines and what they practice in the acceptance of some images here are miles apart.  I think we would all benefit from a little more consistency on their part, between what the say and what they approve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was (and am) a representative of the number game, but I have also always argued against too many similar submissions. They not only harm the submitter, but also waste the search results.  In this respect, I welcome the "new" directive and hope that it will be implemented sensibly, but with a sense of proportion and reason.  

As for the rest of this thread with the meaningless black-and-white reflections on "quality", I feel like in a religious war. Of course, pictures that go on sale should have a certain amount of technical quality. The reviewers (mostly) still take care of that today, by no means every pixel flicker is accepted. But in the end only the buyer is really relevant, so it would be counterproductive to set the quality standard analogous to a photoclub. Even if some still believe that SS is a Photoclub. According to everything I can derive from my sales, in the end the subject on the photo still counts more than the camera, lens and software used. This should also be considered during the review. 

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, geogif said:

it would be counterproductive to set the quality standard analogous to a photoclub. Even if some still believe that SS is a Photoclub.

What part of "Images need to be inspirational, professional, and of high quality" are you not understanding?

Those are Shutterstock's requirements: not the requirements of a "photo club".

You go back and look at some of the threads where new contributors were asking why their images weren't selling, then look at those images and you tell me if most - if not all - of those images met the criteria quoted above.

Note also the context these "needs" are found:

"What buyers are begging for"! 

Either SS has changed the policy I've cited from its contributor guidelines, or it has not.  If these guidelines are still in effect, but reviewers are passing through millions of similars and substandard images a month, then it may explain why Shutterstock has had to downgrade earnings estimates for the rest of the year.  Someone at SS isn't doing their job to insure that these standards are being consistently met. If buyers are "begging" for images that are "professional, and of high quality" and not finding them here, based on what we've all seen in some of these new ports, where do you think they're going to go to get their media???  Here's a hint: not here.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being a "photo club".  It has everything to do with meeting - what SS tells us - are the buyer's needs, and the buyers are telling SS they need images that are "inspirational, professional, and of high quality."  Those are Shutterstock's words, not mine, so if you have an issue with them, take it up with Shutterstock's CEO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

What part of "Images need to be inspirational, professional, and of high quality" are you not understanding?

 

Maybe the problem of not-understanding j is with you?
What does "high quality" mean in a photo club?
What does "high quality" mean on a sales platform?
Does it mean the same thing in both cases?
Maybe it used to be in the past, at least some comments of our dinosaurs point to it. 
But probably it doesn't (rightly) do that anymore today, at least that's what SS politics points to. 
"High Quality" on a sales platform is measurable. And this is quite simply due to the sales. Not by the sharpness, the lack of noise and certainly not by the composition. So quite different from the Photoclub. 
You still haven't understood that.
Just look at your sales, then you know if your PF is of "high quality" (so not you personally, that applies to everyone here). 

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

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

Maybe the problem of not-understanding j is with you?
What does "high quality" mean in a photo club?
What does "high quality" mean on a sales platform?
Does it mean the same thing in both cases?
Maybe it used to be in the past, at least some comments of our dinosaurs point to it. 
But probably it doesn't (rightly) do that anymore today, at least that's what SS politics points to. 
"High Quality" on a sales platform is measurable. And this is quite simply due to the sales. Not by the sharpness, the lack of noise and certainly not by the composition. So quite different from the Photoclub. 
You still haven't understood that.
Just look at your sales, then you know if your PF is of "high quality" (so not you personally, that applies to everyone here). 

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

I don't know why on earth you engage with him. It's hilarious. 0.25 cents or 0.38 cents. Makes no odds if it's raw pasta scattered on a slate or a parrot nailed to a tree trunk or ansel Adams.  Same pay out per snap. If he had any conviction or any understanding of anything he'd know it's pointless trying to convince you or anyone here. He needs to blather endlessly in the customers faces or maybe some SS execs 🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello. I prepared several vector files with imitation of fabric texture. Each file contains a set of four seamless patterns. They differ from each other with a palette and small details of weaving. Only one set was accepted, and the others rejected. Do you think this is normal when I can sell a set of patterns with a blue palette only, but the customer cannot buy a red and green various sets? If I combine all these patterns into the one large collection, then the detailed fabric structure will not be visible! Why are you doing this?

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

Hello. I prepared several vector files with imitation of fabric texture. Each file contains a set of four seamless patterns. They differ from each other with a palette and small details of weaving. Only one set was accepted, and the others rejected. Do you think this is normal when I can sell a set of patterns with a blue palette only, but the customer cannot buy a red and green various sets? If I combine all these patterns into the one large collection, then the detailed fabric structure will not be visible! Why are you doing this?

this does seem to be the new rule.  Only one choice for customers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

so when I want to buy a pair of shoes I can only choose the red pair because the green or other shades are no longer available to match my already purchased garment - think possibly this will annoy the discerning buyer looking to match something into a project - not suggesting endless viariations on a theme but sense needs to come into this and as already said clear out the back catalogue first maybe. As I aready mentioned the reviewer rejected all but one of four I uploaded and chose the portrait image over the horizontal which btw was not the same landscape view of the horizon so if the buyer wanted landscape there is no way they can do that...will be interesting how this pans out 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

“We avoid accepting Similar Content because it creates a poor user experience for customers and contributors by having large volumes of nearly identical images or clips”.

Let’s just take a step back and look at the basics here.

Yes, I understand the above sentence because it is a pain to scroll through similar images in large volumes.

If SS would remove all similar images, then the database might go from 300 mln images to 150 mln.

SS does want the database to grow with new good quality images to give our customers more options,  so even if they will only allow one similar per contributor, the amount of images will still continue to grow. And all images will remain buried.

Now here is the thing..

I believe there should be more categories and there should be subcategories to choose from.

SS database is basically a library and the only way to find something in a library is when its categorized and subcategorized. 

For example category “Art” has about 311k images, but no subcategories like : contemporary art, photography art, surrealism, impressionism, pop art. Therefore the contributor as well as the customer need to input those subcategories as keywords.

Same with category “Buildings / Landmarks”. Why no subcategories “Modern architecture” and “historical” ?

I am just so used to the internet shops, especially for clothing, where it is normal to have subcategories like ‘skirts’ - mini skirts, medium length skirts, etc. to choose from. It makes things easier for me as a customer. Especially when I have forgotten or don’t know the name of something I am looking for (but I do know it’s clothing, so that’s my starting point).

Maybe I am old school, but if internet shops stick to this principle, it might not be such a bad idea.

And the AI technology is not ready to take over. I think I understand how it works but also see its flaws. Take a look at one of your more abstract pictures and see what the ‘bot’ is suggesting as ‘similar content’. It will show images with similar colors, composition, sharpness. The first second you might see the same as the ‘bot’ -similar- but then a second later your human brain recognizes what’s in the picture. Wait a minute ! My image is paint from up close, but the similar content shows fish and tree trunks.. So my customer who is looking for more pictures like mine will not be helped by the ‘similar content’ suggestion from the bot. On the positive side, if I have a similar image, also recognized as similar by the AI, in my portfolio, my customer will stick with me. However, now its become difficult to upload similar images in your own portfolio..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anna Shutterstock

While plan to crack down on similars sounds great, like others I would really appreciate it if some guidance could be provided on how Editorial submissions will be treated. Hopefully, endless submissions of virtually identical images from people using burst mode etc. will be rejected. However, will shots of buildings / cars etc. from different perspectives etc. be treated as similars? Clear, detailed and transparent guidance would be useful as reviewers might be inconsistent.

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...