Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Phil Lowe

Who's curating the recent purge of images?

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

I think it is possible at Alamy. Their image manager is a bit weird - you have to deselect images as well as select.  If you click on an image and modify the info and then click on a second image to do the same the first does not deselect and what changes you make to the second also appear on the first.  This is to allow bulk management - say you have 50 images all shot in the same location you can select them all and put the location so you only have to do it once.  You then deselect all and just pick one or 2 at a time to do other stuff (number of people, property etc).  This functionality does also apply to deleting I have just checked so you can select multipe images and click delete.  I believe their limit for contributors is 500 at a time.

Sorry, meant Video files :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CH Digital Media said:

Sorry, meant Video files :)

Ah right  - I have not got to video yet, too busy trying to take nice photos lol

 

Share this post


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

Ah right  - I have not got to video yet, too busy trying to take nice photos lol

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't ever recall getting rejections for similar images. Though I have had rejections that state that such and such image is already in the database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairly obviously this is being done by or aided by AI so as per the reviews there are going to be huge mistakes made and quite possible some old, big selling contributors dumped.

Theres no way to curate that number of images manually by as SS keep telling as, a small number of staff.

Its also a tacit admission by them that their policy of "more more more" and deliberately axing all QA standards was a bad move.

*HOWEVER* i still think that once the review stage has passed the fault and burden should lie with SS not the person that submitted it.  After all, if you submit to QC and it passes, the reviewer at that time thinks its acceptable so theres no way that should leave the contributor open to sanction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

Fairly obviously this is being done by or aided by AI so as per the reviews there are going to be huge mistakes made and quite possible some old, big selling contributors dumped.

Theres no way to curate that number of images manually by as SS keep telling as, a small number of staff.

Its also a tacit admission by them that their policy of "more more more" and deliberately axing all QA standards was a bad move.

*HOWEVER* i still think that once the review stage has passed the fault and burden should lie with SS not the person that submitted it.  After all, if you submit to QC and it passes, the reviewer at that time thinks its acceptable so theres no way that should leave the contributor open to sanction.

I agree it should be on SS.  IMO whereever AI flags a port with "too many" (whatever that number is) similars it should pass to a human who looks and then deletes all but 1 of the similars - not the entire port.
At the same time reviewers cracking down on the submitting of similars should result in official warnings to any contributor who has a certain number of rejections for similars in a certain period of time, and if they continue to submit similars then close their account.

In the meantime I have just uploaded images 4 of which will be interesting to see what happens with - they are all of the rainbow patterns created from spilled oil (my sons motorbike leaked, it rained, what am I expected to do lol)  They are all of different bits of leak  and IMO significantly different from each other, on the other hand they are all from the same time and similar subject.  So we will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first i also thought it was a mistake of AI, but the scarier thing is that is an ACTUAL HUMAN. Which means that they can lock your upload, or like in my case - to hit the big red button - terminate. (by mistake in my case).

 Alex said that there is no AI whatsoever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, IM_VISUALS said:

At first i also thought it was a mistake of AI, but the scarier thing is that is an ACTUAL HUMAN. Which means that they can lock your upload, or like in my case - to hit the big red button - terminate. (by mistake in my case).

 Alex said that there is no AI whatsoever. 

They're careful wording, they still say a human decides.  That doesnt mean AI feeds recommendations to a human who just blindly clicks to accept it.   The wording needs enough room for that.

I wonder if yours only became a "mistake" because you got noticed on the forum and got some publicity about it too....

Also, do your photo rankings still seem OK and still selling as before OR is it all back to zero?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2020 at 12:37 PM, Starsphinx said:



In the meantime I have just uploaded images 4 of which will be interesting to see what happens with - they are all of the rainbow patterns created from spilled oil (my sons motorbike leaked, it rained, what am I expected to do lol)  They are all of different bits of leak  and IMO significantly different from each other, on the other hand they are all from the same time and similar subject.  So we will see.

For peoples references all 4 images have been approved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2020 at 10:23 AM, IM_VISUALS said:

At first i also thought it was a mistake of AI, but the scarier thing is that is an ACTUAL HUMAN. Which means that they can lock your upload, or like in my case - to hit the big red button - terminate. (by mistake in my case).

 Alex said that there is no AI whatsoever. 

I hear what you're saying but had about a dozen images or so rejected for all kinds of reasons within seconds of submission (noise, intellectual property, non-licensable content, focus, etc.) All but one were eventually accepted after re-submitting. Either someone was rubber stamping rejections at breakneck speed or something else? This lead me to believe SS uses automation similar to the auto quality check at AS. I also think certain keywords flag the system for automatic rejection before a human sees it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sharkshock said:

I hear what you're saying but had about a dozen images or so rejected for all kinds of reasons within seconds of submission (noise, intellectual property, non-licensable content, focus, etc.) All but one were eventually accepted after re-submitting. Either someone was rubber stamping rejections or something else? This lead me to believe SS uses automation similar to the auto quality check at AS. I also think certain keywords flag the system for automatic rejection before a human sees it. 

Agree on this one! Had the same experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 9:07 AM, Phil Lowe said:

Is that why editorials - at least some of mine - seem to be taking much longer to be reviewed?

I had three (definitely different) illustrations take about a week to get approved, while photos in the same batch were approved within 24 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a few of my shots were deleted a couple of weeks back " arbitrarily". they were supposedly Volkswagen-related!? based on he note I got. must have been editorials I believe. but still surprised me a but. SS notified me about it, but I have no clue what exactly got deleted. once they are gone, they are gone. not a huge loss, they may have sold a handful of times at sub prices. so it seems that some purging is underway. I don't mind. but as for similars? I am just too lazy to go and try to figure out what may be considered too similar in SS' view. can't be too many in my port.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, viewing tens or hundreds of similar images is very annoying.
I agree that some solutions to this problem are needed.
However.
1. Someone still buys them, so the buyer needs them.
2. These are already processed high-quality images, which in general are the property of the SS.

Why not group them, and in the search results show only one image with a note that this is a transition to a group of NNN similar images.
And:
1. Each similar image should have a unique description, not numbers.
2. Do not accept images with the same description within the same portfolio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2020 at 11:21 AM, Aleks Kvintet said:

Of course, viewing tens or hundreds of similar images is very annoying.
I agree that some solutions to this problem are needed.
However.
1. Someone still buys them, so the buyer needs them.
2. These are already processed high-quality images, which in general are the property of the SS.

Why not group them, and in the search results show only one image with a note that this is a transition to a group of NNN similar images.
And:
1. Each similar image should have a unique description, not numbers.
2. Do not accept images with the same description within the same portfolio.

Those are simple yet very sensible ideas! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2020 at 11:21 AM, Aleks Kvintet said:

Do not accept images with the same description within the same portfolio.

Why not?
You can take very different pictures of the same thing. Like a building or an object. 
Just by changing the angle, the depth of field... 
There is no reason to give individual titles to these completely different looking pictures that show an identical thing. 

For example, these 2 different style fotos have same description (both sell). 

I do not think, they are similars. 

composite-panorama-high-resolution-aeria

composite-panorama-high-resolution-aeria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2020 at 12:22 PM, geogif said:

Why not?
You can take very different pictures of the same thing. Like a building or an object. 
Just by changing the angle, the depth of field... 
There is no reason to give individual titles to these completely different looking pictures that show an identical thing. 

For example, these 2 different style fotos have same description (both sell). 

I do not think, they are similars. 

composite-panorama-high-resolution-aeria

composite-panorama-high-resolution-aeria

You have a good detailed description.
But.
Why not add the phrase blue sky to the description of the second image?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Aleks Kvintet said:

But.
Why not add the phrase blue sky to the description of the second image?

Of course, with every picture that is not identical to another one, you can always find something that could be mentioned additionally in the description. But that was not the point. 
The point was the proposal to classify pictures with identical descriptions as "similars". I think this suggestion is wrong. The two pictures should support my opinion. Has nothing to do with whether the descriptions could be even "better".

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should not be identical descriptions in one portfolio in principle.

1. This is contrary to SS policy
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/000011450?q=description&l=en_US&fs=Search&pn=1

2. I think that this is in the interests of both the author and the buyer.

Perhaps a robot that searches for similar content has no eyes, and simply compares image descriptions.

If the descriptions match, then this is either similar content or a violation of the CC policy regarding the description.

In any case, this is a violation, and some sanctions are possible depending on the degree of violation.

(Translation using Google translator).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Aleks Kvintet said:

That depends on how exactly the meaning of the word "unique" is meant by SS. 
Look again at my sample pictures. No one's going to claim they're "simlars." Nevertheless, they describe the same landscape, so the description may well be identical. This is even intended, because this way the buyer gets two (different (!)) pictures on the same topic. This is exactly what he is usually looking for. 

Share this post


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

 This is even intended, because this way the buyer gets two (different (!)) pictures on the same topic. This is exactly what he is usually looking for. 

Interesting idea.
But.
Why the additional phrase blue sky will prevent the buyer from getting two images?
I think that on the contrary, there will be more opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Aleks Kvintet said:

There should not be identical descriptions in one portfolio in principle.

If the descriptions match, then this is either similar content or a violation of the CC policy regarding the description.

(Translation using Google translator).

No it isn't and not that simple. I have similar descriptions for images of the same subject taken years apart. They are not similar at all. None are a violation of any policy. I think you are looking on the surface and over simplifying the solution. Identical Descriptions can exist, without violating anything.

6 hours ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

We don't know if the title is actually searched on SS or not.

And the robots are doing it based on the image NOT descriptions (in the same way google image search, tin eye etc do)

Really you don't know if the Title from the Description field when we upload, is actually searched? Should I tell you, or would you just argue? The answer is yes, positively the Description is searched.

What people keep calling Bots and AI is actually machine learning. And the machines don't make the decisions, the humans do. Yes, we agree, the software gives the humans advice, which they can take or not. 👍 Also right, they look at the images for colors and patterns. My favorite bad example was a blue and yellow canoe, then a different image with a different scene, more people in canoes and it was rejected for similar. Obviously NOT. Lazy reviewer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, HodagMedia said:

 

 

What people keep calling Bots and AI is actually machine learning. And the machines don't make the decisions, the humans do. Yes, we agree, the software gives the humans advice, which they can take or not. 👍 Also right, they look at the images for colors and patterns. My favorite bad example was a blue and yellow canoe, then a different image with a different scene, more people in canoes and it was rejected for similar. Obviously NOT. Lazy reviewer.

 

Really you don't know if the Title from the Description field when we upload, is actually searched? Should I tell you, or would you just argue? The answer is yes, positively the Description is searched.

Ok so lets have some proof.  If you can prove that i'll believe you.  Seems fair.

We KNOW it is on some agencies and also know its not on others.  SS have never said so some proof is all thats needed.

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...