MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Is it a good idea or bad?

Good Idea
85 (46.7%)
Bad Idea
97 (53.3%)

Total Members Voted: 158

Author Topic: Confirmed Identities on MSG (trial for a month?)  (Read 40139 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2013, 06:49 »
0
snip
I'm not surprised that microstockers are so often regarded as 'amateurs' ... when they act in such an absurdly amateurish fashion. Money matters ... at least to the professional stock photographer.



Really? By the definition of professional, microstockers are professionals. And even if someone only does this part time, i am pretty sure the money matters. There are plenty of places to post pics for the fun of it, why bother with the hassle of rejections at an agency if the money doesnt matter.


Clearly you are upset, but belittling everyone else isnt the solution. I like the idea of firming up more rules for leaf to stop the verbally abusive trolls from coming back. If that means leaf requires much more information that only he can see, that would be ok too.


« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2013, 06:55 »
+3
I support it. It would be nice to know that the people posting here actually have a microstock portfolio somewhere.

« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2013, 06:55 »
+2
It is the agencies that are giving away my sales data on the internet, not msg. And I react by selecting what goes where.

 Agencies that show individual file download numbers will get  a lower choice in content from me and many files they will never see unless the  numbers are removed.

But this is a different discussion for another thread.

I see no reason to hide my name because some agencies are clinging to concepts that might have worked in 2000-2004, like you said, but are counterproductive today where more people actually make money from their work.

« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2013, 07:02 »
+12
Cathy, I announced who I am at the same time that I closed my account at Fotolia a couple of years back. You can also (I think) go direct to my portfolio on several agencies from my profile page, so there is no great secret about my identity.
The fact that I'm known makes no difference to the underlying principle - that people will feel obliged to curb their tongues if they think the agencies can check up on them. That will mean that issues that used to be discussed may simply be ignored, expecially after what happened to Sean.
I have not the slightest doubt that iStock dumped Sean because of his interaction with other artists, by providing  information, analysis and computer scripts. If he had kept his thoughts to himself then he would still be on iS.
The references to AndresR and Yuri's participation using public names just raised the question of what contributions they actually make. Yuri talks about himself and his business plans but never about anything controversial (he didn't even offer an opinion about the Google Drive affair, remember? Self-censorship, methinks), I don't recall what Andres talks about, again, I don't think he comments on controversies. There don't seem to be a lot of other top contributors posting here - or, at least, not under their own names. 
I can think of a pile of things that have come up that might not have been mentioned if people were easily identified - Fotolia's imaginative pricing of credits differently for buyers and sellers, its practice of using artificial exchange rates to  put sellers into the lowest-payment groups, Google Drive, sneaky commission cuts by a variety of agencies, maybe even the actual commission percentages paid out by agencies that (falsely) claim they are offering a really good deal ....
Over recent years, some of our agents have repeatedly tried to hide certain facts behind a smokescreen (who knows how many images Getty has put on Google Drive now? They've managed to hush it up with a take-down notice). It stands to reason that when agencies go out of their way to hide information from contributors, they are not going to be pleased with people who spell that information out.
It may be "unprofessional" to tell the truth about companies that you have a business relationship with, but in a crowdsourced industry it is invaluable to have people keeping track of the shenanigans and letting the punters know what is happening.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 07:07 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2013, 07:06 »
+3
Microbius was one of the members with a lot of valuable contributions..

I hope this idea does not go live and posters like Microbius are back..

It was quick though I agree with leaf.. maybe he/she just needed a break ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2013, 07:09 »
+1
I wouldn't pay more than the token amount I already do, so that's a non-starter.

My Real Name isn't the user name I use on iStock, so irrelevant.

Link to my port: who cares? Also it's pretty irrelevant. If someone is quoted as saying that their agency is different to all the rest, and I say it isn't in many cases, what does 'my' port have to do with that? Of course, if I complain/ask for advice about a rejection/deactivation, it's pointless unless I provide a link, that's a given, but the relevant image wouldn't be in my port anyway.

OTOH, there was one person on here who by the way s/he posted you'd have thought was a super high ranking microstocker. I happened to find out who they were and they had tiny ports on a few sites, with less than a 1:1 selling rate on iS after a few years, and I guess it did affect the way I read their posts afterwords. Also made me more questioning about other anonymous posters who post with an 'air of authority' which might just be hot air.

As for the idea that I might meet other members somewhere, I'd say it was 999-1 against, apart from the member I did meet years ago and there's a geographical possibility I might bump into  again. Other than that, I don't think many of you are wandering round central Scotland. Besides, I don't say anything on here that I wouldn't say face to face.

On the third hand, I think it would be useful to see people's ports, not to copy them, but when they say they're doing well / not well at a certain site it could be useful to see their port, to know what kind of port sells/doesn't sell at different sites. Just like it's handy on iStock to see that there are already 20 good X images on the site with two sales between them. Clearly, no iS buyers are interested, score it off the shooting list and move on ...

I have no problem with allowing Leaf to have more info. I think he should know that people posting here either have micro ports or intend to do so. So people thinking of entering micro would be welcome, but if they don't indicate ports to him within a certain time - or are posting with issues about getting accepted - why are they here?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 18:24 by ShadySue »

« Reply #56 on: May 29, 2013, 07:12 »
+4
It is the agencies that are giving away my sales data on the internet, not msg. And I react by selecting what goes where.

 Agencies that show individual file download numbers will get  a lower choice in content from me and many files they will never see unless the  numbers are removed.

But this is a different discussion for another thread.

I see no reason to hide my name because some agencies are clinging to concepts that might have worked in 2000-2004, like you said, but are counterproductive today where more people actually make money from their work.

I think this is a good point.  If someone wants to start copying, looking at one individual's port for inspiration isn't going to get you very far.  If you want to copy and create the best hamburger image you'll be a lot better off searching the entire istock / Dreamstime / Shutterstock collection and sort by best sales than searching one individual's piddly little portfolio.  Sales on 20,000,000 images are going to give better eye popping results than sales on a few thousand images in a single port.

« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2013, 07:26 »
+4
Leaf. I know you have something good in mind when you make some changes in forum but as you see many are against it, why dont you just stop people creating new IDs/accounts after deleting old ID/accounts of their own rather disclosing the real identity. And if some one closes his/her account purposely or mistakenly then he/she can only recreate same login ID as earlier (from same IP address) and that too after admin or your approval.
By this way, atleast the IDs or nicknames will remain familiar to everyone. Just a suggestion.

Poncke v2

« Reply #58 on: May 29, 2013, 07:35 »
0
@ Cobalt, thats nonsene, the watercooler.... haha. I am not here to do business, its a ridiculous argument.

Alamy has changed their forum rules where your artist name, be it real or made up, is linked to your portfolio and forum profile. That seems to work as well, the forum is a better place now. However, using a real name? No effing way, there is not one forum I have ever joined that made me use my real name. And if that happens, bye bye MSG. Not that anyone cares.

Poncke v2

« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2013, 07:40 »
0
   I have never hidden my identity, as my username attests. Partly because micro stock is not my only income source, but mostly because I grew up in a world where you were allowed to have an opinion without being punished. As others have noted, some agencies and the people involved in them, deeply resent negative opinions, most notably FT. Sadly, they earned those negative posts and deserve them fully. If fear of reprisals gets in the way of telling the truth, then that will have a profound impact on the value of discussion here. I have the luxury of not caring what these companies do, but not everyone is immune to the long reach of the agency "woo yay" police.
   Don't be so worried about being "professional". You should have the courage to stick to something that has worked out pretty well so far. There are so few places in the world that allow honest discussion. We can deal with trolls, and in fact they add interest to the mix.

Great post jbarber873 ... whoever you are. Can't believe that Mr & Mrs Barber873 named their offspring simply 'j' all those years ago
I wouldn't leave MSG but I would sanitize my posts.  Any criticism of the agencies would go away.  I would just be a lurker. I'd participate in other topics but none in which I'd comment on negative "issue" about an agency.  That is a form of sanitizing the forum. I have already been threatened at one agency about what I say and I see no reason they wouldn't follow through with my criticism and their threats.

If this portfolio linking is going to happen, I will close this account and open a new one

« Reply #60 on: May 29, 2013, 07:43 »
+2
Leaf if you decide to go ahead with this can you make sure that we are informed in good time so that if we don't want our names made public we can delete our accounts in time.  If we choose to pay would this be instead of as well as our normal yearly payment? I'd also rather not confirm links through site mail as I'm sure the companies have access to site mail.

« Reply #61 on: May 29, 2013, 07:53 »
+2
Leaf if you decide to go ahead with this can you make sure that we are informed in good time so that if we don't want our names made public we can delete our accounts in time.  If we choose to pay would this be instead of as well as our normal yearly payment? I'd also rather not confirm links through site mail as I'm sure the companies have access to site mail.

I'm still in the brainstorming stage so nothing is set in stone and I'm open to suggestions if anyone has a brainy idea.

Everyone would be given a little warning (perhaps a week or so) but nobody's name would be published without their consent.  If I did decide to go with the 'showing names' route, it would be published from a new field on your profile - which means currently it is blank for everyone and it would be impossible to publish anything without someone manually typing it in first.  For those who never fill anything in, their profile would still be active, they just wouldn't be able to post until they filled in their required info. 

For the payment upgrade of hidden identities - I don't really know how it will work. I wouldn't have a problem including it as a premium membership feature.. but I'd have to see.. perhaps it would be separate.  It surely isn't meant to be a 'money grab'.  If nobody paid for the 'hidden identity' I'd be quite happy.  It is simply meant as a slight deterrent for those who really feel it is important to be hidden but still want to participate in the discussion.

To confirm identities.. there are lots of ways to work around this problem.  A site mail could be sent on MSG saying you just liked image X on dreamstime, or some othersite activity.  I'm just trying to avoid someone giving a bogus portfolio as a link.

« Reply #62 on: May 29, 2013, 07:57 »
+1
Leaf. I know you have something good in mind when you make some changes in forum but as you see many are against it, why dont you just stop people creating new IDs/accounts after deleting old ID/accounts of their own rather disclosing the real identity. And if some one closes his/her account purposely or mistakenly then he/she can only recreate same login ID as earlier (from same IP address) and that too after admin or your approval.
By this way, atleast the IDs or nicknames will remain familiar to everyone. Just a suggestion.

It's pretty impossible to stop people from signing up under multiple accounts.  All you need is an email address or 10 to sign up.  I can see IP address and a person with 2 accounts will be visible that way but you can also skirt around that problem with an ip proxy (a pain to try and use long term) .. but also ISP (internet service providers) .. the people you pay for internet, also often change you IP, so if I ban someone, their IP address will eventually change and they will be able to sign up with a new email and user name unknown to all.

Having to confirm your account should stop some of this.

« Reply #63 on: May 29, 2013, 08:17 »
+1
oh ok Leaf. I have no problem in giving my 1st name only. And is there any use to give portfolio links ? Just curious. And hope we will get a newsletter to our email address confirming the changes you make.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 08:24 by gemmy12 »

« Reply #64 on: May 29, 2013, 08:17 »
+3
So.... how about making some sections of the forum available to "the public" and parts of the forum accessible (at least for writing) only for "confirmed accounts" if that is somehow an option available within the software you are using. It might be "the best of two worlds"?!?

« Reply #65 on: May 29, 2013, 08:32 »
+8
I have to say this is a concern for me. Whilst I'm happy to share information up to a point, at the end the day, as others have touched on, I don't wish too share too much business information. I'm quite happy saying I have 6,000 images at Shutterstock  these earn me $xx per month. I'll stop short of showing you the portfolio- that's a personal choice.

There are also many other concerns, one I don't want certain RM competitors to know I deal with macro (they'd start as well, especially when they saw my portfolio and could gauge my income). Two, I've got another job who I don't want to know what I do in my spare time. (they don't need to know). Three, I don't want the publicity, I have a reason for anonymity.

I do take you point Leaf, the more constructive forum the better. I think there needs to be an element of compromise with your idea. Do you want to know point four? Hypothetically if I worked in any capacity for one of the micro agencies in whatever role, they might just have a NDA in place to cover themselves. If this was the case, then why jeopardize that position? This really is a contentious issue; I'd probably withdraw quietly if it was implemented as suggested. The benefits do not outweigh the risks.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #66 on: May 29, 2013, 08:34 »
0
I can see IP address

This means absolutely nothing, a single IP address can be shared even by 1 000 000 persons

« Reply #67 on: May 29, 2013, 08:42 »
+2
I can see IP address

This means absolutely nothing, a single IP address can be shared even by 1 000 000 persons

Absolutely nothing?  That's not the case at all.  True, a single IP can be shared by a whole company or university.  But it often isn't, and when it is it's easy enough to recognize that fact via reverse IP lookup.  Better to say that IP isn't a perfect solution.  But it's a solution with a low rate of false positives, which is generally my concern.  It's unlikely to block a noninfringer from the same site, so what's the harm?

falstafff

    This user is banned.
« Reply #68 on: May 29, 2013, 09:01 »
+1
Somebody I knew in London went bankrupt, massive studio debts this and that. Bailiffs came. He had nothing to declare, no income, nothing.
What he had was an extensive portfolio in a well known stock-agency, at least earning him enough to tick over, wife and a kid.

The IRS investigating ofcourse finally found him and his portfolio through the Internet. Several net friends in forums had started to call him by his name, so the pseudo did not help.

Just sharing. It might mean nothing though. Although if they can find, so can the Tax man.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 09:18 by falstafff »

« Reply #69 on: May 29, 2013, 09:06 »
+1
I get the idea, but I'd never reveal my identity, and 5 bucks a month - for a tiny minnow like myself, not going to be worth it.  Unless the rest of you want to chip in and cover it, so you'll keep getting my insightful posts :-)

   

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #70 on: May 29, 2013, 09:20 »
0
I can see IP address

This means absolutely nothing, a single IP address can be shared even by 1 000 000 persons

Absolutely nothing?  That's not the case at all.  True, a single IP can be shared by a whole company or university.  But it often isn't, and when it is it's easy enough to recognize that fact via reverse IP lookup.  Better to say that IP isn't a perfect solution.  But it's a solution with a low rate of false positives, which is generally my concern.  It's unlikely to block a noninfringer from the same site, so what's the harm?

Well, not absolutely nothing, but

At home we have 6 computers and some other devices  (tablet, smartphones) all these use the same IP to connect, so really IP don't means a lot for me
And more people can use the same machine.
And people can connect from the wifi of a bar, or from some internet club

Just imagine some conflict in family My son registers on the forum and through the same IP as me he begins to write insanities :D
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 09:23 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #71 on: May 29, 2013, 09:36 »
+3
I don't have a problem with real identities. My user name has always been my real name, and it's the same user name at most sites. I've never seen any reprisals, and I've said some pretty negative stuff.

I'm not sure if real identities will "clean up" the forum though. There are a lot of strong personalities (both anonymous and not) here, so the conversations will still probably be pretty spirited.

« Reply #72 on: May 29, 2013, 09:40 »
+1
Leaf if you decide to go ahead with this can you make sure that we are informed in good time so that if we don't want our names made public we can delete our accounts in time.  If we choose to pay would this be instead of as well as our normal yearly payment? I'd also rather not confirm links through site mail as I'm sure the companies have access to site mail.

I'm still in the brainstorming stage so nothing is set in stone and I'm open to suggestions if anyone has a brainy idea.

Everyone would be given a little warning (perhaps a week or so) but nobody's name would be published without their consent.  If I did decide to go with the 'showing names' route, it would be published from a new field on your profile - which means currently it is blank for everyone and it would be impossible to publish anything without someone manually typing it in first.  For those who never fill anything in, their profile would still be active, they just wouldn't be able to post until they filled in their required info. 

For the payment upgrade of hidden identities - I don't really know how it will work. I wouldn't have a problem including it as a premium membership feature.. but I'd have to see.. perhaps it would be separate.  It surely isn't meant to be a 'money grab'.  If nobody paid for the 'hidden identity' I'd be quite happy.  It is simply meant as a slight deterrent for those who really feel it is important to be hidden but still want to participate in the discussion.

To confirm identities.. there are lots of ways to work around this problem.  A site mail could be sent on MSG saying you just liked image X on dreamstime, or some othersite activity.  I'm just trying to avoid someone giving a bogus portfolio as a link.
Great, that all sounds perfect then.

« Reply #73 on: May 29, 2013, 09:58 »
+6
Well I'm out too, bye

Me too

Leaf,

I think it's not a bad idea.  In general, I think openness is a good thing.

At the same time, I'm seeing my work get copied more and more  on the major sites, with quite a few people following me on SS, and I just know many or all of those are copycats who like to get convenient updates on my newest stuff to copy. 

I've been vocal here on how my earnings have grown, and how I've gotten there.  I've tried to help others with my views on how to think of ms as a business, be marketing-focused, etc.  But linking people right to my pictures to show them exactly what subjects and styles have earned a sizable income for me would be pure insanity.

So I'd be out as well.

« Reply #74 on: May 29, 2013, 10:34 »
0
I can see IP address

This means absolutely nothing, a single IP address can be shared even by 1 000 000 persons

Absolutely nothing?  That's not the case at all.  True, a single IP can be shared by a whole company or university.  But it often isn't, and when it is it's easy enough to recognize that fact via reverse IP lookup.  Better to say that IP isn't a perfect solution.  But it's a solution with a low rate of false positives, which is generally my concern.  It's unlikely to block a noninfringer from the same site, so what's the harm?

I thought most ISPs were using dynamic IPs nowadays. My IP changes almost daily.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2762 Views
Last post September 20, 2011, 14:30
by stockmarketer
187 Replies
36997 Views
Last post October 21, 2011, 18:42
by Mantis
File Confirmed!

Started by CD123 Adobe Stock

7 Replies
3474 Views
Last post January 23, 2013, 17:27
by Pauws99
Deposit Photo's - 3% Royalty Confirmed

Started by stock-will-eat-itself « 1 2 3 4  All » DepositPhotos

85 Replies
33899 Views
Last post December 08, 2014, 15:47
by stock-will-eat-itself
50 Replies
16031 Views
Last post June 23, 2015, 19:49
by 60D

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors