Author Topic: Google Images - We Are SO Screwed (Read 16114 times)

Poncke · « **Reply #25 on:** February 28, 2013, 13:25 »

ODDs and SODs are up for me. Believe me or not. BME at SS by at least 27%

gostwyck · « **Reply #26 on:** February 28, 2013, 13:35 »

Quote from: steheap on February 27, 2013, 20:01

What I've noticed this month about Shutterstock is that the ODs and SODs have really dropped off. I know this is a short month, but in January I had $200 in ODs and $120 in SODs, this month it is $173 and $17. As I understand it, the SODs are the ones that people can just come in from a search and buy the image - suggests that people with accounts at SS still buy, but the ones who are buying as they see the image they need have dropped through the floor - $120 to $17 is quite a change.

Anyone else notice a lack of SODs on Shutterstock?

Not here. OD's are almost identical to January for me and SOD's have been the 2nd best month ever.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #27 on:** February 28, 2013, 15:25 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 31, 2013, 21:42

..... it is Getty who will be screwed eventually. It's just going to take a little more time.....

I think you may well end up being right, I just hope we're both here to watch; and Google prove be instrumental. My theory is that Getty aspires to using ImageExchange and PicScout to take a nibble or more out of every license, regardless of where the image is licensed. Google's capabilities may help keep the nibble small, just have to get the SEO right.....

Regards

steheap · « **Reply #28 on:** February 28, 2013, 15:46 »

I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!

Steve

luissantos84 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 28, 2013, 16:10 »

Quote from: steheap on February 28, 2013, 15:46

I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!

Steve

oh man I think you are thinking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much, one thing as nothing to do with other and why on sods? why not od or sub?

can you elaborate?

not to mention that you can add watermark, even if you don't want its a XS size

steheap · « **Reply #30 on:** February 28, 2013, 17:19 »

My logic (such as it is), is that SS introduced the SOD as a way for someone without a subscription account with SS to come in and buy an image as and when they wanted it. So that sale must be driven more by "drive by" buyers who have searched for the image on Google. So if they happen to see an image of mine that they like, they will probably see the large unwatermarked image as well from FAA and choose that, rather than going through to SS to buy it!

Got to admit, there is a little bit of logic there to explain why I have such a drop in SODs but others do not seem to have seen the same drop.

Steve

sharpshot · « **Reply #31 on:** February 28, 2013, 17:34 »

I seem to be selling more SOD's since putting about 200 on FFA. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 28, 2013, 17:45 »

Quote from: steheap on February 28, 2013, 17:19

My logic (such as it is), is that SS introduced the SOD as a way for someone without a subscription account with SS to come in and buy an image as and when they wanted it. So that sale must be driven more by "drive by" buyers who have searched for the image on Google. So if they happen to see an image of mine that they like, they will probably see the large unwatermarked image as well from FAA and choose that, rather than going through to SS to buy it!

Got to admit, there is a little bit of logic there to explain why I have such a drop in SODs but others do not seem to have seen the same drop.

Steve

I am lost, how can you be sure the SOD buyers search on google and proceed as you say? and why not other like sub or od? as you know a sod can go up to 120$ royalties (our share 30%) so I don't understand how you can compare that to FAA, first there is the very low size picture (unwatermarked in your case) and then the SOD buyer is willing to pay big bucks so why stealing it from FAA? I wish I understand what you are saying but I think it is a very big theory

MINUS for the brilliant mind out there

steheap · « **Reply #33 on:** February 28, 2013, 19:44 »

As far as I know, the sub and OD category are for people that have some existing relationship with Shutterstock. SODs were introduced for the floating buyer that sees an image they like and they can buy it at a one off price - no commitments to buy more - hence they pay more for the image. Now, how do they find Shutterstock and the image of their dreams - they search for it on the internet. If my image from FAA appears alongside my image from Shutterstock, they may be happy to download the free one - even though it is only 900 px wide - that may be all they are looking for.

May all be rubbish, of course, but it has been a lousy month for me and I'm searching for answers, even though I know this game goes up and down!

Steve

luissantos84 · « **Reply #34 on:** February 28, 2013, 19:48 »

Steve the big sods for 70$ and 120$ the buyers want the license, not to get a free picture without a proper license, why would they get the free XS and be happy? when they used to pay 400$ at SS, what sense does that make?

I believe we need a better explanation about SOD, not about if they are down or up BUT which buyers get them and what are the exact terms

gostwyck · « **Reply #35 on:** March 01, 2013, 03:37 »

Quote from: steheap on February 28, 2013, 15:46

I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!

Brilliant! The ingenuity of microstockers to develop conspiracy theories to explain their lack of sales never fails to impress me.

I reckon the lack of OD's (for a few people anyway) is most likely down to unusual sun-spot activity last month and the reduction in SOD's is possibly due to the massive meteor that hit Russia last week. That and Manchester United's draw with Real Madrid in the Champion's League. Easy really when you think about it.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #36 on:** March 01, 2013, 04:54 »

It's the Chinese New Years effecting sales, anyone can see that.

Quote from: gostwyck on March 01, 2013, 03:37

Quote from: steheap on February 28, 2013, 15:46
I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!

Brilliant! The ingenuity of microstockers to develop conspiracy theories to explain their lack of sales never fails to impress me.

I reckon the lack of OD's (for a few people anyway) is most likely down to unusual sun-spot activity last month and the reduction in SOD's is possibly due to the massive meteor that hit Russia last week. That and Manchester United's draw with Real Madrid in the Champion's League. Easy really when you think about it.

ann · « **Reply #37 on:** March 01, 2013, 09:06 »

I was on FAA briefly, but lack of watermark on WAY bigger than a thumbnail size was deal-breaker.

Over the years, I've read how certain 'serious' buyers will not consider an image if they have to view it watermarked....
Well, those days are so gone - no copyright holder/agent is wise to post image for sale bigger than thumbnail without watermark.

In fact, the #1 feature I want from PhotoShelter is option to have basic watermark for thumbnails, especially those bigger than 100p.
- Ann

Quote from: steheap on February 28, 2013, 15:46

I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!

Steve

Poncke · « **Reply #38 on:** March 03, 2013, 02:08 »

I have disabled right click saving on all my photos posted on Flickr, but Google image search allows right click saving. They override the Flickr setting. When you click on the thumbnail the image on Flickr is displayed in full size and Google enables all my images for right click save. This needs to be stopped immediately.

I suggest we all report that here, each for their own images. http://www.flickr.com/abuse/. I have included the Google search result link to my images on Flickr in the report.

Beach Bum · « **Reply #39 on:** March 03, 2013, 02:21 »

Quote from: peter_stockfresh on February 27, 2013, 19:28

Quote from: cclapper on February 27, 2013, 18:45
I had an interesting conversation today with our SEO guy (I'll call him Fred) at work. I work on e-commerce sites, web designing, loading products, etc. Fred was asking us web doods if we had made any changes to categories, because he has been noticing a significant drop in our organic search results from about Feb. 5th through the 15th. He could not pinpoint a cause, so of course the first people to blame is us. Anyway, I related to him that that was just about the time when Google made the change in their image search.

It also took me a while to figure that out, despite the fact that I knew about the change... First I was worried about the effects a bit, but we actually benefited from it. Our sales weren't affected negatively and there's considerably less pressure on the servers without all that "fake" traffic.

The key takeaway from this is that people WILL buy the images if they can and if they know they have to, but you have to let them know by watermarking all the images you intend to sell on your own website. There shouldn't be any unwatermarked images on Google search from agencies except for the teasers on their front pages. If there are, they are doing something wrong.

It would be great however if we could provide Google with some HTML based data about the legal status and price of the images because I think that vague disclaimer stating that the image might be protected is not quite useful enough.

Great to see your input here, Peter. Wish more agencies were concerned enough about their contributors to participate here.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** March 03, 2013, 06:44 »

Quote from: Poncke on March 03, 2013, 02:08

I have disabled right click saving on all my photos posted on Flickr, but Google image search allows right click saving. They override the Flickr setting. When you click on the thumbnail the image on Flickr is displayed in full size and Google enables all my images for right click save. This needs to be stopped immediately.

I suggest we all report that here, each for their own images. http://www.flickr.com/abuse/. I have included the Google search result link to my images on Flickr in the report.

How do you get Google to show your Flickr images.
I just searched on two files that I thought would have very few hits anywhere and neither of them showed up in a Google Search, or in Google Images.
(I double checked by searching for them within Flickr, cut and pasting the keywords I'd used, and they are showing on an internal Flickr search - both months old, so definitely should be catalogued by now).
I don't care if Google doesn't show them, I'm not on Flickr to sell; but on principle over-riding right click is wrong, even if people can screendump and get the same file.

Poncke · « **Reply #41 on:** March 03, 2013, 07:25 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 03, 2013, 06:44

Quote from: Poncke on March 03, 2013, 02:08
I have disabled right click saving on all my photos posted on Flickr, but Google image search allows right click saving. They override the Flickr setting. When you click on the thumbnail the image on Flickr is displayed in full size and Google enables all my images for right click save. This needs to be stopped immediately.

I suggest we all report that here, each for their own images. http://www.flickr.com/abuse/. I have included the Google search result link to my images on Flickr in the report.

How do you get Google to show your Flickr images.
I just searched on two files that I thought would have very few hits anywhere and neither of them showed up in a Google Search, or in Google Images.
(I double checked by searching for them within Flickr, cut and pasting the keywords I'd used, and they are showing on an internal Flickr search - both months old, so definitely should be catalogued by now).
I don't care if Google doesn't show them, I'm not on Flickr to sell; but on principle over-riding right click is wrong, even if people can screendump and get the same file.

Flicker user name + the word flickr. That should bring your images up.

ShadySue · « **Reply #42 on:** March 03, 2013, 07:46 »

Quote from: Poncke on March 03, 2013, 07:25

Quote from: ShadySue on March 03, 2013, 06:44
Quote from: Poncke on March 03, 2013, 02:08
I have disabled right click saving on all my photos posted on Flickr, but Google image search allows right click saving. They override the Flickr setting. When you click on the thumbnail the image on Flickr is displayed in full size and Google enables all my images for right click save. This needs to be stopped immediately.

I suggest we all report that here, each for their own images. http://www.flickr.com/abuse/. I have included the Google search result link to my images on Flickr in the report.

How do you get Google to show your Flickr images.
I just searched on two files that I thought would have very few hits anywhere and neither of them showed up in a Google Search, or in Google Images.
(I double checked by searching for them within Flickr, cut and pasting the keywords I'd used, and they are showing on an internal Flickr search - both months old, so definitely should be catalogued by now).
I don't care if Google doesn't show them, I'm not on Flickr to sell; but on principle over-riding right click is wrong, even if people can screendump and get the same file.

Flicker user name + the word flickr. That should bring your images up.

Thanks.

I just hate the new Google, for search as well as all the other stuff we've discusssed of late. I've noticed since they changed that the general search is now pretty irrelevant. Contrary to what other people here have said, I always found Google Images largely irrelevant too, and it's no better now.

I just searched my Flickr user name + flickr. The top of the search has 18/20 of my pics, after that, it's only about 20% of my pics. 16 out of the top 18 are from the same set, from a while back.

(Clicking on any of these leads to the same file, which isn't mine, but is in a pool where these pics are - but all of them lead to the same file. I tried one not in that pool, clicked on it, and again it led to a different file in a different pool which that image was in. There doesn't seem to be any way of clicking to get onto the actual photo shown in the thum. I guess if a photo wasn't in a pool that would be OK (?) but I don't have many of these, and it would just be clicking in the dark to try to find one. That would make me furious if I was using Flickr as a marketing tool, but as it is, I just think 'Stupid Google'.)

Hovering over the thums does indeed offer a right-click save. However, all I seem to be able to save is the enlarged hovered-over thum, with loads of jpg artifacting.

BTW, it seems that if you do an internal search within Flickr, not signed in, you can always save out the tiny thums from that search. I then looked back at the Google results, and suspect the thums I'm seeing are enlargements of these tiny thums, as even when not hovered over, they show jpg artifacts.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google Images - We Are SO Screwed (Read 16114 times)

Poncke

gostwyck

Pinocchio

steheap

luissantos84

steheap

sharpshot

luissantos84

steheap

luissantos84

gostwyck

RacePhoto

ann

Poncke

Beach Bum

ShadySue

Poncke

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors