MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: GeckoStock is now open for visitors  (Read 3810 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 30, 2007, 13:13 »
0
RH and I are in the chatroom ready to answer all your questions if you want to join us (no registration requiered) then go to http://www.geckostock.co.uk and in the menu go to Resources>Chatroom! SY


« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2007, 16:18 »
0
Hi after far more then three hours of animated chatting we close the chat room now at GeckoStock, the site stays open if you want to have a look around and register. Tomorrow more, the Geckos are tired... SY

« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2007, 16:25 »
0
This might explain why I logged in now and could not find the chat room.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2007, 16:32 »
0
Sorry Madelaide, would have loved to meet you there but we typed our fingers to the bones for nearly four hours... Still if you want to have a look around the site is now up and running, if you have questions just post here or pm me if you prefer, SY

« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2007, 16:52 »
0
Maybe I missed something here, but on some of the photos on this site the watermark says "Raw Stock Image".

Is Gecko the new name of RawStock? ???


Claude

« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2007, 16:59 »
0
Bingo! You got it *lol* Thumbnail generation will have finished by tomorrow then all images are re-water marked. SY

« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2007, 18:28 »
0
Oups!!!

It's even written in red right after your portfolio links!!! :-X

Claude

« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2007, 13:19 »
0
Hospitalera,

My only question so far (I signed up yesterday) is where to upload 640x480pix images.  I don't have them ready yet, but the uploading instructions says minimum 1200x1200pix.  I will not upload only the 640x480pix, but this called my attention.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2007, 13:43 »
0
Hi Madelaide,

you can upload them via http upload or just burn them on cd/dvd and send them to the address on the files upload page, hope that helps SY

BTW If you are sending them from abroad please make a note on the package "no commercial value" to avoid problems at customs...

« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2007, 07:34 »
0
Sy - I'm confused by this whole "web only" business.  I've got about 40 images that were designated as web only for some reason (a couple being best sellers for me at full size at other sites).  If I look at license sizes available, the other 200+ images are not available at web size and the web size images are available at larger sizes.  I don't understand what the deal is.

Can you or Richard clear up what's going on please?  Thanks!

« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2007, 17:40 »
0
Hiya wysiwyg_foto.

Just wanted to let you know that we had a small problem with the licenses logic which has now been sorted.  We've run a script which has updated all of the existing images with the correct licenses for the image size.  You should receive a memo from Gecko Stock tomorrow notifying you about this issue and letting you know what to do if you had selected images to be available for a web-only license.  The web-only license means that buyers can download the image for only 50p but they are restricted to web-only use, meaning that they can only use it on a web site at a maximum size of 640 x 480.

I hope this helps.  I look forward to seeing more of your images in the future. :-)

« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2007, 19:24 »
0
Thanks Richard - I'm not sure how they got to be "web only" in the first place.  Sunday, I started deleting those files that were "web only" as this isn't something I'm interested in doing.

I noticed that in my preferences, I do not have the box checked it must be a bug with the site.

« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2007, 21:36 »
0
Richard,

Although I have plans to upload my 640x480 images (travel images, I hope you like them), which will be "web only", I don't see the advantage of having a "web only" section.  I can understand "web only" in searches, what would return matching images from the "web only" collection as well as those from the main collection.

As far as I can see, by the main collection isn't offered in web size, am I right?  I think you should reconsider that - at least for me, this is the best selling size at IS.

wysiwyg_foto,

I had the same problem on Sunday, when I saw the web size images I even PM'd hospitalera here, but yesterday the images showed correctly.

Regards,
Adelaide
« Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 21:38 by madelaide »

« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2007, 22:06 »
0
Adelaide, I agree with you.  Honestly, I'm not crazy about getting 25 pence per image on a non-subscription based model, but it doesn't make sense to me to have my images at 640x480 ONLY when they are selling everywhere else at full size.  That limits my own marketability at the site in my opinion.  If the agency doesn't want to sell my images at full size, then please, by all means, reject them.

If the license is available (as web only) then why not offer it on all images uploaded and make every image more marketable (similar to the new Fotolia license).

« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2007, 23:58 »
0
how is it doing? Any sales???

« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2007, 06:17 »
0
The web-only license is there so that you can offer your images for sale under a web-only use license.  All images under standard and extended licenses can be used on the web (although still limited to a maximum size of 640 x 480).  We did not include a web-only license automatically with all images as some members didn't want this.  So there is now a setting in your preferences which allows you to set all new images as including a web-only license option.   You can also use the bulk process option on the Image Edit page to set all of your images as offering a web-only license option.

There are some images which do not meet our high approval standards, however they are good images when viewed in the smaller web-only size, therefore we reject them from being sold as standard licenses, but accept them for web-only license sale only.  You always then have the option of deleting any images which have been approved as web-only license only if you do not wish them to be on sale under only this license.

I hope that this answers your questions.  If you need to know more then post back and I'll keep an eye on this thread. :-)

« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2007, 13:49 »
0
Richard - I know this is going to sound tough and isn't very positive, but I think it reflects the feelings of a lot of folks here and elsewhere that contribute to micros.

Please keep in mind you are a new agency.  Many of us don't have much time on our hands or much patience with new agencies.  I want to share with my experience so far.

I submitted this image to RSI...



After review, it was sent back to the "unfinished area" because it didn't have a model release.  I sent you an email asking what needed to be released.  You indicated it didn't, and sent it back to the review queue.

After the second review, it was approved as a web-only image (which I didn't understand at the time).

On Sunday, I log in and see it has been set as web only.  I deleted it.  I had about 40 images set as web only and started deleting.  Later, I discovered I could change the option on those images - but rather than make them available for sale, they went back to the review queue (about 27 are sitting there - the rest are deleted).

Here's the thing - I've had to contact your site on at least 4 occasions for 1 image to get reviewed properly.  You have wasted your reviewer's time on at least 3 unnecessary reviews...and even then, I've deleted the image because I don't feel justified in selling it for 50 pents (25 pents commission) because I feel I would be selling myself short.

Richard, I'm all for helping a new business become successful but when I see time wasting to this level, I have to wonder about the viability of the agency.

That same image...

Dreamstime - sold 5 times so far (3 maximum, 1 large, 1 medium)
Shutterstock - 6 downloads so far (1 month online)
Bigstock - 1 download so far at standard size (1 month online)

It is also currently available for sale (at any size) at 14 other agencies.

This has nothing to do with "high quality standards".  Please, consider our time and yours.  If the sales aren't there, contributors aren't going to have enough patience to keep juggling images all over the site and you guys are going to run out of money paying those reviewers.

I don't mean that to be cold hearted or rude - but rather something you need to consider in this new venture.

Thanks.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2007, 13:54 by wysiwyg_foto »

« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2007, 14:04 »
0
WYSIWYG- I was the reviewer in question, to be quite open:

-Model release: The combination of people, cloths, location and boat makes them recognizable.  If I would have been one of the two I could easily say: Hey, that's a picture of me! Even if you can't see the face. I agree it is a borderline case, but I prefered not to run any risks.

-Quality: I saw the picture at 100% and it WAS not up to our standard, sorry but I guess you have heard that thousands of times, but every agency has their own standards, that it is approved and sells on one site does not mean that it will be approved and sell on another site.

-Composition etc. everybody here can judge for him or herself, but nor composition nor lighting convinced me very much as a reviewer. If you are building up a collection of images, the first decision you have to make is if you go for quality or for quantity. RSI/GS has decided to go for quality. Regards SY

« Reply #18 on: July 04, 2007, 15:51 »
0
WYSIWYG- I was the reviewer in question, to be quite open:

-Model release: The combination of people, cloths, location and boat makes them recognizable.  If I would have been one of the two I could easily say: Hey, that's a picture of me! Even if you can't see the face. I agree it is a borderline case, but I prefered not to run any risks.

-Quality: I saw the picture at 100% and it WAS not up to our standard, sorry but I guess you have heard that thousands of times, but every agency has their own standards, that it is approved and sells on one site does not mean that it will be approved and sell on another site.

-Composition etc. everybody here can judge for him or herself, but nor composition nor lighting convinced me very much as a reviewer. If you are building up a collection of images, the first decision you have to make is if you go for quality or for quantity. RSI/GS has decided to go for quality. Regards SY

Sy - you misunderstood my post.  I can deal with an agency rejecting images - the problem is the waste of time having to send one image through an approval queue 4 times., then placing that image in the bargain bin without my consent or election in the first place.  If you didn't like my image so much why didn't you just reject in the first place instead of sending it back to the unfinished area?  Then, if the image is so bad, why did it pass review the second time?  This is what I'm talking about with relation to WASTING MY TIME.

I'm glad RSI/GS has decided to go for a reputation of quality.  With strong comments like yours, I'll just stop wasting my time and yours, remove my portfolio, and sell my images through the more established agencies that have lower quality standards like Dreamstime, iStockphoto, and Shutterstock (since obviously you insist this is an issue about quality).

Thanks for the early heads up on how GS views its contributors.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2007, 20:48 by wysiwyg_foto »

« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2007, 17:06 »
0
The web-only license is there so that you can offer your images for sale under a web-only use license.

Richard,

If I understand your explanation correctly (English is not my first language), "web-only" refers to the buyer's side, that is, the kind of use allowed when he buys the 640x480pix image.  From the photographer's side, it looks like the image will only be available at 640x480pix.  And since the "web-only" page is empty (see * below), it only strengthened this second interpretation (nobody choosing to sell only at web-size).  Maybe it's just the terminology causing this confusion.  Wysiwyg and others probably won't have any objection of selling the images at regular sizes and also at web-size.

(*) I now understand that the "web-only" page is a search page, but when we click on "web-only images" and a new empty page pops up (and it pops up as a new window, I'm not sure it is intentional), it looks like there are no "web-only images". When we click on "gallery search", the page changes, so we know there is something there. Do you understand me?  Since there is already the check box for "web-only" images, maybe that page is unnecessary? 

And why "gallery search"?  It's not a search in fact, just a browsing option.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2007, 19:10 »
0
Anyone having problems connecting to FTP tonight?

Regards,
Adelaide

PhotoDuneMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1072 Views
Last post October 02, 2006, 11:39
by Istock News
40 Replies
7377 Views
Last post October 27, 2007, 12:00
by snem
2 Replies
1323 Views
Last post November 06, 2007, 10:31
by mjp
0 Replies
999 Views
Last post September 06, 2008, 12:53
by UncleGene
3 Replies
1153 Views
Last post August 19, 2012, 10:41
by WarrenPrice

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors