Author Topic: Cap theory: does this sound familiar? (Read 16782 times)

namussi · « **Reply #25 on:** February 26, 2018, 21:19 »

Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 21:09

Quote from: namussi on February 26, 2018, 20:14
Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 11:13
Quote from: namussi on February 25, 2018, 23:35
Quote from: farbled on February 25, 2018, 22:32

It's now clear: So he "can criticise their findings and reasoning."

Clear only now?
Hahaha, you got me. Ok but I figured it out. I inadvertently had my monitor upside down these last ten or so years and never noticed. My graph was flat on the bottom, not the top! There is no cap. Whew!

The law of diminishing returns explains what's happening quite well. The phenomenon appears in all sorts of industries and markets. There's no need for a malicious capping algorithm to limit your returns. It just happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingmarginalreturn.asp

Cool, still looks nothing like mine but OK. No cap. Happy?

I'm not saying there isn't a cap. But there are plenty of well-tested explanations for what people might be experiencing that are far simpler than a malicious algorithm.

I have yet to see any robust evidence of a cap.

What does your graph look like?

farbled · « **Reply #26 on:** February 26, 2018, 21:48 »

You dont see any evidence because you have a different result.

namussi · « **Reply #27 on:** February 26, 2018, 21:56 »

Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 21:48

You dont see any evidence because you have a different result.

I'm not seeing any evidence because no-one is showing me any.

Do you think the law of diminishing returns applies to you?

farbled · « **Reply #28 on:** February 26, 2018, 22:01 »

Quote from: namussi on February 26, 2018, 21:56

Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 21:48
You dont see any evidence because you have a different result.

I'm not seeing any evidence because no-one is showing me any.

Do you think the law of diminishing returns applies to you?

And it looks like no one is going to, you haven't supplied a compelling reason for anyone to do so. For me, this was mildly interesting but now I am out.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #29 on:** February 27, 2018, 00:48 »

Quote from: namussi on February 26, 2018, 19:44

Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 11:13
Quote from: namussi on February 25, 2018, 23:35
Quote from: farbled on February 25, 2018, 22:32

It's now clear: So he "can criticise their findings and reasoning."

Clear only now?
Hahaha, you got me. Ok but I figured it out. I inadvertently had my monitor upside down these last ten or so years and never noticed. My graph was flat on the bottom, not the top! There is no cap. Whew!

Something like this?

That graph doesn't make sense. Why would the quality of work and amount of work you are creating decline the more effort you put into producing it? It's nonsense.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #30 on:** February 27, 2018, 01:39 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2018, 00:48

That graph doesn't make sense. Why would the quality of work and amount of work you are creating decline the more effort you put into producing it? It's nonsense.

It kind of works, and it kind of also doesn't work... so it's only semi-nonsense! I think the wording on the axis kind of ruins it. The more work you put in and the more quality you produce, the better... I don't think anyone is doubting that. But I think the concept of diminishing returns works better when you're talking about working on just one thing.

So, say you spent 10 minutes on post processing a single image. That would be in the first third of the chart. If you spent 100 minutes, then you're firmly in the second third of the chart. Spend 1000 minutes and you're then in the last third of the chart.

Like a $250m blockbuster that rakes in $1bn at the box office. If the budget was $2.5bn instead, it's unlikely it would take $1tn. But then you could extrapolate out and say that creating and selling stock is 'one thing'... and then it doesn't really work. work more and create more... and you'll earn more. If you're creating the same quality, commercial viability and variety... then working twice as much should make you (around) twice as much. The levelling of the curve isn't due to diminishing returns though... it's more to do with increased competition, and falsely inflated percentage gains in the early years.

So yeah, the concept of diminishing returns is a proven one, but I'm not sure it really works that well with the stock model. The curves levelling out are similar though to what you see from a lot of authors though, but that's usually due to the inability to double your portfolio every year, combined with increased competition.

derek · « **Reply #31 on:** February 27, 2018, 02:43 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2018, 00:48

Quote from: namussi on February 26, 2018, 19:44
Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 11:13
Quote from: namussi on February 25, 2018, 23:35
Quote from: farbled on February 25, 2018, 22:32

It's now clear: So he "can criticise their findings and reasoning."

Clear only now?
Hahaha, you got me. Ok but I figured it out. I inadvertently had my monitor upside down these last ten or so years and never noticed. My graph was flat on the bottom, not the top! There is no cap. Whew!

Something like this?

That graph doesn't make sense. Why would the quality of work and amount of work you are creating decline the more effort you put into producing it? It's nonsense.

Really Simon! pop into the GI forum and speak to us house-photographers! quality do not pay! very seldom the agency output matches the photographers input nowadays! and this is the place where quality and work really should make a difference!

The only places left where quality/work still means something and where buyers also are prepared to pay good money are the smaller what we call boutique agencies normally associated with creative buyers working on a brief or something and thats why they are prepared to pay!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 27, 2018, 03:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2018, 00:48

Quote from: namussi on February 26, 2018, 19:44
Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 11:13
Quote from: namussi on February 25, 2018, 23:35
Quote from: farbled on February 25, 2018, 22:32

It's now clear: So he "can criticise their findings and reasoning."

Clear only now?
Hahaha, you got me. Ok but I figured it out. I inadvertently had my monitor upside down these last ten or so years and never noticed. My graph was flat on the bottom, not the top! There is no cap. Whew!

Something like this?

That graph doesn't make sense. Why would the quality of work and amount of work you are creating decline the more effort you put into producing it? It's nonsense.

I think it makes sense up to the point it flattens. The quality of work increases by say 50% the year you start along with the %age increase in port. Ten years in its much harder to increase quality as you are already much better so maybe 5% similarly size of port. When you add the factor of an exponential increase in competition that would explain a downturn.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #33 on:** February 27, 2018, 03:39 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 27, 2018, 03:18

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2018, 00:48
Quote from: namussi on February 26, 2018, 19:44
Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 11:13
Quote from: namussi on February 25, 2018, 23:35
Quote from: farbled on February 25, 2018, 22:32

It's now clear: So he "can criticise their findings and reasoning."

Clear only now?
Hahaha, you got me. Ok but I figured it out. I inadvertently had my monitor upside down these last ten or so years and never noticed. My graph was flat on the bottom, not the top! There is no cap. Whew!

Something like this?

That graph doesn't make sense. Why would the quality of work and amount of work you are creating decline the more effort you put into producing it? It's nonsense.
I think it makes sense up to the point it flattens. The quality of work increases by say 50% the year you start along with the %age increase in port. Ten years in its much harder to increase quality as you are already much better so maybe 5% similarly size of port. When you add the factor of an exponential increase in competition that would explain a downturn.

That's not what the axes say they are representing. There are certainly diminishing returns in stock but it's not got much to do with the labels put on that graph. The key factors are age of files, number of files in your port and the number of files in total ... at least, those are some of the keys, just off the top of my head.

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #34 on:** February 27, 2018, 04:12 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2018, 03:39

That's not what the axes say they are representing. There are certainly diminishing returns in stock but it's not got much to do with the labels put on that graph. The key factors are age of files, number of files in your port and the number of files in total ... at least, those are some of the keys, just off the top of my head.

You have to think relative change, not absolute.

Your increase in quality will decrease. And your quality relative to others may decrease, even if you're still increasing the quality in absolute terms.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 27, 2018, 04:33 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2018, 03:39

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 27, 2018, 03:18
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2018, 00:48
Quote from: namussi on February 26, 2018, 19:44
Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 11:13
Quote from: namussi on February 25, 2018, 23:35
Quote from: farbled on February 25, 2018, 22:32

It's now clear: So he "can criticise their findings and reasoning."

Clear only now?
Hahaha, you got me. Ok but I figured it out. I inadvertently had my monitor upside down these last ten or so years and never noticed. My graph was flat on the bottom, not the top! There is no cap. Whew!

Something like this?

That graph doesn't make sense. Why would the quality of work and amount of work you are creating decline the more effort you put into producing it? It's nonsense.
I think it makes sense up to the point it flattens. The quality of work increases by say 50% the year you start along with the %age increase in port. Ten years in its much harder to increase quality as you are already much better so maybe 5% similarly size of port. When you add the factor of an exponential increase in competition that would explain a downturn.

That's not what the axes say they are representing. There are certainly diminishing returns in stock but it's not got much to do with the labels put on that graph. The key factors are age of files, number of files in your port and the number of files in total ... at least, those are some of the keys, just off the top of my head.

Yes you are right....I don't think those axes reflect properly the law as I understand it I didn't read it closely enough. The Y axis should be "Total Return" or similar.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #36 on:** February 27, 2018, 09:40 »

Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 21:09

Cool, still looks nothing like mine but OK. No cap. Happy?

Which agencies are capping you, I wonder which haven't? You must be on many different marketers sites. Seems like lots of video people are seeing a drop at P5 so I wonder which photo sites are capping us.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #37 on:** February 27, 2018, 20:23 »

I can only assume there's been some kind of search change on Pond5, as my sales have increased quite a bit in the last couple of months. That would be less likely if there was a drop in buyers at Pond5, so I'm assuming it's a search thing... could be something else!

2017 Average: $261.26
January: $532.75
February: $671.89

Tyson Anderson · « **Reply #38 on:** February 27, 2018, 22:28 »

Oh man, I think this threading is starting to see a diminishing return

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #39 on:** February 28, 2018, 02:07 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on February 27, 2018, 20:23

I can only assume there's been some kind of search change on Pond5, as my sales have increased quite a bit in the last couple of months. That would be less likely if there was a drop in buyers at Pond5, so I'm assuming it's a search thing... could be something else!

2017 Average: $261.26
January: $532.75
February: $671.89

So far, I'm up around 70% on my 2017 average. Can't complain. Only two months, but both better than last year's Jan/Feb.

namussi · « **Reply #40 on:** February 28, 2018, 03:40 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 27, 2018, 04:33

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2018, 03:39
Quote from: Pauws99 on February 27, 2018, 03:18
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 27, 2018, 00:48
Quote from: namussi on February 26, 2018, 19:44
Quote from: farbled on February 26, 2018, 11:13
Quote from: namussi on February 25, 2018, 23:35
Quote from: farbled on February 25, 2018, 22:32

It's now clear: So he "can criticise their findings and reasoning."

Clear only now?
Hahaha, you got me. Ok but I figured it out. I inadvertently had my monitor upside down these last ten or so years and never noticed. My graph was flat on the bottom, not the top! There is no cap. Whew!

Something like this?

That graph doesn't make sense. Why would the quality of work and amount of work you are creating decline the more effort you put into producing it? It's nonsense.
I think it makes sense up to the point it flattens. The quality of work increases by say 50% the year you start along with the %age increase in port. Ten years in its much harder to increase quality as you are already much better so maybe 5% similarly size of port. When you add the factor of an exponential increase in competition that would explain a downturn.

That's not what the axes say they are representing. There are certainly diminishing returns in stock but it's not got much to do with the labels put on that graph. The key factors are age of files, number of files in your port and the number of files in total ... at least, those are some of the keys, just off the top of my head.
Yes you are right....I don't think those axes reflect properly the law as I understand it I didn't read it closely enough. The Y axis should be "Total Return" or similar.

Apologies. I should have used a better graph.

niktol · « **Reply #41 on:** February 28, 2018, 08:41 »

I should buy me a dog and call him Cap. Then there won't be a question "is there or isn't there a cap?". The question will change to "who is a good cap?".

Pauws99 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 28, 2018, 09:03 »

Quote from: niktol on February 28, 2018, 08:41

I should buy me a dog and call him Cap. Then there won't be a question "is there or isn't there a cap?". The question will change to "who is a good cap?".

Or buy a cap and embroid "Shutterstock" on it....definite proof there's a Shutterstock Cap then.

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #43 on:** February 28, 2018, 09:10 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 28, 2018, 09:03

Or buy a cap and embroid "Shutterstock" on it....definite proof there's a Shutterstock Cap then.

Now that's the most sensible thing I've read today!

niktol · « **Reply #44 on:** February 28, 2018, 09:19 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 28, 2018, 09:03

Quote from: niktol on February 28, 2018, 08:41
I should buy me a dog and call him Cap. Then there won't be a question "is there or isn't there a cap?". The question will change to "who is a good cap?".
Or buy a cap and embroid "Shutterstock" on it....definite proof there's a Shutterstock Cap then.

I am surprised SS doesn't sell any "iconic" merchandise. Or it does? I already have a t-shirt design in mind. It's gonna be called "great news from ShutterStock"

Zero Talent · « **Reply #45 on:** February 28, 2018, 09:21 »

Quote from: niktol on February 28, 2018, 08:41

I should buy me a dog and call him Cap. Then there won't be a question "is there or isn't there a cap?".

Unless you get a "Schroedinger dog" who can simultaneously be alive and dead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

namussi · « **Reply #46 on:** February 28, 2018, 19:41 »

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on February 28, 2018, 09:10

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 28, 2018, 09:03
Or buy a cap and embroid "Shutterstock" on it....definite proof there's a Shutterstock Cap then.

Now that's the most sensible thing I've read today!

I won't believe it until I see a picture (and even then I might think you used Photoshop)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Cap theory: does this sound familiar? (Read 16782 times)

namussi

farbled

namussi

farbled

BaldricksTrousers

SpaceStockFootage

derek

Pauws99

BaldricksTrousers

increasingdifficulty

Pauws99

Uncle Pete

SpaceStockFootage

Tyson Anderson

increasingdifficulty

namussi

niktol

Pauws99

increasingdifficulty

niktol

Zero Talent

namussi

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors