Confusing Poll Sales Stats

[CD123]

It seems like some of the stats (especially the Low Earners) sometimes does not match up with the discussions in the specific site's forums.

Take for example (and this is only one) the latest discussions going round sales (Topic: pop the champagne cork) on Cutcuster. Unless the people who are actually getting sales are so busy making money or taking pictures, that they do not correspond in the forum, the sales rating and total lack of anyone actually selling there does not add up.

There where 90 votes regarding sales and the average is 2 ($5)? So either the non sellers are not voting or there are only a hand full of people who actually earns quite a lot (to bring the average up to 2), OR something else is wrong?

Can the admins perhaps give us a breakdown of this site's sales (% on 1, % on 2 and % above 2) - will actually be great to have it for all sites.

[aeonf]

These is a reverse correlation between the messages you post at MSG and the money you make in MS, thats it.
And yes, Sean is an anomaly.
Add LisaFX to the anomaly list

[lisafx]

These is a reverse correlation between the messages you post at MSG and the money you make in MS, thats it.
And yes, Sean is an anomaly.
Add LisaFX to the anomaly list

Thanks for that

If I could only bring myself to spend the time I am on here yakking by shooting and uploading instead I probably wouldn't be watching my earnings fall...

[WarrenPrice]

It seems like some of the stats (especially the Low Earners) sometimes does not match up with the discussions in the specific site's forums.

Take for example (and this is only one) the latest discussions going round sales (Topic: pop the champagne cork) on Cutcuster. Unless the people who are actually getting sales are so busy making money or taking pictures, that they do not correspond in the forum, the sales rating and total lack of anyone actually selling there does not add up.

There where 90 votes regarding sales and the average is 2 ($5)? So either the non sellers are not voting or there are only a hand full of people who actually earns quite a lot (to bring the average up to 2), OR something else is wrong?

Can the admins perhaps give us a breakdown of this site's sales (% on 1, % on 2 and % above 2) - will actually be great to have it for all sites.

I've done very well at Cutcaster, CD, but all sales are very niche oriented.  My over 30-year old, scanned motocross images have made more at Cutcaster than I have made at any other single site.  But, Shutterstock is catching up.   

[luissantos84]

sorry guys CC rocks I got even pictures corrupted (ftp issues or other) I got half picture online for sale!

[CD123]

Now where do you all come from now? 
I have 444 images on CC myself, but no sales. Have been supporting John for a long time (more than only by mouth). Just used his site as example.
Will still be nice to see those stats breakdown though!   

[BaldricksTrousers]

After having 1,000 pictures there for a year, I am finally starting to get a couple of sales a month. I'm not up to $10 lifetime sales there yet, but I'm more than halfway

[visceralimage]

On many of the smaller sites; I get sales but less than $5.00 a month so the statistics records it as zero, because the poll choices are zero, over $5, over $10, etc.  If 4.99 then it is zero

[lisafx]

On many of the smaller sites; I get sales but less than $5.00 a month so the statistics records it as zero, because the poll choices are zero, over $5, over $10, etc.  If 4.99 then it is zero

If it's less than $5 a month it might as well be zero.   

[CD123]

On many of the smaller sites; I get sales but less than $5.00 a month so the statistics records it as zero, because the poll choices are zero, over $5, over $10, etc.  If 4.99 then it is zero

Then even more so to question the validity of some of the low earners 2 rankings, while one barely hear of anyone making $5 or more on any of them. If my maths do not fail me, if 10 people have 0, then 10 people must have 3 to get an average of 2; so where are these 3+ earners........? 

[cthoman]

Then even more so to question the validity of some of the low earners 2 rankings, while one barely hear of anyone making $5 or more on any of them. If my maths do not fail me, if 10 people have 0, then 10 people must have 3 to get an average of 2; so where are these 3+ earners........? 

I guess it really depends on how your numbers match up to the poll numbers. You may find the poll results low or high in relation to your own numbers. You also may perform better or worse at certain agencies compared to the average. I always take them with a grain of salt because most of the people responding are photographers. Some of the agencies I'm at don't even get ranked, but I make money at them every month. The poll is more of a guideline for how you might do on an agency rather than a hard and fast rule.

[WarrenPrice]

Then even more so to question the validity of some of the low earners 2 rankings, while one barely hear of anyone making $5 or more on any of them. If my maths do not fail me, if 10 people have 0, then 10 people must have 3 to get an average of 2; so where are these 3+ earners........? 

I guess it really depends on how your numbers match up to the poll numbers. You may find the poll results low or high in relation to your own numbers. You also may perform better or worse at certain agencies compared to the average. I always take them with a grain of salt because most of the people responding are photographers. Some of the agencies I'm at don't even get ranked, but I make money at them every month. The poll is more of a guideline for how you might do on an agency rather than a hard and fast rule.

That and he makes too many "assumptions."  Remember -- you set your own prices at Cutcaster.  Don't be so quick to assume that every image sells for $4.99.

[luissantos84]

anyone knows what is the "0.16" next to IS?

[lisafx]

anyone knows what is the "0.16" next to IS?

The amount of my last XS sale? 

[luissantos84]

ahahah

[RacePhoto]

anyone knows what is the "0.16" next to IS?

Maybe Leaf will answer accurately but I always read that as the % increase or decrease.

So a green arrow with 0.01 isn't as important as a green arrow with 0.16. Of course if we could see a trend and month to month, it would be more meaningful. I mean, if this month IS goes up 0.15 and next month goes up 0.01, it looks like a small gain. But if site X goes up 0.01 this month and 0.05 next month, it looks like they are increasing more, when they are still .10 behind IS on growth.

Look at the numbers as averages and what the poll shows people claim to be earning.

I'll repeat when my mini polls have shown over the years. The top 5% of micrstockers are participating on this forum. Maybe not writing messages, but taking polls and answering Leaf's polls. Pretty impressive when you think about it?

[CD123]

That and he makes too many "assumptions."  Remember -- you set your own prices at Cutcaster.  Don't be so quick to assume that every image sells for $4.99.

Very odd remark, as no assumptions where made at all? I asked a question about the calculation of the rankings. How individual's contributor's obtain their earnings is not even part of the question. If most people earn nothing per month and enter 1 as their feedback for a site, it is simple maths that the one's earning something must enter more than 2 to get an average of 2. What was the assumption and where did the amounts people earn per picture come into the equation?