Author Topic: Drastic reduction in upload limits for top contributors at DT (Read 28654 times)

Xalanx · « **Reply #50 on:** March 16, 2010, 15:56 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 16, 2010, 14:46

Quote from: andresr on March 16, 2010, 09:46
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.

Absolutely, that's my opinion too. I also agree with the "spamming" point of view of melastmohican. Any way you look at it, what the biggest uploaders appear to do is constantly coming up with avalanches of similar shots.

zimmytws · « **Reply #51 on:** March 16, 2010, 16:00 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 16, 2010, 15:12

Quote from: zimmytws on March 16, 2010, 13:18
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.

Microstock breeds same-ness, I think buyers can get annoyed by that. Offering them a way to search for images that are a little out of the mainstream would help sales, I think, not hurt.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #52 on:** March 16, 2010, 16:10 »

Quote from: zimmytws on March 16, 2010, 16:00

Microstock breeds same-ness, I think buyers can get annoyed by that. Offering them a way to search for images that are a little out of the mainstream would help sales, I think, not hurt.

I am very often trying out new ideas. I am trying less popular subjects and also popular subjects on a not overused way. And because I am living from stock and I need the income I also keep shooting the same popular things on the same very boring but proven way. Guess what sells?
And this is not what I decide or what the agencies decide - this decision is purely done by the buyers.

FD · « **Reply #53 on:** March 16, 2010, 16:11 »

Quote from: zimmytws on March 16, 2010, 16:00

Microstock breeds same-ness, I think buyers can get annoyed by that. Offering them a way to search for images that are a little out of the mainstream would help sales, I think, not hurt.

Sameness is a PIA on most sites for buyers. BigStock is the worst at the moment. On DT, you can easily avoid it by altering the default search criterion from relevance to downloads. On IS, it's not possible to bypass the best match and get rid of their bias. That's why I buy my 3 images per weekday on DT. It's just the fastest way I know to get the right and acceptable image. I'm not going to spend 20 mins for every image to be found, that isn't worth my 2 euro commission.

melastmohican · « **Reply #54 on:** March 16, 2010, 16:12 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 16, 2010, 15:21

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.

I use very simple script that takes n random images from a large pool and uploads to every agency every night. This way I never submit series even if I produce images in series. For me daily limits actually are better because until images are on their servers all is automatic. Then I have to go to each individual site and submit. Small portions are actually better cause I can quickly finish work at many places.

FD · « **Reply #55 on:** March 16, 2010, 16:16 »

Quote from: melastmohican on March 16, 2010, 16:12

I use very simple script that takes n random images from a large pool and uploads to every agency every night.

Reviewers on

some sites

have private tools like matching images on EXIF dates. That won't work unless you edit the EXIFs.

melastmohican · « **Reply #56 on:** March 16, 2010, 16:24 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 16, 2010, 16:16

Quote from: melastmohican on March 16, 2010, 16:12
I use very simple script that takes n random images from a large pool and uploads to every agency every night.
Reviewers on some sites have private tools like matching images on EXIF dates. That won't work unless you edit the EXIFs.

Whole idea is to spread 20 images from one session over next 15-20 batches. Unless images wait in queue for a week there is a big chance they will never appear in front of the reviewer together :-) Actually I am observing images made couple months ago in current batches together with ones shot last week :-)

Randy McKown · « **Reply #57 on:** March 16, 2010, 17:57 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 16, 2010, 15:34

Quote from: andresr on March 16, 2010, 09:46
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.

The max isn't always set at 50 .. it stays there most of the time but sometimes I notice mine will say 100 and I would almost swear I saw mine top out at 200 at one point. I don't know what controls the limit, they could be doing it manually, basing it on the size of the pending list, who knows but I don't doubt Andres has been able to upload 3400 in a single month.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #58 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:27 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 16, 2010, 15:34

Quote from: andresr on March 16, 2010, 09:46
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.

Nice catch.

FD-amateur ... yes, I agree, weekly limits would be better. It wasn't you who was protesting so much

LostOne · « **Reply #59 on:** March 17, 2010, 05:45 »

You can still upload more in 2 days at DT than at IS in a week.

andresr · « **Reply #60 on:** March 17, 2010, 06:01 »

Averages on the site are from the time you joined and not in the past 6 months ........ at the beginning I only obviously started small like everyone else, uploading 50 images a month

and about the 2000 ............ I mean I produce 2000 in general, DT didn't get all my images although I am not 100% sure maybe they did because for a few days they increased it to 100. Have to check with the person who manages uploads in the company but well the whole point is that it is silly, they should do something like Elena say, keep the ratio of sales/image and not approval ratio.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #61 on:** March 17, 2010, 07:13 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 16, 2010, 11:07

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.
Quote from: andresr on March 16, 2010, 11:35
Totally agree with you Elena

I also agree that it would make a lot more sense to base upload limits AND acceptance rates on an artist's DPI.

Buyers are the ultimate judge of an artists's work. And if buyers are purchasing an artist's images, then DT should increase their upload limits and allow them more freedom in their submissions.

During my last batches of uploads, I received multiple rejections for submitting an image from another angle when I only had one or two others online. And it seemed like every time I was submitting a batch of images, I was receiving silly rejections and had to contact DT to have them take a second look. That is very frustrating when I see other members adding dozens of the same shot and getting them all accepted.

If you choose any of the largest contributors and then look at a specific model, you can find literally hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of images with a specific model. For example, if you search for the girlfriend of a certain high-profile contributor, you will find almost 2000 images of her on DT.

Why should one artist be allowed to submit thousands of images of the same person, when others are only allowed to submit a few (especially if they have a higher DPI)?

As I stated, I am not against allowing multiple images, just as long as they are selling.

lisafx · « **Reply #62 on:** March 17, 2010, 09:49 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on March 17, 2010, 07:13

If you choose any of the largest contributors and then look at a specific model, you can find literally hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of images with a specific model. For example, if you search for the girlfriend of a certain high-profile contributor, you will find almost 2000 images of her on DT.

Why should one artist be allowed to submit thousands of images of the same person, when others are only allowed to submit a few (especially if they have a higher DPI)?

While I realize there are people who upload hundreds of nearly identical images, sameness has hardly anything to do with the model themselves. It is the setup - concept, wardrobe, props, setting/backdrop, etc. To say that images are similar simply because the same model is in them is ridiculous.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #63 on:** March 17, 2010, 11:44 »

While a few days passed I had time to think over this whole too many similars and decreased upload limits issue. And I have a very new opinion: 'WHO CARES' If they want only a few they will get only a few - others are happy to accept the rest. So WHO CARES? If they reject a lot - WHO CARES? If my search position will suffer that - WHO CARES? They are the agency they have the right to decide what they want to sell and what don't. I am a contributor and I have the right to decide where to upload to. While the reduced portfolio on DT earns enough I keep uploading. When it doesn't earns enough anymore I will stop. And all the rest falls into the WHO CARES category for me.

Pixart · « **Reply #64 on:** March 17, 2010, 11:51 »

I buy a few times a year and from my point of view there is never a big enough selection of similars. Someone a page back mentioned "image stacks". In a perfect world, everthing from a series could be linked and the photographer could flag 2 or 3 photos to go into the search for potential buyers to bring up the rest of the "stack" would need to be called up to search through. I was making a folded brochure on 11x17 and found 3 photos of same family with moving boxes. They were somewhat allright - but I sure would have loved a selection of about 20 to chose from.

Maybe if I was buying every day I would feel differently though and would have less time to look for the perfect set.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #65 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:09 »

Quote from: NitorPhoto on March 17, 2010, 11:44

While a few days passed I had time to think over this whole too many similars and decreased upload limits issue. And I have a very new opinion: 'WHO CARES' If they want only a few they will get only a few - others are happy to accept the rest. So WHO CARES? If they reject a lot - WHO CARES? If my search position will suffer that - WHO CARES? They are the agency they have the right to decide what they want to sell and what don't. I am a contributor and I have the right to decide where to upload to. While the reduced portfolio on DT earns enough I keep uploading. When it doesn't earns enough anymore I will stop. And all the rest falls into the WHO CARES category for me.

Well, yes:) But sometimes when you see someone about to drive off a cliff, you just can't help yourself but shout "STOP!!!!"

I love your images by the way - I did know them before, but never had a chance to say - nice work:)

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #66 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:23 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 17, 2010, 12:09

I love your images by the way - I did know them before, but never had a chance to say - nice work:)

Thanks for the nice words Elena!

RT · « **Reply #67 on:** March 17, 2010, 13:14 »

Quote from: Pixart on March 17, 2010, 11:51

I buy a few times a year and from my point of view there is never a big enough selection of similars. Someone a page back mentioned "image stacks". In a perfect world, everthing from a series could be linked and the photographer could flag 2 or 3 photos to go into the search for potential buyers to bring up the rest of the "stack" would need to be called up to search through. I was making a folded brochure on 11x17 and found 3 photos of same family with moving boxes. They were somewhat allright - but I sure would have loved a selection of about 20 to chose from.

Maybe if I was buying every day I would feel differently though and would have less time to look for the perfect set.

I agree in part with what you've said, however I think one of the problems DT and others face is the contributors who can't differentiate between a series and 25 images of the same model shot on motor drive, I saw a portfolio the other day on DT that had 23 images of the same model wearing the same outfit leaning against the same wall doing, well nothing actually, on most of the images the only difference was her hand had moved slightly and I mean slightly and on others she'd turned her head a little bit. DT's latest move might make these people think twice before uploading the 'whole roll of film'. A good, well thought out and executed series is very useful, 20 odd near identical shots helps nobody.
I don't think DT has gone about it the right way but I'm guessing this is what they're trying to deter, like others have said I think there should be a tiered system based on proven success.

red · « **Reply #68 on:** March 17, 2010, 15:16 »

Achilles did say (in the same thread announcing changes in upload limits), "We're actually considering a way of promoting images that had more sales lately vs. high level images which no longer sell that often. It's not possible to tweak the pricing system but we might have something that would solve this."

Stay tuned...

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #69 on:** March 17, 2010, 15:40 »

This series had horiz and vert same shot bw then four crop different. Buyer will be bored after seeing five of these. Typical microspam just as keyword spam.

http://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_rf=y&s_ed=y&srh_field=teenage+girl+broken+car&firstvalue=teenage+girl+broken+car&lastsearchvalue=girl+red+car&x=29&y=9&s_sm=all&s_st=new&memso=y&s_cf=1&s_catid=&s_cliid=&s_colid=&memorize_search=1&s_exc=&s_excp=&s_sp=&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_color1=FFFFFF&s_percent1=10&s_color2=FFFFFF&s_percent2=10&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_orp=y&s_ors=y&s_orl=y&s_orw=y

cascoly · « **Reply #70 on:** March 17, 2010, 15:46 »

Quote from: melastmohican on March 16, 2010, 16:24

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 16, 2010, 16:16
Quote from: melastmohican on March 16, 2010, 16:12
I use very simple script that takes n random images from a large pool and uploads to every agency every night.
Reviewers on some sites have private tools like matching images on EXIF dates. That won't work unless you edit the EXIFs.

Whole idea is to spread 20 images from one session over next 15-20 batches. Unless images wait in queue for a week there is a big chance they will never appear in front of the reviewer together :-) Actually I am observing images made couple months ago in current batches together with ones shot last week :-)

i do that too - some of the later ones are rejected for 'similarity', but overall it works much better for me this way -- what's always a surprise is when 5 or more of a series gets taken at 1 time - despite their saying not to submit similars, they DO take them

the pain about dt is it's a break in sked - much easier to edit 50 images once a week than 10 images a day every day .

Quote from: Pixart on March 17, 2010, 11:51

I buy a few times a year and from my point of view there is never a big enough selection of similars. Someone a page back mentioned "image stacks". In a perfect world, everthing from a series could be linked and the photographer could flag 2 or 3 photos to go into the search for potential buyers to bring up the rest of the "stack" would need to be called up to search through. I was making a folded brochure on 11x17 and found 3 photos of same family with moving boxes. They were somewhat allright - but I sure would have loved a selection of about 20 to chose from.

Maybe if I was buying every day I would feel differently though and would have less time to look for the perfect set.

cascoly · « **Reply #71 on:** March 17, 2010, 15:51 »

Quote from: RT on March 17, 2010, 13:14

I agree in part with what you've said, however I think one of the problems DT and others face is the contributors who can't differentiate between a series and 25 images of the same model shot on motor drive, I saw a portfolio the other day on DT that had 23 images of the same model wearing the same outfit leaning against the same wall doing, well nothing actually, on most of the images the only difference was her hand had moved slightly and I mean slightly and on others she'd turned her head a little bit.

that's not a contributor problem - it's Dt's for accepting them! if they take them of course a contributor will submit them!

as has been mmentioned before, the solution is better search engines that can clump similars together so someone can expand to see them, but most viewers will just see the variety

s

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #72 on:** March 17, 2010, 15:51 »

Quote from: Pixart on March 17, 2010, 11:51

I buy a few times a year and from my point of view there is never a big enough selection of similars. Someone a page back mentioned "image stacks". In a perfect world, everthing from a series could be linked and the photographer could flag 2 or 3 photos to go into the search for potential buyers to bring up the rest of the "stack" would need to be called up to search through. I was making a folded brochure on 11x17 and found 3 photos of same family with moving boxes. They were somewhat allright - but I sure would have loved a selection of about 20 to chose from.

Maybe if I was buying every day I would feel differently though and would have less time to look for the perfect set.

If you want a hundred shots to choose from, do a custom shoot. Spreading 10 downloads among 100 images isn't a smart way to work for a contributor.

Phil · « **Reply #73 on:** March 17, 2010, 17:12 »

deleted

Phil · « **Reply #74 on:** March 17, 2010, 17:14 »

deleted

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Drastic reduction in upload limits for top contributors at DT (Read 28654 times)

Xalanx

zimmytws

NitorPhoto

FD

melastmohican

FD

melastmohican

Randy McKown

BaldricksTrousers

LostOne

andresr

GeoPappas

lisafx

NitorPhoto

Pixart

Elenathewise

NitorPhoto

RT

red

YadaYadaYada

cascoly

cascoly

Sean Locke Photography

Phil

Phil

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors