Author Topic: More istock server problems (Read 22794 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #75 on:** April 16, 2010, 18:52 »

Quote from: Digital66 on April 16, 2010, 18:22

Quote from: ShadySue on April 16, 2010, 16:24
Quote from: stockastic on April 16, 2010, 16:18
It is probably now possible to run an entire microstock on Amazon hosting and storage infrastructure - for a price of course.
It's just about the only service they don't offer - for the moment!

I think Snapixel uses Amazon hosting and storage infrastructure.

Ah!
I bet loads more companies are using Amazon in some way.
Earlier this evening, I was browsing Marks and Spencer's own website, but noticed that amazon was being referenced by the pages whizzing past at the bottom left of the Firefox page (where it ends up as 'done'. Don't know what it's called?)

stockastic · « **Reply #76 on:** April 16, 2010, 19:00 »

Quote from: Digital66 on April 16, 2010, 18:22

I think Snapixel uses Amazon hosting and storage infrastructure.

SmugMug has used Amazon S3 for storage since the beginning. I use it myself, for automatic backup of my photos. Of course storage is only part of the picture. Imagine the info-plumbing it takes to keep those thousands of new images flowing past the eyes of reviewers... and generate thousands of emails saying "contains areas that are too feathered or too rough"...

lagereek · « **Reply #77 on:** April 21, 2010, 12:54 »

Cant help wondering? is it really worthwhile adding all these gazillions of shots every single day? I mean, what is it in aid of? Back in the Trad-agency days, prominent agencies used to pride themselves over a smaller collection, not like in Excl+ but a smaller highly relevant collection. In Stones they represented about 70% of turnover so it paid off handsomely.
With all these millions of shots and thousands being added every day, is it any wonder it all breaks down?
I can see it coming, one day you wake up and whatever agency you tap into, its gone! crashed.

gostwyck · « **Reply #78 on:** April 21, 2010, 13:01 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2010, 12:54

Cant help wondering? is it really worthwhile adding all these gazillions of shots every single day? I mean, what is it in aid of?

Of course it is. More images are being gained in niche subjects and better images in popular subjects. Subscribers in particular always want new images and a wider choice in the subjects that they have an interest in. I'm surprised the agencies don't do more culling of stuff that is proven not to be in demand though.

elvinstar · « **Reply #79 on:** April 21, 2010, 13:11 »

If they dumped everything over 3 years old that has never sold, it would lighten their load considerably and make searches more relevant at the same time.

KB · « **Reply #80 on:** April 21, 2010, 13:18 »

Quote from: elvinstar on April 21, 2010, 13:11

If they dumped everything over 3 years old that has never sold, it would lighten their load considerably and make searches more relevant at the same time.

Such images are already buried down at the end of the search results sorting by best match, age, or DLs. Just which search results would become more relevant by eliminating them? (Not that I don't think it's a good idea ....)

lagereek · « **Reply #81 on:** April 21, 2010, 15:25 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 21, 2010, 13:01

Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2010, 12:54
Cant help wondering? is it really worthwhile adding all these gazillions of shots every single day? I mean, what is it in aid of?

Of course it is. More images are being gained in niche subjects and better images in popular subjects. Subscribers in particular always want new images and a wider choice in the subjects that they have an interest in. I'm surprised the agencies don't do more culling of stuff that is proven not to be in demand though.

you mean generic quantity instead of quality, making buyers having to wade through tons of irrelevant material.

gostwyck · « **Reply #82 on:** April 21, 2010, 17:46 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2010, 15:25

you mean generic quantity instead of quality, making buyers having to wade through tons of irrelevant material.

Not at all __ the default sort-orders at IS, SS and FT are pretty good at promoting the popular stuff and hiding the crap way down the order. The majority of microstockers have probably been shooting stock/commercial images for 6 years or less. If they're working at it, they'll still be slowly improving each year as they gain knowledge and skills and additionally the review standards are also increasing. Therefore the overall quality of the collections are improving markedly too. Older images that were popular once, and still have a high placement, often stick out like a sore thumb against the backdrop of newer popular images. Quite frankly if an individual contributor's quality is not improving then they'll be falling behind.

lagereek · « **Reply #83 on:** April 22, 2010, 00:23 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 21, 2010, 17:46

Quote from: lagereek on April 21, 2010, 15:25
you mean generic quantity instead of quality, making buyers having to wade through tons of irrelevant material.

Not at all __ the default sort-orders at IS, SS and FT are pretty good at promoting the popular stuff and hiding the crap way down the order. The majority of microstockers have probably been shooting stock/commercial images for 6 years or less. If they're working at it, they'll still be slowly improving each year as they gain knowledge and skills and additionally the review standards are also increasing. Therefore the overall quality of the collections are improving markedly too. Older images that were popular once, and still have a high placement, often stick out like a sore thumb against the backdrop of newer popular images. Quite frankly if an individual contributor's quality is not improving then they'll be falling behind.

I suppose you got a point there. Only sometimes it seems that if an image is technically sound, its passed? what happend to all the criteria such as creative, relevance, composition, you know, the stuff that makes us photographers, that sets us apart from say the weekend snappers.
Im pretty sure anyway, the day will come when we have to review all the stuff, whats there and whats good for the dustbinn.

However youre right in the fact, standards are improving and I suppose theres always a buyer foir something.
best.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #84 on:** May 05, 2010, 01:16 »

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDwxhHwJ66M[/youtube]

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: More istock server problems (Read 22794 times)

ShadySue

stockastic

lagereek

gostwyck

elvinstar

KB

lagereek

gostwyck

lagereek

CofkoCof

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors