Author Topic: iRockStock? (Read 7174 times)

Dan · « **Reply #50 on:** October 17, 2011, 19:27 »

I found out i couldn't register with "IE". Had to use chrome. When i upload my id i'll be al set to see what the site can do.

Gennady Poddubny · « **Reply #51 on:** November 16, 2011, 01:36 »

Hello to all!
Who has experience with the support service of this site? Week did not respond to the letter.

Maybe you can help me. Please tell me the iRockStock works with Moneybookers? Thanks.

Gennady Poddubny · « **Reply #53 on:** November 16, 2011, 09:01 »

Thank You, Halfshag.

helix7 · « **Reply #54 on:** November 16, 2011, 09:32 »

Interesting to see a start-up involved in stock Flash files. Is Flash still a viable market? I saw a lot of news last week about the death of Flash after Adobe announced the end of mobile development.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #55 on:** November 16, 2011, 09:48 »

Quote from: helix7 on November 16, 2011, 09:32

Interesting to see a start-up involved in stock Flash files. Is Flash still a viable market? I saw a lot of news last week about the death of Flash after Adobe announced the end of mobile development.

Ha ha! My 5 years old Nokia 810 Maemo internet tablet can handle flash perfectly without any special app -despite using obsolete hardware and OS - while some fancy (and expensive) "smart" phones don't.
And it can even browse, email, phone (IP or skype) using free wi-fi which is available in every decent pub, art gallery, museum in Britain nowadays.

Anyway, I don't like flash as well, especially when used improperly for web sites intro which everyone skips.

FD · « **Reply #56 on:** November 16, 2011, 10:27 »

Quote from: Gennady Poddubny on November 16, 2011, 09:01

Thank You, Halfshag.

Being slightly aware of the meaning of "shag" in the U.K., does "halfshag" stand for a sortof coitus interruptus?

Just curious.

etienjones · « **Reply #57 on:** November 16, 2011, 10:43 »

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 16, 2011, 10:27

Quote from: Gennady Poddubny on November 16, 2011, 09:01
Thank You, Halfshag.
Being slightly aware of the meaning of "shag" in the U.K., does "halfshag" stand for a sortof coitus interruptus? Just curious.

Oh Behave!

helix7 · « **Reply #59 on:** November 16, 2011, 11:18 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 16, 2011, 09:48

Ha ha! My 5 years old Nokia 810 Maemo internet tablet can handle flash perfectly without any special app -despite using obsolete hardware and OS - while some fancy (and expensive) "smart" phones don't...

It's more of a "going forward" issue. Adobe is stopping development of all mobile Flash players, so all manufacturers are affected, not just Apple holding out on Flash integration. And as mobile appears to be an ever-growing market segment, killing off mobile Flash is essentially killing off Flash altogether. It'll take a few years to really see the effect, but it will eventually go away completely.

So that begs the question, is it worthwhile for a startup to even get involved in stock Flash? There may not be a market at all for those files in a year or two. Why put the time into development, reviews, storage, bandwidth, etc., to handle an obsolete format?

FD · « **Reply #60 on:** November 16, 2011, 12:28 »

Quote from: etienjones on November 16, 2011, 10:43

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 16, 2011, 10:27
Quote from: Gennady Poddubny on November 16, 2011, 09:01
Thank You, Halfshag.
Being slightly aware of the meaning of "shag" in the U.K., does "halfshag" stand for a sortof coitus interruptus? Just curious.
Oh Behave!

I have a Phd in the Behavioral Sciences. I solemnly declare hereby that I do behave.

It was just a question that popped up the first time I saw his nick.

csproductions · « **Reply #61 on:** November 16, 2011, 19:15 »

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 16, 2011, 12:28

Quote from: etienjones on November 16, 2011, 10:43
Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 16, 2011, 10:27
Quote from: Gennady Poddubny on November 16, 2011, 09:01
Thank You, Halfshag.
Being slightly aware of the meaning of "shag" in the U.K., does "halfshag" stand for a sortof coitus interruptus? Just curious.
Oh Behave!
I have a Phd in the Behavioral Sciences. I solemnly declare hereby that I do behave.
It was just a question that popped up the first time I saw his nick.

I behaved once. A long time ago. Didn't like it. Never did it again.

FD · « **Reply #62 on:** November 16, 2011, 23:31 »

Quote from: csproductions on November 16, 2011, 19:15

I behaved once. A long time ago. Didn't like it. Never did it again.

Well to get back on topic, I had one sale today (wherever your day is) on the Rock thing. A Christmas-related studio shot and I got two whole dollars for it. Let's enjoy it while it lasts, till the Yuris, Lisas, Elenas, Pressmasters etc.. jump on board and the roof falls in

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #63 on:** November 17, 2011, 03:15 »

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 16, 2011, 23:31

[...] I had one sale today (wherever your day is) on the Rock thing [...] Let's enjoy it while it lasts, till the Yuris, Lisas, Elenas, Pressmasters etc.. jump on board and the roof falls in

I'm not among them infortunately... but I am (still) waiting for a proper upload method since I've got no time to upload 20 pictures at a time to a new site - no matter how much I like iRock for being clean, professional and European. Maybe they are just waiting as well?

iRock may accept hard drives from them if they want just them, or activate FTP if they want all of us - sorry if the roof falls in but sooner or later they'll have to extend their contributors base in order to increase the number of buyers as well

FD · « **Reply #64 on:** November 17, 2011, 04:15 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 17, 2011, 03:15

but I am (still) waiting for a proper upload method since I've got no time to upload 20 pictures at a time to a new site

Still 10 times less than on Veer where the FTP always disconnects and that doesn't accept IPTC properly (they are married to Adobe's private scheme and ignore the base IPTC scheme). Browser upload only works with 1 file at a time. At least iRockstock works like a charm even on a jungle-wifi with antenna.

nruboc · « **Reply #65 on:** November 17, 2011, 11:51 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 16, 2011, 09:48

Quote from: helix7 on November 16, 2011, 09:32

Interesting to see a start-up involved in stock Flash files. Is Flash still a viable market? I saw a lot of news last week about the death of Flash after Adobe announced the end of mobile development.

Ha ha! My 5 years old Nokia 810 Maemo internet tablet can handle flash perfectly without any special app -despite using obsolete hardware and OS - while some fancy (and expensive) "smart" phones don't.
And it can even browse, email, phone (IP or skype) using free wi-fi which is available in every decent pub, art gallery, museum in Britain nowadays.

Anyway, I don't like flash as well, especially when used improperly for web sites intro which everyone skips.

Great, mediocre and bad design will always be the same regardless of the underlying technology.

TheBlackRhino · « **Reply #66 on:** November 17, 2011, 22:54 »

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 17, 2011, 04:15

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 17, 2011, 03:15
but I am (still) waiting for a proper upload method since I've got no time to upload 20 pictures at a time to a new site
Still 10 times less than on Veer where the FTP always disconnects and that doesn't accept IPTC properly (they are married to Adobe's private scheme and ignore the base IPTC scheme). Browser upload only works with 1 file at a time. At least iRockstock works like a charm even on a jungle-wifi with antenna.

I've got 40+ illustrations up there now. Uploading them one at a time is the only flaw. No disconnects or weird metadata problems. Submission is very, very easy. I hope to get my portfolio up there and support independents like iRockstock.

lirch · « **Reply #67 on:** December 15, 2011, 06:45 »

Quote from: TheBlackRhino on November 17, 2011, 22:54

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 17, 2011, 04:15
Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 17, 2011, 03:15
but I am (still) waiting for a proper upload method since I've got no time to upload 20 pictures at a time to a new site
Still 10 times less than on Veer where the FTP always disconnects and that doesn't accept IPTC properly (they are married to Adobe's private scheme and ignore the base IPTC scheme). Browser upload only works with 1 file at a time. At least iRockstock works like a charm even on a jungle-wifi with antenna.

I've got 40+ illustrations up there now. Uploading them one at a time is the only flaw. No disconnects or weird metadata problems. Submission is very, very easy. I hope to get my portfolio up there and support independents like iRockstock.

I have more than 100, submission is not very easy at all, it took me hours plus, no sales, only a few views for more than a month now.

halfshag · « **Reply #68 on:** December 15, 2011, 08:07 »

Which parts of the process did you find difficult?

StockCube · « **Reply #69 on:** December 15, 2011, 08:49 »

Half shag is a kind of hand rolling tobacco.

dirkr · « **Reply #70 on:** December 15, 2011, 09:56 »

Quote from: halfshag on December 15, 2011, 08:07

Which parts of the process did you find difficult?

Let me step in here:

1: No FTP. Fine, web upload may work as well, but you can only select one file at a time. That means at least three clicks per file (click into the next row of the upload window, double click the next file on your own directory, repeat...). Give a possibility of multiple selection here (select a few hundred files at once) would make it a lot easier.
2: After the upload finishes, I end up with a list of "unfinished" files. But they are already complete with all information. To submit them to review I have againt to click three times per file: Click on a file, takes me to a new screen, where I have to click submit, takes me to a new screen, where I have to click on continue, takes me back to the list. And all the clicks are on different places of the screen, so I have to move the mouse pointer around.

And in all that process I am not adding any value - all information is already there.
Best solution would be: Mass upload (either FTP or mass selection on web form) and all uploaded files are directly taken to the review queue. No further interaction needed.

For people not having full data in IPTC or people needing to attach releases (I don't) it needs some additional steps.

halfshag · « **Reply #71 on:** December 15, 2011, 10:53 »

I quite like the fact each file is checked by the contributor before it enters the queue. A chance to make sure duplicates, previously rejected images haven't crept in by accident, a chance to check for 'I'll fill this in later' type descriptions (if you're like me, sounds like you're not), that sort of thing. Removing that step would create more pressure on our resources. I'm not claiming it's perfect and the 'continue uploading page' I promised to remove ages ago - oops.

I wouldn't say it's 'not very easy at all' so I was quite interested to see if lirch would elaborate a bit for my benefit assuming FTP isn't at the root of the issue.

lirch · « **Reply #72 on:** December 15, 2011, 12:39 »

Quote from: halfshag on December 15, 2011, 10:53

I quite like the fact each file is checked by the contributor before it enters the queue. A chance to make sure duplicates, previously rejected images haven't crept in by accident, a chance to check for 'I'll fill this in later' type descriptions (if you're like me, sounds like you're not), that sort of thing. Removing that step would create more pressure on our resources. I'm not claiming it's perfect and the 'continue uploading page' I promised to remove ages ago - oops.

I wouldn't say it's 'not very easy at all' so I was quite interested to see if lirch would elaborate a bit for my benefit assuming FTP isn't at the root of the issue.

Multiple upload would save a lot of time halfshag, like Java or whatever. For somebody with more than 3000 images it takes a lot with the curent sytem, thats all Im saying. I think that more than 70% of stockers do have metadata implemented.

cthoman · « **Reply #73 on:** December 15, 2011, 12:55 »

Quote from: lirch on December 15, 2011, 12:39

Multiple upload would save a lot of time halfshag, like Java or whatever. For somebody with more than 3000 images it takes a lot with the curent sytem, thats all Im saying. I think that more than 70% of stockers do have metadata implemented.

I agree with this. I can't speak for everyone else, but all my 4000+ files are keyworded and grouped in sets of 50. That way I can upload 50 at a time, then check if all the metadata got imported. Then, upload the next 50. Rinse and repeat. It's still tedious, but not having FTP or some sort of group upload would be a huge deterrent. I don't even like upload limits because I can't spend a weekend or two and get a majority of my files online. Uploading isn't fun, so the less time or days I can spend doing it, the better. I'd rather get it all over in one or two big marathon sessions.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #74 on:** December 15, 2011, 13:05 »

Quote from: halfshag on December 15, 2011, 10:53

I quite like the fact each file is checked by the contributor before it enters the queue. A chance to make sure duplicates, previously rejected images haven't crept in by accident

I see that you are keeping a list of rejected files, so you could automatically delete accidental duplicates and previously rejected images, based on file name. Some sites do. Against deliberate resubmission with a different file name there's nothing that can be done anyway (except visual similarity or penalties).

Quote from: halfshag on December 15, 2011, 10:53

a chance to check for 'I'll fill this in later' type descriptions (if you're like me, sounds like you're not), that sort of thing.

We usually do this before uploading, to avoid doing over and over on every site.

Quote from: halfshag on December 15, 2011, 10:53

Removing that step would create more pressure on our resources.

You may leave that step but add a "Submit all" button.

Quote from: halfshag on December 15, 2011, 10:53

I wouldn't say it's 'not very easy at all' ... assuming FTP isn't at the root of the issue.

I wouldn't say as well. If fact, it's easy. I'd rather say it's very slow if one has thousands of pictures to upload.

A Java multi uploader would be better.

And FTP would even better fit in our workflow - at least for those using distributing services such as Lightburner and similar: if we can upload once and distribute to all, we are much more inclined to upload our full ports to a new site.

Actually both would be the best, since different people like different methods.

I started uploading to SuperHug at about the same time and I'm now over and already having the first sales, while at IRockStock I'm at 3% of my port. It's a pity, since I like IRockStock very much otherwise (nice looking site, you are politely answering questions here and on your forum, reviews are fair...)

If the issue is limiting the number of uploads, your weekly upload limit is enough, without forcing us to click 25750 times to upload 5000 pictures:

250 clicks on "upload"
250 clicks on "photography > upload"
250 clicks to choose "how many"
5000 clicks to browse files
5000 clicks to close the browse window
5000 clicks to submit a picture
5000 clicks to confirm metadata
5000 clicks to close the 'continue uploading page' you promised to remove
TOTAL: 25750 clicks

I'll need to buy a new mouse at the end of this process