Author Topic: 40,000... (Read 23985 times)

hatman12 · « **on:** March 21, 2007, 03:14 »

Now 40,000 images in the waiting list at DT. Looks like they are being swamped. Presumably its the higher prices and higher commissions per sale.

Peiling · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2007, 10:51 »

oh...i just upload and forget them and let them take their time to approve. Dreamstime approval time has always been a wee bit long

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2007, 17:01 »

yeah, but not this long.... I've been waiting over a week on a batch and the counter says 40 hours to go. Problem is, the counter's been going back up too.... what's that all about?

-tom

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** April 01, 2007, 22:34 »

Things were doing fine with the new prices, but of my latest 6 dlds, 4 were subs paying me mere 25c. That's what I feared... Subscriptions will look more interesting to buyers and many will move to the new subs plan. It's still early, but I'm sad.

Regards,
Adelaide

ManicBlu · « **Reply #4 on:** April 08, 2007, 11:05 »

Review times suck at DT but they finally get there. I try to upload a couple everyday so I always have something in the queue. They do set the counter back as well. Best just to keep some in the queue and be patient.

DT isn't my favorite site but they're too big to ignore if you sell microstock. The payout is good when you can get it. My sales have risen over the past month so I'm hopeful that I will see more payouts soon.

ptlee · « **Reply #5 on:** April 08, 2007, 11:20 »

I presume it's the hols. Their reviewers are having a break

They'll eventually get there.

litifeta · « **Reply #6 on:** April 08, 2007, 22:10 »

They suck a whole lot on the waiting times. you wait and wait. you upload a stack of images and then they reject them. if you say something about their waiting times or rejections it is called sour grapes.

they need to spend some of their cash and start employing reviewers and having people delete the old non selling stuff

Clivia · « **Reply #7 on:** April 09, 2007, 01:10 »

The high number of images in the queue tells me that Dreamstime is the place where people want to be. My sales there increase week on week.
The number of hours waiting time figure is generated by a computer program based on the number of pictures passing by the reviewers. Thats why it goes up sometimes, they have to sleep.
The review process is a lot slower than most sites, but I think it is a lot fairer than some. The rejection reasons are always right and fair.
I look on the suscription downloads as a extra, over and above the normal sales. They are attracting another sort of buyer who would not have bought the pictures from there otherwise.
They are my number two earner behind Shutterstock, and so far this month they are ahead of everyone.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #8 on:** April 09, 2007, 06:25 »

Quote from: Clivia on April 09, 2007, 01:10

The high number of images in the queue tells me that Dreamstime is the place where people want to be.

That is not what the #s tell me.

If what are saying is true, then their online #s should be increasing faster than any other microstock. But their not.

In the past week:
FT claims that they have increased by over 61,000 images, but it is probably less than half that
SS has increased by almost 29,000 images
IS has increased by over 24,000 images
DT has increased by almost 20,000 images
BigStock has increased by about 19,000 images

What the #s suggest to me is that they don't have enough reviewers.

boughn · « **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2007, 07:20 »

Easter is a three day holiday in Romania where many of the Dreamstime reviewers are located. So not only do reviewers have to sleep, they also get holidays off!

StockManiac · « **Reply #10 on:** April 09, 2007, 09:09 »

Ellen:

Saying that reviewers have to sleep is a totally useless statement.

We all have to sleep. That is a fact of human nature.

The problem with Dreamstime is that their review queue is getting larger and the review times are getting longer.

There are currently almost 41,000 images in the review queue and reviews currently take about 10 days.

There are currently less than 21,000 images in the IS queue, and reviews have been taking around 4-5 days.

SS reviews typically take a day or so, and can be reviewed within hours of submittal sometimes.

FT also typically review images within a day or so.

Funny thing is that all of those other sites get more images than DT, yet they seem to review them quicker. I would imagine that the reviewers at those sites also sleep.

So Dreamstime seems to be the only major site that can't review images in less than a week.

On top of that, their review process is one of the worst in the business. They seem to randomly reject images or give some sort of bogus reason for rejection ("not stockworthy", "we have too many of these", etc).

I would suggest that you (as a company) stop coming up with lame excuses and fix the issues that everyone has been complaining about.

boughn · « **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2007, 12:17 »

This is so funny to me coming from the traditional stock business where three to four week review period is considered very short. But I'm certain that your issues will be addressed.

StockManiac · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2007, 12:33 »

Quote from: boughn on April 09, 2007, 12:17

This is so funny to me coming from the traditional stock business where three to four week review period is considered very short. But I'm certain that your issues will be addressed.

I'm sure that < $10 sales and 10,000 sales a day are "funny" to you as well.

Let's face it. Microstock is not macrostock. It's a new paradigm. You better get with it or you will get left behind.

boughn · « **Reply #13 on:** April 09, 2007, 13:28 »

I wanted to take a look at your images but I can't find them on Dreamstime. Do you have a different user name than you are using here? Thanks!

nruboc · « **Reply #14 on:** April 09, 2007, 13:51 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2007, 09:09

On top of that, their review process is one of the worst in the business. They seem to randomly reject images or give some sort of bogus reason for rejection ("not stockworthy", "we have too many of these", etc).

Agreed that their reviews are the longest, but for me, when they are reviewed, they are very consistent. It's just different strokes for different folks. IStock is by far the worst in review consistency for me - I'm sure everyone has their own opinion.

Review time doesn't concern me all that much unless I was exclusive there, just keep taking pictures, eventually they'll get reviewed, and they'll be already selling on the sites with the quicker turn around.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #15 on:** April 09, 2007, 14:19 »

Big question: Why is review time important? Ideally, we should have our seasonal images online months in advance, when designers are looking for them. And, for images that aren't time-bound, it doesn't matter when they're uploaded. So, what's the huge hurry? Do the additional one to six days waiting affect our profits? They don't affect mine--I don't sell much, in any event.

StockManiac · « **Reply #16 on:** April 09, 2007, 14:44 »

Quote from: Professorgb on April 09, 2007, 14:19

Big question: Why is review time important?

1. The competition does it much faster.

If you upload to all of the sites at once, your images will show up first on Shutterstock and Fotolia, followed by Istock and a slew of others, and then finally Dreamstime. So by the time Dreamstime gets your images online, they are already "stale".

2. The internet is all about speed. If Amazon can take an order, fill it, and ship it to you in less than a week, then Dreamstime should be able to review an image much quicker. After all, reviewers spend less than 30 seconds reviewing each image, and some only spend about 10 seconds per image.

Quote from: Professorgb on April 09, 2007, 14:19

Ideally, we should have our seasonal images online months in advance, when designers are looking for them.

While true designers are a part of the overall customer base, most customers are not so savvy. Most customers are mom-and-pop shops, non-profits, web site designers, people creating a card for a loved one, etc. They don't plan months ahead. They do it on the fly, just like you and me.

StockManiac · « **Reply #17 on:** April 09, 2007, 14:49 »

Quote from: boughn on April 09, 2007, 13:28

I wanted to take a look at your images but I can't find them on Dreamstime. Do you have a different user name than you are using here? Thanks!

Why? Are you looking to mark my images for rejection?

boughn · « **Reply #18 on:** April 09, 2007, 15:38 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2007, 14:49

Quote from: boughn on April 09, 2007, 13:28
I wanted to take a look at your images but I can't find them on Dreamstime. Do you have a different user name than you are using here? Thanks!

Why? Are you looking to mark my images for rejection?

You must be kidding. You aren't serious are you? Then you would have something to complain about. I'm a visual person. Just like some people like to connect a face with a name, I like to connect images to a name. But if your work isn't on Dreamstime, it may not be fair for you to complain. But no problem. Bye

StockManiac · « **Reply #19 on:** April 09, 2007, 16:08 »

Quote from: boughn on April 09, 2007, 15:38

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2007, 14:49
Quote from: boughn on April 09, 2007, 13:28
I wanted to take a look at your images but I can't find them on Dreamstime. Do you have a different user name than you are using here? Thanks!

Why? Are you looking to mark my images for rejection?

You must be kidding. You aren't serious are you? Then you would have something to complain about. I'm a visual person. Just like some people like to connect a face with a name, I like to connect images to a name. But if your work isn't on Dreamstime, it may not be fair for you to complain. But no problem. Bye

Kidding? Hardly!

How would looking at my images have anything to do with the issues in this thread??? It seems rather odd that someone that works for Dreamstime would want to see my images rather than address the concerns in this thread.

And if you bothered to actually read this thread (and many others on this board), you might have noticed that there are many others "complaining" about your site as well.

As usual, Dreamstime considers our "complaints" to be a complete waste of their time. You didn't address any of the concerns that the artists (that actually allow your company to make money) have.

Since you didn't take my posts seriously, don't expect me to take anything else that you say (here or elsewhere) seriously either.

You (and your company) just lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.

sharply_done · « **Reply #20 on:** April 09, 2007, 16:16 »

StockManiac: The Director of Content and Business Development asks to look at your portfolio. Your response: Question her motives and insult her. Way to go. Smooth move. Real smooth.

She writes a blog that many users access on a daily basis (who wouldn't?). You may have received free publicity. You may have been able to bend her ear so that she could influence the DT powers that be to address your concerns. She may have been a valuable resource to this forum. Furthermore, she's very new to this site, and this was only her second post here - I'm sure she feels very welcome now.

Nice work!

Kngkyle · « **Reply #21 on:** April 09, 2007, 16:29 »

I don't really like their review times either, but who would? When their competition, Shutterstock, Fotolia, Istockphoto, StockXpert, etc. all review files within days sometimes hours, instead of weeks. I really like Dreamstime though, it is very easy to submit too, and the commission is higher than most of their competitors. They get me quite a few sales, top 3 for sure. Their rejection reasons can sometimes be BS but for the most part they are OK. Unlike Istock who have rejected all of my top sellers for not being stock worthy.

So all in all, I'm happy with Dreamstime. The only problem is the review time, which is hardly a problem at all.

eendicott · « **Reply #22 on:** April 09, 2007, 16:35 »

Stockmaniac, take a deep breath and look through the DT site. One thing I like to do is read between the lines and see what's going on.

1) Have you seen the thread announcing the new reviewer?
2) Have you seen the thread THANKING the reviewer that resigned in the off topic section?
3) Have you seen the busiest photographer list lately? Most of the folks that are on that list have a lot of images online and are high volume producers. Have you seen that Iofoto is on that list? Clicked on his portfolio? That's over 3,300 images uploaded in the past month. There are others that are moving there portfolio there as well and the rate of images going up is unprecedented since the time I've been on the site.

Review time is a dynamic thing. I've had iStock take 2 weeks in the past (when I contributed there) and I've had DT review in a matter of a day or two. If it makes you feel any better, I've had Canstock review in a matter of minutes. It's all an elastic process.

I hate to say this but if your images are getting stale over the course of 2 weeks, then your submitting the wrong types of images to sell as stock.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #23 on:** April 09, 2007, 16:40 »

Review times do vary, but DT's does seem to be going in the wrong direction.

StockManiac · « **Reply #24 on:** April 09, 2007, 16:44 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 09, 2007, 16:16

StockManiac: The Director of Content and Business Development asks to look at your portfolio. Your response: Question her motives and insult her. Way to go. Smooth move. Real smooth.

She writes a blog that many users access on a daily basis (who wouldn't?). You may have received free publicity. You may have been able to bend her ear so that she could influence the DT powers that be to address your concerns. She may have been a valuable resource to this forum. Furthermore, she's very new to this site, and this was only her second post here - I'm sure she feels very welcome now.

Yes, she might have been able to do all of those illustrious things, but instead here is how she responded to this thread (which was about the large inspection queue at DT):

- She first stated that reviewers have to sleep and take the Easter holidays off. A useless statement as I said before, especially since the queue has been this large for a long time before Easter weekend.

- She compares microstock to macrostock.

- She asked to look at my portfolio. Once again, something that has nothing to do with this thread.

If you don't understand her tactics, it is to take your eyes off of the original issue and try to focus it elsewhere. From your comments, it seems like it is working.

If she really wanted to do something about the issue, she would have asked for more comments and stated that she would bring it up with management.

StockManiac · « **Reply #25 on:** April 09, 2007, 16:48 »

Quote from: eendicott on April 09, 2007, 16:35

Stockmaniac, take a deep breath and look through the DT site. One thing I like to do is read between the lines and see what's going on.

1) Have you seen the thread announcing the new reviewer?
2) Have you seen the thread THANKING the reviewer that resigned in the off topic section?
3) Have you seen the busiest photographer list lately? Most of the folks that are on that list have a lot of images online and are high volume producers. Have you seen that Iofoto is on that list? Clicked on his portfolio? That's over 3,300 images uploaded in the past month. There are others that are moving there portfolio there as well and the rate of images going up is unprecedented since the time I've been on the site.

Review time is a dynamic thing. I've had iStock take 2 weeks in the past (when I contributed there) and I've had DT review in a matter of a day or two. If it makes you feel any better, I've had Canstock review in a matter of minutes. It's all an elastic process.

I hate to say this but if your images are getting stale over the course of 2 weeks, then your submitting the wrong types of images to sell as stock.

eendicott:

No, I haven't seen those threads. I don't hang out there as much as you

Thanks for the heads-up. I will go and check them now.

One of the first threads that appeared on the DT forums about this very topic (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_7106) had the same basic reply from Achilles:

"Do you realize that editors sleep at night, right?

"

Achilles later in the thread responds to a submitter with the following statement (meant to ridicule him):

"We receive hundreds of thousands of submissions monthly, how many do you have there?"

It would have been nice if Ellen or DT admin would have stated the facts that you are presenting in a nice way. But instead of saying that they lost a reviewer and are hiring a new reviewer, they come up with lame excuses and try to ridicule submitters.

litifeta · « **Reply #26 on:** April 09, 2007, 17:12 »

The reason people complain here about DT is because DT themselves do not openly cooperate with criticism. The people there have thin skins and huge egos. And yes, StockManiac is right to be suspicious of their motives. Every time I criticise them the next submissions are always 100% rejected.

Some facts:

Larger portfolio owners get their reviews done a lot quicker. I have been keeping a log of them.
Larger portfolio owners have stacks of non selling images
Larger portfolio owners get preference over the types of images they submit, you submit them and get stupid rejection reasons only to find someone else get virtually the same type of image accepted after your rejection
DT NEEDS TO EMPLOY A LOT MORE REVIEWERS ... not just ONE.
Shutterstock review times for me average 12 hours - DT 3 weeks!
DT needs to learn about professionalism in business, and consistency
DT needs to answer their emails and they would not get criticised in open forums
DT needs to employ someone with better English speaking skills to monitor the forum instead of their current stack of rude idiots

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #27 on:** April 09, 2007, 17:16 »

I'm sorry, but my take on this is quite different from yours. For one thing, Ellen is very busy and really doesn't need to spend time on our little forum promoting DT. She could just as easily concentrate on the DT forums or some other place. And, I like the fact that we have someone directly addressing us here--coming to us with advice. Really, she doesn't have to do this; DT has plenty of contributors and a growing database of quality images. Her presence here makes it clear that they are interested in improving the quality of their images and their relationship with contributors, which is why they hired Ellen in the first place--to help with marketing and market position. And, frankly, it suggests to me that DT values our forum and believes we have quality photographers here. That's not an insult; it's a compliment.

I honestly am not sure what has irritated you so much. Her comment about Easter and sleeping is a reminder to her contributors that the reviews are performed by people, people with needs that must be respected. Personally, I won't contribute to a site that won't allow down time for reviewers. The work is hard and doesn't pay much. While the reviewer has a choice to work or not, that reviewer should nonetheless have decent working conditions. You might bear that in mind.

As to asking you for your DT name, I think she's simply being friendly. My guess is that she wanted to review your portfolio to understand why you think your images go stale so quickly, and to give advice about how to improve the shelf life of your images. At least, that is what I would have done. She has nothing to gain by publicly insulting and misdirecting a photographer; it seems illogical to me to assume she is doing so.

The comparison between microstock and macrostock is apt, and it is useful. And, by the way, she may be understating the difference: I've heard anecdotes about photographers waiting months to hear back from traditional agencies.

The delay in reviews shouldn't really frustrate you. If you keep a steady stream of images under review--I wish I had the ideas to do that!--you'll be getting daily notifications about the review process. It's a bad idea to submit a big batch of images and then sit around stewing until the images are reviewed. Submit 'em and forget 'em.

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2007, 16:44

Quote from: sharply_done on April 09, 2007, 16:16
StockManiac: The Director of Content and Business Development asks to look at your portfolio. Your response: Question her motives and insult her. Way to go. Smooth move. Real smooth.

She writes a blog that many users access on a daily basis (who wouldn't?). You may have received free publicity. You may have been able to bend her ear so that she could influence the DT powers that be to address your concerns. She may have been a valuable resource to this forum. Furthermore, she's very new to this site, and this was only her second post here - I'm sure she feels very welcome now.

Yes, she might have been able to do all of those illustrious things, but instead here is how she responded to this thread (which was about the large inspection queue at DT):

- She first stated that reviewers have to sleep and take the Easter holidays off. A useless statement as I said before, especially since the queue has been this large for a long time before Easter weekend.

- She compares microstock to macrostock.

- She asked to look at my portfolio. Once again, something that has nothing to do with this thread.

If you don't understand her tactics, it is to take your eyes off of the original issue and try to focus it elsewhere. From your comments, it seems like it is working.

If she really wanted to do something about the issue, she would have asked for more comments and stated that she would bring it up with management.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #28 on:** April 09, 2007, 18:06 »

Probably DT is working on it. It is a long review time, however I think it is great that Ellen Boughn showed up. Hopefully she will still show by some times. I guess even if DT is not everyones favourite site, the most of us would wellcome her to this forum.
And I think the people who work for DT have better things to do than to check out every forum for a bad comment over DT to then reject 100% of the next submission of the person who made the bad comment.
Overall I tend to agree with Professorgb.

eendicott · « **Reply #29 on:** April 09, 2007, 18:41 »

Quote from: litifeta on April 09, 2007, 17:12

Some Facts:

Larger portfolio owners get their reviews done a lot quicker. I have been keeping a log of them.
Larger portfolio owners have stacks of non selling images
Larger portfolio owners get preference over the types of images they submit, you submit them and get stupid rejection reasons only to find someone else get virtually the same type of image accepted after your rejection
DT NEEDS TO EMPLOY A LOT MORE REVIEWERS ... not just ONE.
Shutterstock review times for me average 12 hours - DT 3 weeks!
DT needs to learn about professionalism in business, and consistency
DT needs to answer their emails and they would not get criticised in open forums
DT needs to employ someone with better English speaking skills to monitor the forum instead of their current stack of rude idiots

I think you need to get your facts straight. I too had the very same concerns you have and I addressed them directly to Serban a few months ago (he did answer the email). I can assure you from Serban's response that the agency is very transparent with relation to what they do.

The reason you suspect that the larger contributors get faster reviews is because they upload via FTP, then go back and enter keywords, categories, etc. at a later date. When a file gets uploaded, it gets assigned an image number. Reviews are then sorted by image number. Say you upload 500 images tonight, then come back a month later to keyword them. Your images will be at the top of the list a month from now - and will get reviewed within hours of hitting the pile. That's how the system works - it's been addressed in their forums.

DT has many reviewers - not just one. However, one can affect the work flow. There are reviewers all over the world but many work in Romania. Easter is a Christian holiday celebrated all over the world and (gasp) I even stopped uploading images and sending CDs over the weekend so I could have the weekend off. Friday was also a Muslim holiday - I am not Muslim but I think it had to do with the birth of Mohamed. Have you noticed that B & H and Adorama didn't take orders for the sale of equipment last week and will resume tomorrow? They are observing Passover - again business ceasing to celebrate the holiday.

If you'll notice in previous threads, Becky (Envisagephotography) was monitoring the forums. If you've read through past threads, you'll learn that she was born and raised in Montana, currently lives in Las Vegas, and is a native English speaker. Reyna is in Texas - north of Dallas - another native English speaker.

Sometimes it is tough to communicate but I will tell you that the reviewers will respond to you with time, and Serban will provide thoughtful responses to your questions.

...and since we are comparing - have you ever re-submitted an image to Scout at iStock? Took me 4 months to get a response when I was a contributor. I've gotten responses to my questions about refusals within 24 hours at Dreamstime - that's the norm when you don't blast the reviewers, call them names, or question every refused image.

I may not agree with everything they do or how they go about doing it, but I still believe they are one of the fairest micro agencies around based on my experience.

StockManiac · « **Reply #30 on:** April 09, 2007, 19:55 »

Quote from: eendicott on April 09, 2007, 16:35

Have you seen the busiest photographer list lately? Most of the folks that are on that list have a lot of images online and are high volume producers. Have you seen that Iofoto is on that list? Clicked on his portfolio? That's over 3,300 images uploaded in the past month.

This brings up a very interesting question:

As you stated, Iofoto (http://www.dreamstime.com/Iofoto_info) (aka Ron Chapple) has 3,385 images online. According to his portfolio, he joined on 02/04/2007 (which was 64 days ago). DT has a daily upload limit of 40 images. If he uploaded the maximum of 40 images a day since he joined AND 100% OF THEM WERE ACCEPTED, that would total 2,560 images.

So how did he get 3,385 images online?

According to my calculations, he would have needed another 21 days (or 3 weeks) to do that.

Remember that this assumes that he had 100% of his images accepted (which I highly doubt could ever happen on DT). If he had 80% of is images accepted, then that would only bring the total number of images allowed online to 2,336.

This seems to back up what litifeta is stating in his post above (that large portfolio owners get reviews done a lot quicker).

So, are some submitters getting better treatment than others?

eendicott · « **Reply #31 on:** April 09, 2007, 20:02 »

Quote from: StockManiac link=topic=1475.msg13260#msg13260
This brings up a very interesting question:

As you stated, Iofoto ([url

http://www.dreamstime.com/Iofoto_info[/url]) has 3,385 images. According to their portfolio, they joined on 02/04/2007 (which was 64 days ago). DT has a daily upload limit of 40 images. If they uploaded the maximum of 40 a day since they joined AND 100% OF THEM WERE ACCEPTED, that would total 2,560 images.

So how did they get 3,385 images online?

Easy, the announcement was made on March 13...

http://www.dreamstime.com/archives.php

sharply_done · « **Reply #32 on:** April 09, 2007, 20:06 »

Quote from: eendicott on April 09, 2007, 18:41

The reason you suspect that the larger contributors get faster reviews is because they upload via FTP, then go back and enter keywords, categories, etc. at a later date. When a file gets uploaded, it gets assigned an image number. Reviews are then sorted by image number. Say you upload 500 images tonight, then come back a month later to keyword them. Your images will be at the top of the list a month from now - and will get reviewed within hours of hitting the pile. That's how the system works - it's been addressed in their forums.

That's what I do - it works well, especially when review times are as long as they are now. The same method works with Fotolia as well.

StockManiac · « **Reply #33 on:** April 09, 2007, 20:10 »

According to this thread, the upload limit was set to 40 back in 09/2006:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_1832

litifeta · « **Reply #34 on:** April 09, 2007, 20:11 »

the issue about the long waiting times is an ongoing problem, and it has little to do with an Easter Holiday!

the issue is about DTs ongoing inefficiency, ongoing lack of consistency, and ongoing failure to do what they promised: rid the site of non-selling images.

As StockManiac pointed out, despite the "one-off" success of IoFoto, it is hard to believe that one person could possibly have had that many images approved when most of us have stuff in the line for weeks and weeks, and are lucky to get 5 looked at a week.

sharply_done · « **Reply #35 on:** April 09, 2007, 20:16 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2007, 19:55

Remember that this assumes that he had 100% of his images accepted (which I highly doubt could ever happen on DT). If he had 80% of is images accepted, then that would only bring the total number of images allowed online to 2,336.

I can easily see how someone as noteable and experienced as Ron Chapple would be very close to getting 100% acceptance. I'm very new to this game, and my acceptance ratio at DT is almost 90%.

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2007, 19:55

So, are some submitters getting better treatment than others?

Why not? If it was my site and someone like Chapple came along I'd certainly remove any barriers. Furthermore, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he was invited there - perhaps by the same person who was unfairly treated earlier.

StockManiac · « **Reply #36 on:** April 09, 2007, 20:27 »

And since I last posted (less than 20 minutes ago), Iofoto's portfolio has gone from 3,385 images to 3,409 images. An increase of another 24 images. This is getting quite interesting...

eendicott · « **Reply #37 on:** April 09, 2007, 20:40 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2007, 20:10

According to this thread, the upload limit was set to 40 back in 09/2006:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_1832

You are correct, then it was re-set when they caught up again and things slowed down. In March, they had to change it again. As I mentioned above, the queue is very elastic - things change all the time at Dreamstime just like they do at iStock.

Quote from: litifeta on April 09, 2007, 20:11

the issue is about DTs ongoing inefficiency, ongoing lack of consistency, and ongoing failure to do what they promised: rid the site of non-selling images.

As StockManiac pointed out, despite the "one-off" success of IoFoto, it is hard to believe that one person could possibly have had that many images approved when most of us have stuff in the line for weeks and weeks, and are lucky to get 5 looked at a week.

A lot of us took this upon ourselves. I've deactivated 63 of my own images that had been there longer than 1 year but had not sold. I am re-thinking my decision as I'm sure DT is - the average life of an image in stock is upward of 5 years. I'm willing to bet that Ellen, as the new content director, is evaluating the situation prior to making the decision for all contributors.

With relation to Ron - take a look at his work, take a look at his web site. He's a high volume producer with a team of 10 people working under him to make sure his images are edited tightly, keyworded, etc. His success isn't coincidence, nor chance. I wouldn't be surprised if Ron sent over 5,000 images to start. He has them available and ready.

Ask around to the other large contributors about their acceptance - Photoshow, Forgiss, Webking, etc. I'm willing to bet their acceptance ratios are above 98%. I know a couple who have expressed this.

I don't know if any of you really watch the busy photographer area that closely. I remember last year when Jeancliclac uploaded his portfolio. It looked to me like he had almost 3,000 up and for sale overnight. There aren't any deals cut in the back room that DT hasn't already mentioned somewhere in the forums.

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2007, 20:27

And since I last posted (less than 20 minutes ago), Iofoto's portfolio has gone from 3,385 images to 3,409 images. An increase of another 24 images. This is getting quite interesting...

Have you seen his average monthly uploads? That equates to 28.5 images per day. The reason they aren't showing as having been uploaded this month is because they were uploaded in March - just as if you or I would have uploaded in March and would have had to wait in the queue like everyone else.

litifeta · « **Reply #38 on:** April 10, 2007, 01:27 »

Freedom of speech dude!

I think the thing that upsets those of you who like to crawl up the backsides of the site owners is that someone else dares question their motives, ethics, and credibility.

At this spot, and heaps of other spots, the likes of Ron Chapple and Ellen Boughn are nobodies, just like the rest of us. They are mere contributors to this forum. They have no more credibility, or power than anyone else.

Which is why they do not come here and offer much in quality content. Rather, they sit back and spy, and then only join when something is said about them they want to defend.

"Microstockgroup.com - A meeting place place for microstock photographers" From my point of view, if Ellen hasn't anything sensible to add to the forum, she should clear off, after all she has her own forum and such a busy busy life.

leaf · « **Reply #39 on:** April 10, 2007, 02:11 »

well i would agree they are new to the microstocks relativly speaking, but what they do have that we don't is experience... I mean over 10 years of shooting stock experience - this gives them more credibility when it comes to discussion stock photogrpahy. Micro stock or macro stock - a good stock image looks the same at both places.

-and take it easy on the personal attacks.

litifeta · « **Reply #40 on:** April 10, 2007, 03:50 »

No worries. I'll take it up with Cathy Aron over at PACA.

Surely about time someone visited DT and explained a code of ethics.

StockManiac · « **Reply #41 on:** April 10, 2007, 07:18 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2007, 20:27

And since I last posted (less than 20 minutes ago), Iofoto's portfolio has gone from 3,385 images to 3,409 images. An increase of another 24 images. This is getting quite interesting...

Iofoto now has 3,511 images online (and it seems to grow by the hour). That is an increase of 102 images since my last post, which was less than 12 hours ago.

So this confirms what litifeta was saying (that some contributors are getting special treatment).

This also explains partially why the queue has grown so large: Certain members are allowed to bypass the normal rules (of 40 uploads a day). My bet is that these "special" members are also bypassing the normal inspection queue and getting their images reviewed as a priority. If the reviewers then have time after reviewing their images, they then work on our photos (which are at the bottom of the stack).

So it seems that DT implemented the new 40 image/day upload limit (for the rest of us) so that they could make way for some of their "special" members. Gives me a real warm & cozy feeling all around.

eendicott:

Thanks for pointing out Iofoto's portfolio. It has been a real eye-opener into how DT treats the rest of us.

eendicott · « **Reply #42 on:** April 10, 2007, 07:28 »

Well, then I guess the only solution would be for you to go out, get a portfolio of 5,000 tightly edited images, keyworded appropriately, and start submitting them. Looks to me like it's the only way your going to get any satisfaction.

As I posted in another thread...

If you want to swim with the sharks, you've either got to be a fish as big as one, or be one.

StockManiac · « **Reply #43 on:** April 10, 2007, 07:34 »

Quote from: eendicott on April 09, 2007, 18:41

Quote from: litifeta on April 09, 2007, 17:12
Some Facts:

Larger portfolio owners get their reviews done a lot quicker. I have been keeping a log of them.
Larger portfolio owners have stacks of non selling images
Larger portfolio owners get preference over the types of images they submit, you submit them and get stupid rejection reasons only to find someone else get virtually the same type of image accepted after your rejection
DT NEEDS TO EMPLOY A LOT MORE REVIEWERS ... not just ONE.
Shutterstock review times for me average 12 hours - DT 3 weeks!
DT needs to learn about professionalism in business, and consistency
DT needs to answer their emails and they would not get criticised in open forums
DT needs to employ someone with better English speaking skills to monitor the forum instead of their current stack of rude idiots

I think you need to get your facts straight. I too had the very same concerns you have and I addressed them directly to Serban a few months ago (he did answer the email). I can assure you from Serban's response that the agency is very transparent with relation to what they do.

The reason you suspect that the larger contributors get faster reviews is because they upload via FTP, then go back and enter keywords, categories, etc. at a later date. When a file gets uploaded, it gets assigned an image number. Reviews are then sorted by image number. Say you upload 500 images tonight, then come back a month later to keyword them. Your images will be at the top of the list a month from now - and will get reviewed within hours of hitting the pile. That's how the system works - it's been addressed in their forums.

eendicott:

Don't you care that Serban (aka Achilles) lied to you?

thesentinel · « **Reply #44 on:** April 10, 2007, 07:39 »

It all sounds a bit like force feeding the goose to make pate de fois gras, in readiness for a corporate grab by any chance?

Quote from: StockManiac on April 10, 2007, 07:18

Quote from: StockManiac on April 09, 2007, 20:27
And since I last posted (less than 20 minutes ago), Iofoto's portfolio has gone from 3,385 images to 3,409 images. An increase of another 24 images. This is getting quite interesting...

Iofoto now has 3,511 images online (and it seems to grow by the hour). That is an increase of 102 images since my last post, which was less than 12 hours ago.

So this confirms what litifeta was saying (that some contributors are getting special treatment).

This also explains partially why the queue has grown so large: Certain members are allowed to bypass the normal rules (of 40 uploads a day). My bet is that these "special" members are also bypassing the normal inspection queue and getting their images reviewed as a priority. If the reviewers then have time after reviewing their images, they then work on our photos (which are at the bottom of the stack).

So it seems that DT implemented the new 40 image/day upload limit (for the rest of us) so that they could make way for some of their "special" members. Gives me a real warm & cozy feeling all around.

eendicott:

Thanks for pointing out Iofoto's portfolio. It has been a real eye-opener into how DT treats the rest of us.

eendicott · « **Reply #45 on:** April 10, 2007, 07:50 »

Quote from: StockManiac on April 10, 2007, 07:34

eendicott:

Don't you care that Serban (aka Achilles) lied to you?

I will tell you straight out that Serban has never lied to me. I've been a contributor with DT since October of 2005. I have a very good relationship with Serban - one of open dialog. I can honestly tell you (not being employed by the site) that he takes these things very personally and that he knows everyone's (yes, EVERYONE's) portfolio very well.

This whole conversation tends to make Ellen's point above - are you even a contributor at DT? It makes me wonder why someone who has their images represented by an agency call the owners names and accuse them of lying.

What's your agenda?

StockManiac · « **Reply #46 on:** April 10, 2007, 08:14 »

Quote from: eendicott on April 10, 2007, 07:50

What's your agenda?

My agenda is to expose the truth. Plain and simple. I hope to make microstock a better industry. At this time, there are lots of issues all around on almost every site. But this thread is about DT.

I can't stand when an agency side-steps issues or makes lame excuses. And I can't tolerate when they lock posts or mistreat their artists. DT does all of this.

You stated "I can assure you from Serban's response that the agency is very transparent with relation to what they do." I have shown that is not true. They are not transparent. They give certain members special treatment, while limiting other members. You seemed to think (from your posts above) that DT applied the same rules to everyone, but that is not the true.

DT has stated that they have set upload limits for everyone equally. I have shown that is not true. Upload limits only apply to us "regular" members.

Finally, top-paid photographers that lambasted this industry from the beginning, are now trying to get into this industry and getting special treatment from agencies. That's just not right.

There are many members here that have been with microstock agencies from the beginning and have made them the million-dollar companies that they are today, but they aren't given any special preference. But now here come some prima donna photographers that haven't done one thing for microstocks and they are given special preference above everyone else.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #47 on:** April 10, 2007, 09:09 »

I second this sentiment. One of the things that make me insane is the atrocious behavior that otherwise normal, polite individuals exhibit online. Just because we can't see you face to face doesn't give you license to be rude.

This isn't an issue of "freedom of speech," either. This is a private forum, where such freedoms are at the discretion of the forum owner/moderator. It's an issue of common courtesy to your fellow photographers.

Quote from: leaf on April 10, 2007, 02:11

-and take it easy on the personal attacks.

rjmiz · « **Reply #48 on:** April 10, 2007, 09:14 »

I think it would be in the best interest of both photographers, and DT to get rid of the ETR all together.
It has created such anxiety among some photographers, I think the only remedy is therapy followed with medication

sharply_done · « **Reply #49 on:** April 10, 2007, 11:36 »

I am surprised by the behavior exhibited by a few members in this and another thread.

I don't know what it is that the people in question do for a living, but it surely isn't photography, where success is entirely about networking and nurturing/maintaining business relationships. Insults and accusations - no matter what your profession - will never advance your career or standing.

litifeta · « **Reply #50 on:** April 10, 2007, 16:17 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 10, 2007, 11:36

I am surprised by the behavior exhibited by a few members in this and another thread.

Me too. Especially the bagging anyone gets when they question the motives of DT.

Sharply_done and others need to recognise the difference between "their opinion" and "facts".

you need to recognise you have a right to express your opinion, but I couldn't care less what you think.

The facts, however, are undeniable.

rjmiz · « **Reply #51 on:** April 10, 2007, 16:25 »

This is not my house. I'm only a guest the way I see it. When I'm in this house,
I'll either follow the rules or be asked to leave. (Came close a few times). You only think
you have the right to express your opinion, it's only at the express permission of
the owner of this forum, and his moderators if in fact you do.

....I know, cause I run a micro stock forum too.

leaf · « **Reply #52 on:** April 10, 2007, 16:52 »

i think it would be safe to say that people have the right to express their opinion (almost no matter what it is) as long as it is in a non-abusive non insulting way.

This thread however is getting border line and if it takes a dive for the worse will be locked... I keep hoping for the better though.

lathspell · « **Reply #53 on:** April 10, 2007, 18:22 »

Quote from: eendicott on April 09, 2007, 20:40

Have you seen his average monthly uploads? That equates to 28.5 images per day.

According to the file numbers of iofoto's portfolio (2037002-20463xx) all pictures in their portfolio where uploaded between ~March 1 and ~March 5-10 ... That's a total of at least 3.500 uploads in ~5-10 days. Not sure about your math, but for me that equals to at least ~350 uploads/day. Wow. So much for the equal limits for everyone.

Edit 11-04-2007: Ooops, I didn't know that you can actually upload an unlimited number of files per day via FTP and the limits kick in only when finishing these uploads. Sorry for my misunderstanding, please accept my excuses!

litifeta · « **Reply #54 on:** April 10, 2007, 20:36 »

Yes and given the fact that they hold $ millions and millions on something like 25000 contributors which they will never pay out, since these images will never reach the $100, it is easy to see who is funding this site. And it ain't the major contributors.

Just got off the phone with CNN Money. They are very interested.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #55 on:** April 10, 2007, 20:52 »

Hmm. Now it's starting to get disturbing how some are getting special treatment.

I hope you work something out with CNN Money litifeta. This should not go unnoticed.

leaf · « **Reply #56 on:** April 11, 2007, 00:53 »

Like was mentioned before, If I upload 500 images today via ftp they will get consecutive numbers. If i push them through to review at 50 images / day it will take me 10 days and they will still have the consecutive numbers.

I don't really think dreamstime is making 'millions' or even thousands on contributors who are not reaching payout. Of those 25000 contributors I am sure there are many thousand - perhaps half, which don't have a simgle image. Another few thousands who have 10 images on the site but no sales. If they have 10,000 contributors who are 'never' going to reach a payout that means those contributors probably don't have much in their account - less than $10 which means $10,000. Not much $$ in the real scheme of things. If those contributors DID have a significant amount of $$ in their account - say like $50 or $75 then they would obviously make enough to actually GET a payout. It seems quite a few people are hung up about the millions of $$ that microstock companies are hoarding because people haven't reached a payout. I don't really think it is significant. In contrast - take a look at the macro agencies who require several hundred to get a payout.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #57 on:** April 11, 2007, 01:38 »

If you have 25000 contributors and they all have $50 (average of 0 and 100) then that is 1,250,000. Interest a 5%pa is about $50,000. Even if everyone has $99, that is only $100k so it is not millions per year.

litifeta · « **Reply #58 on:** April 11, 2007, 03:20 »

Yes they are doing a great job.

Achilles · « **Reply #59 on:** April 11, 2007, 03:44 »

Hello everyone,

I received several notifications about this thread from members who feel this is a blatant attack.

As ever before we monitor independent forums activity and we try to add our input. Being independent can bring an extra amount of criticism that can help us to correct problems or flaws. Managing a huge site means there are compromises to be made. This applies to funds, budgets, features, marketing, advertising, manpower, support etc. Everything must be in a perfect balance in order to allow the business to be viable and support itself. Without the business part there will be no community at all. We are independent, we don't have any venture capital and we're proud to say that we are free to make the best decisions for our community. It is also for ourselves? Of course it is, but if you follow our strategy throughout the last 3 years you will see that the primary target were the customers: photographers and buyers. If they earn, the agency also earns.

Now, positive criticism means just that, not rude posts or flames. If this forum is moderated or unmoderated is not really relevant. You may launch accusations without any proof, it's your decision, but one simply cannot use that kind of language.

To reply to such rude statements would be a waste of time, time that would be otherwise focused on honest users. It will mean that we encourage such statements. So, until some proper apologies are posted, please consider my post as a clarification to honest users who may be misleaded by these arguments and not a reply to these flames.

I'll try to clarify all questions posted. If I miss any, please let me know.

1. 40,000 files in pending line - it happens from time to time that our predictions are exceeded and people submit much more images. We expected this when we lowered the daily maximum amount at 40 files per day. It seems this was not enough. Our editors team is expanded constantly as we need to keep the pace. We cannot add editors faster because they need to pass the training stage and they need time to start reviewing at full capacity or else serious problems can appear in the review process.
Add to this the fact that most editors had a few days off because of Easter vacation. This is their right, I am sure everyone will agree. It happened before, after the Christmas break the pending was close to 45K and in less than a month it decreased significantly.

2. Favoring users and transparency. We always try to be as transparent as possible. This is not an obligation, it is our decision.
We did help Ron Chapple and assist his team in uploading the files. We explained how the system works, helped them with a few FTP details and that's about all. We did similar things for amateur photographers in the past, there is no secret. Not a single day passes without receiving emails from users who are completely newbies and need to learn everything from scratch.

The fact that over 100 of his images were approved yesterday doesn't mean they follow a different path. The max limit is applied when you finish submitting a file not when the editors review it. If no images were reviewed in the last couple of days, then the number of images waiting on the pending line multiplies with that number of days. That's if the contributor submitted images daily of course.

From what I remember they submitted images before the max amount limit was decreased. If not and the average is higher, it could be a glitch somewhere, but I have checked and they can only submit the max. amount at this time, just as any other users.

Ron has an approval ratio which is lower than 100%. I will see if they have no issues with us disclosing the exact number. Every photographer receives his share of refusals, including editors. There is not a single user on the site with a significant number of images online and with 100% approval ratio.

3. an image uploaded a while ago in the unfinished section will reach a different spot in the pending line than the one submitted today. this is no secret and has been explained on our forums. Thanks Ed for posting this sooner, I presume is clarified now.

Now, whether we make things easier for a photographer or not, is simply our decision. If the community receives certain benefits, we can agree to help a certain user. If that happens we'll NOT hide this, what would be the reason for that? Uploading on our site is a privilege not a right, no offense. Do any of you have an issue with any feature on the site or have specific questions? Drop us an email and we will be happy to assist you.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #61 on:** April 11, 2007, 04:52 »

Quote from: Achilles on April 11, 2007, 03:48

Quote from: CJPhoto on April 11, 2007, 01:38
If you have 25000 contributors and they all have $50 (average of 0 and 100) then that is 1,250,000. Interest a 5%pa is about $50,000. Even if everyone has $99, that is only $100k so it is not millions per year.

I am afraid your estimation doesn't take into account size of the portfolio, shelf-life, seasonal trends and so on, so I have to tell you they are not accurate. We don't even have 25,000 contributors, but only half of that.
However, if they would be, do you see a problem somewhere?

All I was doing was putting numbers down (someone else said 25,000 submitters so I used this) as some people were talking millions in interest. I have no problem with you holding the money until people reach payout as there are costs to paying out. As someone esle pointed out $100 is not that big an amount.

I dont think size of portfolio has anything to do with it. A person with 1 photo and a person with 1m photos could both be stuck on $99 until they get one more download.

If a person cant get to $100 to get a payout, I think it is only fair you use the money you earn on interest to market the site better so they do get to payout!

Opla · « **Reply #62 on:** April 11, 2007, 05:00 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on April 11, 2007, 04:52

Quote from: Achilles on April 11, 2007, 03:48
Quote from: CJPhoto on April 11, 2007, 01:38
If you have 25000 contributors and they all have $50 (average of 0 and 100) then that is 1,250,000. Interest a 5%pa is about $50,000. Even if everyone has $99, that is only $100k so it is not millions per year.

...

If a person cant get to $100 to get a payout, I think it is only fair you use the money you earn on interest to market the site better so they do get to payout!

I agree.

And Achilles, thanks for taking the time to explain.

leaf · « **Reply #63 on:** April 11, 2007, 07:26 »

thanks for posting achilles - it is nice to have your input on this.

the thread is now locked for obvious reasons.

one post was removed due to a very high ratio of insults to critique. Had there been more critique and less insults I would have been happy to keep it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 40,000... (Read 23985 times)

boughn

boughn

boughn

nruboc

Greg Boiarsky

boughn

eendicott

Greg Boiarsky

eendicott

eendicott

eendicott

eendicott

eendicott

Greg Boiarsky

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors