How many keywords does he have? 5 million? Thought the limit was 50?

Edited to add: It must be the translation. It looks like my images also have 5 million spanish keywords.

Apparently "Doug Shutter" is a real person named Nathan.

Here's the Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/stock.potography

This is in the FB "About" section:

"Hi. I'm Nathan.

 I'm in love with imagery, storytelling & admittedly...Marijuana. I want to learn all about this plant and the meaning(s) attached to it.
 I will travel across the country researching and photographing the topic of American Marijuana.
 My initial goal is to build a facebook community. To learn and plan. I love your images and stories! Anything 'American Marijuana.' Please keep sharing.

 Thank you all so much.
 Nathan"

No doubt Nathan and SS see the future of weed becoming huge; see themselves as getting 'in' on the ground floor....maybe they even met one another at the University of Oaksterdam. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/business-is-booming-at-the-harvard-of-pot-in-california/2015/11/15/e1fd0cb8-78fb-11e5-bc80-9091021aeb69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_oaksterdam930p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

The guy has no short-term memory left, so he gets up every day and does 100 more photos of the same bag of pot he's been shooting for 6 months, not realizing he already has 10,000 on line.

     a day in the life of a contributor/reviewer/shareholder of ss
story continues...
he stumbles into the ss office, opens his laptop and see all these new 100 photos
and approves all of it.
his boss comes slithers in the ss office , and applauds the 10,000 new images today
not realising many of it are marijuana photos
... and he invites his buddy for another joint-meeting

Spammers coming from mostly 2015-2014. Its a new wave from third World.
Vector spammers making mostly black ugly clipart icons.
Here is some new spammer:

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3671666p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3261299p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-120811p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3202118p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3380741p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2677336p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2741491p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3442481p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1158365p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3460061p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1790906p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1536035p1.html
This is the most intresting:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3026732p1.html
He started 2015 and, have 76 000 icon? Why?

Now this is 420 000 Spam Pictures from mostly 2015 - 2014, from 13 vector "artist". How many spammer are in total?
My soul crying.
it would be best to fire them all.

This is a serious issue i was worried about when an agency has no incentive to police their library for misuse. The numbers of files they have in their library is more important than the integrity of the library itself. What else do you expect from a company whose own founder took thousands of garbage snap shots himself to start this library the first year.

Shutterstock is a awful awful company! I have not uploaded anything new in ages. After Shutterstocks newest agreement update they are by far the most evil stock company on the planet!

Quote from: Mrblues101 on December 03, 2015, 13:51

Quote from: VB inc on December 03, 2015, 13:38

Quote from: Groman on December 03, 2015, 11:04

...

This is a serious issue i was worried about when an agency has no incentive to police their library for misuse. The numbers of files they have in their library is more important than the integrity of the library itself. What else do you expect from a company whose own founder took thousands of garbage snap shots himself to start this library the first year.

I think that this is not a big deal, unless you upload icons, so you have big competition with this kind of spammers.

Most of profiles just stop upload (are inactive now), so they think that upload a huge number of icons was a good idea but then they see that images can only be founded in last pages searches so there is not good earining with all of this.

Lets say this is happening. Then others start to think ok, this person is doing it. I'm gonna start doing it in order to compete so we are both abusing. Then lots of others are abusing the system. Then so much junk gets in that any viable new files get so buried in the new rubbish uploads they never even have a chance to compete in the first place. I feel like thats whats been happening recently in shutterstock so i have stopped uploading here as i know my files are very commercial yet some of them don't get seen.

Well, im agree with that

I don't think I've ever seen a portfoio this large:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=aarden

edit: never mind.  looks like a gallery of some sort.

Ah.  Good call.

SS can not be doing this to 'pump their numbers'.

If they wanted to pump the numbers we would not be getting so many 'Out Of Focus' rejections even when the photo is tac sharp.

There must be another reason so much crap is being accepted.

yes it sure looks fishy why regular contributors get a whole batch rejected with
no matter what , there is a problem with your photo.
according to the ss thread of complaints, these are coming from ppl who know how to process
photos for years... but suddenly
it is mostly OOF. if not, it is poor lighting , even if shadows are transparent. if all is perfect,
it is composition. so no matter what , the rejection still stand for these regular contributor
who suddenly forgot how to focus, WB, composition and contract some shaky hand disability.

but marijuana dude walks in with thousands without being curated.
who can solve this million dollar, i mean million image mystery???

Probably SS just need more marijuana stuff, but does not need
more Zoo pics. Less people have access to marijuana than
To the Zoo. IMHO

Lets say this is happening. Then others start to think ok, this person is doing it. I'm gonna start doing it in order to compete so we are both abusing. Then lots of others are abusing the system. Then so much junk gets in that any viable new files get so buried in the new rubbish uploads they never even have a chance to compete in the first place. I feel like thats whats been happening recently in shutterstock so i have stopped uploading here as i know my files are very commercial yet some of them don't get seen.

Exactly my thoughts.
I'm exclusive on IS, mostly icon sets, and this is exactly what is happening over there. I was thinking of giving up exclusivity and uploading to SS instead as everything over there is now dominated by a few spammers but if it's just as bad on SS then there's no point.
I guess it's a case of either join in the spamming or become a photo contributor instead.
Are there any sites left which puts quality over quantity?

BTW, there is a contributor on IS called crispyicon but that's not me. 

This is really really annoying.
Anyway, from a portofolio of 60k+ images it's impossible not to generate a minimum of 50-60+ sales/day.
I think it's simple math.
That still counts for 600$+/month on Shutterstock.
I don't think any of these portofolio makes less than 600$/month.
I used to sell a lot of crap (not repetitive crap) but... crap when I had a poor technical level.
So, my guess would be that it's relevant for them to spam with this s**t if they earn a little living from it.

Amusingly, this user's name is popular.vector! There are 64,723 items in their portfolio and it's about 100 or so objects presented in endless variations of box color & shape, background color & shape. It's mind-numblngly boring repetition of super-simple objects, each one to a file. Does that mean the trend on SS of ever-increasing collections of icons in one file is pass�?

http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=2939971&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

About the only good thing I can think of is that the keywords are pretty close (so there are a few misplaced words like computer on an icon of an eye dropper, but they're mostly OK)