What if that anonymous poster spoke the truth in his posts.  Something like...."I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording.  This system sucks!"  compared to an actual photographer that has a genuine vested interest in the success of the microstock industry. 

If that is the case then you have a truly open mind.  Me?  I guess I'm a pessimist by default then.  By default I assume the anonymous poster falls in the category of contributor that has invested little or no time or money in this industry. 

Mat

Quote from: MatHayward on August 09, 2011, 13:20

What if that anonymous poster spoke the truth in his posts.  Something like...."I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording.  This system sucks!"  compared to an actual photographer that has a genuine vested interest in the success of the microstock industry. 

If that is the case then you have a truly open mind.  Me?  I guess I'm a pessimist by default then.  By default I assume the anonymous poster falls in the category of contributor that has invested little or no time or money in this industry. 

Mat

That assumption may appear logical, but I know several of the anonymous posters identities and they are top tier sellers who have been doing this for quite a few years.

Any poster who says something like: "I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording.  This system sucks!"  is clearly an idiot.  Doesn't matter if they are posting anonymously or under a scan of their driver's license.   

Same thing goes for posts that are reasonable, knowledgeable, and make total sense.  Whether I know who the poster is or not, I can judge their veracity based on the logic (or lack) of what they are saying. 

Quote from: jbarber873 on August 09, 2011, 13:49

Quote from: lisafx on August 09, 2011, 13:41

Quote from: MatHayward on August 09, 2011, 13:20

I have no interest in going there.  It isn't my place to do so.

Mat

If you were anonymous you could.   

Quote from: MatHayward on August 09, 2011, 13:20

Really?  I think that it makes a great difference in the validity of an opinion.  Are you telling me that you hold the anonymous poster with a portfolio of 17 poorly composed, improperly lit photos in the same regard as a photographer like Yuri? 
Mat

If they were anonymous, how would you know which category they fell into?

Quote from: WarrenPrice on August 09, 2011, 15:23

Quote from: ShadySue on August 09, 2011, 15:12

Quote from: MatHayward on August 09, 2011, 13:20

Really?  I think that it makes a great difference in the validity of an opinion.  Are you telling me that you hold the anonymous poster with a portfolio of 17 poorly composed, improperly lit photos in the same regard as a photographer like Yuri? 
Mat

If they were anonymous, how would you know which category they fell into?

I don't think the OP said anything like that.  Are you taking "spin" lessons from Achilles?   

My reply to the OP is above. That one was a reply to Mat.

Quote from: grp_photo on August 09, 2011, 10:28

I would never hide behind an anonymous mask, it is alway me - GRP 

Does GRP stand for Genuine Real Person?

are you the Fotolia forum moderator?

Yes.  I am a contributing photographer that helps moderate the forum.  I am not an employee of Fotolia.  This has been discussed to death in this forum and others.  

 I find it hard to take criticism or anonymity seriously if it comes from someone linked to an organisation that likes to hunt out people's identities and punish them if they criticise it somewhere on the net.

"Likes to hunt out peoples identities and punish them."  ?  Hmmm..again, not gonna go there.

 It's like NATO criticising Gadaffi's army for not coming out in the open so it can be blown up with the minimum inconvenience.

Really?  I think you are overestimating the importance of this discussion.

If someone wants to be a cheerleader for such an organisation, it is hardly surprising if he/she wants to publish his real name so his chums can see what a good job he is doing for them, is it?

I didn't realize I was a cheerleader.  As I mentioned, I am a contributing photographer with a strongly vested interest in the success of this industry.  I publish my real name because I don't say anything in this forum or another that I wouldn't say on the record either in person or online.  In my opinion, as discussed I think it lacks integrity to provide a sort of false bravado if you will when hiding behind the cloak of anonymity on the internet. I can assure you that if you spoke directly with every employee of Fotolia past or present you would not find one person that says I pointed out anything I have said or done in this forum or another and asked for praise or acknowledgment of any kind.  If I had to guess there are more times than others because of my perceived relationship they would probably prefer me to simply shut . up.  For that matter, my wife feels the same way about me sometimes.  Heck, so does pretty much everyone I've ever met....hard to imagine eh?

A named cheerleader who might be looking for preferential treatment seems no more credible to me than an anonymous critic who wants to avoid persecution. In both cases there is the possibility of information being distorted to serve a hidden agenda.

To me, I perceive this personal.  A classic example of anonymous posting false bravado.  Preferential treatment has always been thrown at me in an accusatory tone.  I can assure you that I have not and do not receive preferential treatment at Fotolia.  Take a look at my portfolio.  Pick a random photo or a hundred of them.  Then, go to the database and search for them.  Tell me about my preferential treatment after you do this please.

I'm not aware of members hiding behind anonymity to "criticise the work of other photographers". Where are the threads launching attacks on the artistic ability of particular people? I can't remember any.

You are right, I was generalizing and I don't have a specific link in mind to back my statement.  I stand corrected.

Or do you count the owners of Fotolia as photographers and their slashing of artists' commissions as being their "work"?

Oh brother.

Anyway, the above scenario doesn't matter because this person is anononymous.  I won't know how many is his port and I won't know if they're poorly composed or not.  This person may have submitted 17 beautiful shots of which 17 were approved.  They might be not be new to photography but new to microstock.  They may be new to it all but still have some good advice.  They may have had advice given to them by someone else and are sharing it here.  They may have read something interesting somewhere that I missed.  They may have had an experience with an agent that concerns me in some way.  The number of images in their port should have no impact on the words they wrote.  If they come here offering good advice that makes sense or throws us some suggestion that we haven't heard before, should we disregard it and not think about it just because we don't know the number of images in their port?  Does the number of images in his port make what he wrote any more or less valid?  What he wrote is either valid or it isn't, it's either relevant or it isnt, it's either interesting or it isn't, it's either important or it isn't... it has no correlation to his port size... or the size of anything else