MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Drastic reduction in upload limits for top contributors at DT  (Read 21557 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2010, 01:58 »
0
Ummm.... never mind:) I wasn't talking about myself, I thought that was pretty clear... But, if there is a need to become personal:)...  why do I have to lose my convenience  of being able to click through my stuff at once?

I explained the money of it above - and I have no need for it to be personal.  I thought I was answering your questions.


« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2010, 22:28 »
0
But, if there is a need to become personal:)
It wasn't intended as personal at all. You are one of the few monuments of microstock with a fabulous port, and the point was more that if even you isn't affected, others certainly won't. You are right about convenience if you tend to work in bursts, and if your habit is for instance shooting/editing 5 days per week, and uploading all 1 day.
The ones really affected would be the "image factories", production houses that host several photographers, or photographers that outsource all postprocessing.

« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2010, 10:31 »
0
 Thanks for the kind words about my work. Tthe point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that I don't understand the business side of this decision. Images produced by "image factories" have very high sales potential. If I was an owner of an agency, I would strongly encourage them to upload, not restricting their content. If you look at Fotolia ranking, you'll see that Monkey Business Images shot up to the top of the list in no time at all. Which means their images are in high demand and the agency gets good profits from them. And yeah, it's difficult for the solo players like me to withstand that kind of competition, but who's keeping me from founding my own production company and becoming more competitive? (The answer to that is I just like working solo, but then there are consequences:)).
So why would an agency makes uploading inconvenient for their most selling contributors? That is what worries me, not my own limit of 20 per day.  If you try to improve the quality of your library, there are other ways to do that rather then alienate your top sellers (seems like DT did that with Yuri Arcurs if you read some other posts here). When you don't have enough revenue, you will go under very quickly in today's very competitive microstock business. And then how are you going to protect amateurs' rights and work on the quality of your library if you're out of business?

« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2010, 10:39 »
0
The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that I don't understand the business side of this decision. Images produced by "image factories" have very high sales potential....So why would an agency makes uploading inconvenient for their most selling contributors? If you try to improve the quality of your library, there are other ways to do that rather then alienate your top sellers.

I feel like I'm on loop but they are improving their bottom line with this move. Let's say Yuri uploads 1 image that is downloaded 10 times. The last 5 of those were at higher revenue.  Now let's say he instead uploaded 10 similars and each was downloaded once.  They were ALL downloaded at a lower revenue for both him and DT.  If people need 10 images, why not give them 10 higher ranked, better selling images that profit both Yuri (keeping him happy) and DT (good business move)?

I understand the flip side (well he's YURI!  He'll just produce 10 images that sell 10 times instead!) but buyers need a finite amount of images. If they need 10, they need 10 and we can only talk about 10, not 100.  It also alienates other sellers if they upload 10 photos on top of Yuri's business people and 5 minutes later he uploads another 25 on top of them.  It will discourage almost everyone else.  Now, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing anymore but it's a legit reason for DT to protect some of the smaller sellers.

« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2010, 10:42 »
0
Tthe point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that I don't understand the business side of this decision. Images produced by "image factories" have very high sales potential. If I was an owner of an agency, I would strongly encourage them to upload, not restricting their content.
In case you followed the thread on DT, the remark has been made by "burst-mode" uploaders that a weekly limit would be much more convenient. Why don't you just ask Achilles personally by a comment on one of this photos? He is very approachable (unlike what has been posted here sometimes) and he will certainly take your thoughts serious.

« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2010, 12:09 »
0
yes weekly limit would have been more convenient. Although my production isn't high at all, I usually upload 30-40 photos at once...

but it's quite clear that DT doesn't want the customer to see many similar images when they browse the site.

« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2010, 13:01 »
0
Limiting number of similars can as easy as limiting number of images from one contributor in search results.

It looks like guys who mastered production of microstockish images have the technology in place to make almost unlimited supply. They can just get new models, rearrange furniture in their set and got another batch. Unfortunatelly if you got photo of businessmen shaking hands and you change people, color of suits, angle of shot it's still the same photo for most of the customers.

RacePhoto

« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2010, 13:10 »
0
I think it may be more down to DT having a problem getting reviewers and their workload rather than them trying to stem the amount of images the busy contributors upload, I think I'm right in saying that to be a reviewer on DT you need to be exclusive, and lets face it if you were going to be exclusive with one site I think most would choose iS rather than DT.
So by lowering the amount the big guys upload it means that the smaller guys will get their images reviewed a bit quicker. 

Have to agree a cost cutting measure, but I'm surprised no one else has come up with another possible reason. Remember reading how many times photographers find a dimishing return when they have more and more images up for sale? The number of photos isn't directly related to the number of sales.

Maybe DT figures they have enough photos and the cost of reviewing and storing images, isn't worth the returns that they will get from another million images?

Maybe they want to copy IS which has always had upload limits well below DT, and it doesn't seem to hurt IS sales?

lisafx

« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2010, 15:56 »
0

Maybe DT figures they have enough photos and the cost of reviewing and storing images, isn't worth the returns that they will get from another million images?

Good thinking Pete :)

This scenario never occurred to me but it does make sense. 

Most likely it is a combination of the factors mentioned in this thread.

« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2010, 06:41 »
0
I agree with Elena on this. It makes very little sense to me to modify the system to discourage/restrict their very best contributors whilst at the same time ease the slack on the worse (and far more numerous) hobbyists. It is the latter who most often clutter the search results with multiple similars of unsaleable crap. If anything the workload on the reviewers will most likely increase.

« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2010, 09:41 »
0
Errmmm ... they're probably not reducing the number of images they will be adding to the collection, they are increasing it. 99% of the old-established submitters will be able to carry on submitting at their usual rate, while the great mass of people who are at the lower levels will be allowed to upload more. They might lose 2,000 images a month from image factories but they will probably gain 20,000 a month for low-end submitters.

Maybe Achilles just want to encourage new talent by making life a bit easier for them. We all know you learn from rejections, so the more images you can upload the faster you will learn.

« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2010, 09:46 »
0
2000 images they will lose? 2000 images they will lose a month from myself alone! Yuri has uploaded 2000 images a month average for the past few months, my record month is 3400 ...  what they don't realize is that if one more other site does this there is no point in uploading to microstock anymore, or well I shall rephrase that, Exclusivity to istock or somewhere like fotolia normal or infinite will be the only posibility to still make a profit for big submitters.
I am sure this is just temporary while they clear the queue.

« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2010, 10:19 »
0
Uploading 2,000 images a month makes me think that nothing is being uploaded that hasn't been uploaded 1,000 times before, so imagine they don't think they're losing out on much.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 10:23 by sjlocke »

« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2010, 11:07 »
0
Uploading 2,000 images a month makes me think that nothing is being uploaded that hasn't been uploaded 1,000 times before, so imagine they don't think they're losing out on much.

It could be true, but then it could be not. Maybe it's 2000 images on new subject that is not covered in the library at all. The only way to see if a submitter spams the library with many similar images is to look at their downloads per image ratio. Which we all know DT displays even on the member's profile page. So why not use that as the criteria instead to determine upload limits? Would make more sense to me.

« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2010, 11:35 »
0
Totally agree with you Elena

« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2010, 12:00 »
0
They are on the track to build something I mentioned before in another topic as a 'negative collection'. Collection of images can be found anywhere except DT. If they piss them of the top contributors might stop uploading to DT at all. It is not such a hard decision since DT is not a top class earner anymore (in my case their share is significantly less then 10%). If that happens it can really hurt DT a lot. They still will have more then enough images in stock but they will not have the fresh content from the well known names. Customers will realize that after a while.

On the other hand, I do not think this new limitation is so dramatic... especially because DT is not a top earner. I don't think anyone will stop uploading but I am sure they will fall back ever further on some peoples uploading-to priority list.  

For me it seems DT is trying to find its own role in the new word order of the 3+1. They are trying to keep their '+1' spot. They are trying to be different, maybe trying to be more 'elite'? with a tighter but more selective collection? The question is  is it really the best way to cut-off from the top of the pile? In my mind it would make more sense to raise the limit in 'image quality' - hey, I am not talking about technical quality here. If they cut off some of the work of Yuri or Andresr it just doesn't sound right.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 12:07 by NitorPhoto »

« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2010, 12:56 »
0
Uploading 2,000 images a month makes me think that nothing is being uploaded that hasn't been uploaded 1,000 times before, so imagine they don't think they're losing out on much.

Agree.

« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2010, 13:14 »
0
Numbers have nothing to do with existing stuff or not .......... and many hobbyists will upload existing stuff whether they are allowed 1 a day or 100 a day so I don't really see the connection.

« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2010, 13:18 »
0
Seems to me some of the other sites could benefit from having some kind "uniqueness" criteria for searching on images, kind of like what DT does with "Editors Choice" images. It could be a way to combat some the copycat/sameness that permeates the sites. There could be a "unique" check box next to images, that buyers could check, to flag images they like and find unique. Then they could add a "Search by Uniqueness" choice to the search options.

There could be a limit on this, for example, only buyers who have spent at least $100 on images could check the boxes, to avoid sellers "spamming" their own images.
 Just a thought, maybe some of the other sites already  have something similar that I'm not aware of. I just sell  ;o)

red

« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2010, 14:36 »
0
Not all Editor's Choice images sell well (some not at all) and not all of their choices are from exclusive DT members so those same "unique" images can be found at other sites. Anyone can add images they think they might be interested in or that they find particularly interesting to a lightbox. They can come back later to look at those images again. Not sure how the other sites work.

« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2010, 14:46 »
0
2000 images they will lose? 2000 images they will lose a month from myself alone! Yuri has uploaded 2000 images a month average for the past few months, my record month is 3400 ...  what they don't realize is that if one more other site does this there is no point in uploading to microstock anymore, or well I shall rephrase that, Exclusivity to istock or somewhere like fotolia normal or infinite will be the only posibility to still make a profit for big submitters.
I am sure this is just temporary while they clear the queue.

Lose 2,000 a month from you alone? Well, you're one of the most prolific, but your total portfolio built up over more than five years is less than 21,000 photos. You were planning to double that in eight months? Well, maybe you were.

Yuri's average is less than 500 a month, and this month he has only had about 150 approved so far, which I guess is the first week of the month gone. He hardly put any up for much of Jan/Feb.

I think you are protesting too much.

« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2010, 15:12 »
0
Seems to me some of the other sites could benefit from having some kind "uniqueness" criteria for searching on images, kind of like what DT does with "Editors Choice" images.
The "Editor's Choice" isn't that much functional. I'm with DT since half 2005 but what I've uploaded till half 2006 was mostly crap judged by today's standards. Yet all my "Choice" images come from that period. I asked on the forum and and admin said they wouldn't be updated.

As to your 'uniqueness' idea, well, microstock is about sales, not about wow-images that don't sell. The level system relies on sales, and that's the best criterion for whatever, imho.

« Reply #47 on: March 16, 2010, 15:16 »
0
Conclusion is, you have to do mass spamming to stay profitable. I am using word spamming even if it is "high quality spamming". Look at Yuri's latest uploads: two pages of the same man in blue shirt under every possible angle :-) Most of the people would have rejection for similarity but since top guys give constantly high quality work they can get away with that. If any of contributors find a sweet spot and can repeatedly produce images that agencies want the only way to stay at the top of others is to produce more then others.

« Reply #48 on: March 16, 2010, 15:21 »
0
I think you are protesting too much.
There is the issue of convenience, as stated before. Today I had a series with related (not similar) images from one shoot (about 20), and I wanted to have that one done to get it out of my head. I could only submit 10, and it's very annoying I have to interrupt whatever I'm doing tomorrow just to continue submitting the rest. I can imagine that the big guys/gals with a much tighter time schedule than us amateurs will be more annoyed. A weekly upload limit would be better, and Achilles suggested on the forum that they could adapt the upload scheme.

« Reply #49 on: March 16, 2010, 15:34 »
0
2000 images they will lose a month from myself alone! Yuri has uploaded 2000 images a month average for the past few months, my record month is 3400 ... 

How can this be if the previous limit was 50 images per day? That's still only 1500 per month.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
11570 Views
Last post April 21, 2006, 16:00
by CJPhoto
2 Replies
3477 Views
Last post June 21, 2008, 10:04
by vphoto
1 Replies
3965 Views
Last post February 07, 2010, 14:21
by UncleGene
14 Replies
5813 Views
Last post February 20, 2010, 09:54
by donding
45 Replies
13119 Views
Last post April 18, 2011, 07:24
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle