Author Topic: 2009 starting well... one sale in 1.1.09 (Read 14225 times)

Tuilay · « **Reply #25 on:** January 14, 2009, 11:08 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 14, 2009, 10:15

Unlikely as IS only draws from its exclusive contributors for the inspector pool. I think another explanation should be considered - what's that scientific principle that says the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one?

Exclusive contributors as reviewers? Now isn't that even a greater conflict of interest?

That makes 2 possible scientific explanation:
---either your image stinks (WE KNOW THIS IS THE ONE)
---or your image is so good, that the reviewer wants it not to be in the pool (CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

There is a possibility of the second one happening, as we see some doosies in the exclusives' portfolios with Istock, as history as proven here

null · « **Reply #26 on:** January 14, 2009, 11:12 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 14, 2009, 10:15

what's that scientific principle that says the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one?

Ockham's Razor

null · « **Reply #27 on:** January 14, 2009, 11:18 »

Quote from: Tuilay on January 14, 2009, 11:08

That makes 2 possible scientific explanation:
---either your image stinks (WE KNOW THIS IS THE ONE)
---or your image is so good, that the reviewer wants it not to be in the pool (CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

Correct. But they need the non-exclusives of course, so they can give the exclusives that good feeling of being discriminated positively. A sadist always needs a masochist to stay happy. Imagine iStock with only exclusives? How would they feel good then, knowing they don't have non-exclusives to bash.

Tuilay · « **Reply #28 on:** January 14, 2009, 12:55 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on January 14, 2009, 11:18

Quote from: Tuilay on January 14, 2009, 11:08
That makes 2 possible scientific explanation:
---either your image stinks (WE KNOW THIS IS THE ONE)
---or your image is so good, that the reviewer wants it not to be in the pool (CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

Correct. But they need the non-exclusives of course, so they can give the exclusives that good feeling of being discriminated positively. A sadist always needs a masochist to stay happy. Imagine iStock with only exclusives? How would they feel good then, knowing they don't have non-exclusives to bash.

touche, FlemishDreams (sorry, speaking French only because I don't know how to say the same in your language).
oh btw from the other topic: you asked why not the name FlemishDreams for the new SS and FTL joint-venture . I think that's possible too. How much money do you intend to coughup to be a main shareholder of PhotoFleaMart, um I mean...FlemishDream?

araminta · « **Reply #29 on:** January 14, 2009, 14:06 »

DT is almost DEAD for me this month... but IS is again and by far my top earner: this is the only agency I'm (very) happy with this month so far. If this is the result of their new "best of the world" best match algorithm... I'm happy with that

How strange and unpredictable things are sometimes.

hali · « **Reply #30 on:** January 14, 2009, 15:46 »

Quote from: araminta on January 14, 2009, 14:06

DT is almost DEAD for me this month... but IS is again and by far my top earner: this is the only agency I'm (very) happy with this month so far. If this is the result of their new "best of the world" best match algorithm... I'm happy with that

How strange and unpredictable things are sometimes.

Obviously something is working well for you at IStock, congralutions araminta.
I have a bit of strange change too with Istock , sold 2 ... little ones but not enough to run out into the street to celebrate, ha!ha!. But the approval is still a bit mysterious, I must say, eg. two identical
shoots both same lighting setup done within 10 minutes, just changing the subject, leaving all else unchanged, camera on tripod. No post processing on either one,except for Levels.
One approved the other rejected for "lens flare and overprocessed".
Confusing? Yes. But oh well, that's life in Istock.

borg · « **Reply #31 on:** January 20, 2009, 05:59 »

Same to me!!!!

Veeery very low this month!
The enthusiasm from December is completely dissolved....

DanP68 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 20, 2009, 06:33 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 14, 2009, 10:57

DT performed well in December for me, but very poorly this month. Oh well.

A lot of people are convinced there is a rotation in place at DT which affects your search placement. Nobody can provide proof of course, but I believe it to be true. I have full months which are unbelievably strong, immediately followed by months where sales are terrible.

Overall they are my second best earner, just ahead of iStock, so I couldn't be happier. I just accept that their ups and downs will be far more dramatic than other agencies I work with.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #33 on:** January 20, 2009, 08:32 »

DT was always good for me

LostOne · « **Reply #34 on:** January 20, 2009, 08:37 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 20, 2009, 06:33

Quote from: madelaide on January 14, 2009, 10:57
DT performed well in December for me, but very poorly this month. Oh well.

A lot of people are convinced there is a rotation in place at DT which affects your search placement. Nobody can provide proof of course, but I believe it to be true. I have full months which are unbelievably strong, immediately followed by months where sales are terrible.

I'm noticing the same pattern. It's funny to see that many of us ride the high wave while others are on a low wave. But after a month the roles are reversed.

madelaide · « **Reply #35 on:** January 20, 2009, 09:34 »

I'm suffering that too. DT was my best earner last month, now it's 6th.

Regards,
Adelaide

borg · « **Reply #36 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:52 »

Rotation of contributors doesn't make sense (but can be true), search matching have to be at first place...

tan510jomast · « **Reply #37 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:01 »

If there is such thing as rotation as Dan suspects, why is it not a good thing?
This levels the playing field , especially for those with little in their portfolio. Size doesn't count , does it? I'm not talking about that other s--- word, I referring to this s word ... stock

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 2009 starting well... one sale in 1.1.09 (Read 14225 times)

Tuilay

null

null

Tuilay

araminta

hali

borg

DanP68

Dreamframer

LostOne

madelaide

borg

tan510jomast

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors