MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Drastic reduction in upload limits for top contributors at DT  (Read 21556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 13, 2010, 06:37 »
0
Interesting development at DT. Upload limits, based on Approval Rating, have been modified for all contributors but the biggest change has been to those with an AR of 80%+ who who have dropped from 50 per day down to 20.

Read all about it here;

http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_21188_pg1

This appears to have been designed to curb the activities of the 'photo factories' limiting them to a maximum of 600 new uploads per month and also making it less convenient for them to do so. As so few contributors will be affected by this it does seem targetted against a very small group.


microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2010, 07:03 »
0
seems like an acknowledgment that microstock needs contributors from all levels

keeping only top contributors in too high regard may favour quality but is detrimental for variety and freshness, as small contributors would feel disappointed and leave

although allowed uploads remain the same for most of us, the market share for small contributors may slightly increase, so it's a welcome move in my opinion to keep most happy
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 07:09 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2010, 07:18 »
0
seems like an acknowledgment that microstock needs contributors from all levels

keeping only top contributors in too high regard may favour quality but is detrimental for variety and freshness, as small contributors would feel disappointed and leave


True enough but these 'photo factories' are also the contributors who are investing the most into their shoots, working the hardest, producing the best quality and in the process ... making the most money for DT. The factories are only economically viable because they also produce the sales to justify the investment. It's not much of a 'thank you' to Yuri and the like is it? DT is effectively saying they'd prefer them to scale down their operations.

« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2010, 07:26 »
0
That's still 7k images a year. How many contributors produce more than 7k images a year? Is Yuri producing that much yet?

But seriously, I don't understand their move (unless their reviewers are really overwelmed).

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2010, 07:41 »
0
Surely the members of a photo factory could (with some internal reorganisation and rewriting of contracts, presumably) just join as individual members? It could be argued that this is more honest anyway.

« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2010, 07:49 »
0
Yuri:
Monthly uploads:     491.90 average

Monkey Business Images
Monthly uploads:     804.16 average

« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2010, 07:59 »
0
Why is this a new vs. old contributor argument?  Looks like it's simply based on acceptance ratio.  Mine has been around 90% since I started contributing at DT just over a year ago, so it applies to me.  Of course, I only submit 2 or 3 a day, so it won't affect me.  I see this as a good thing.

RT


« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2010, 08:04 »
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. 
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 08:08 by RT »

red

« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2010, 09:16 »
0
As a buyer looking for "just the right image" I get discouraged and weary when I find page after page of all the same images at all the agencies. I don't go from place to place because of price, but for image uniqueness. If this is a (small) attempt on DT's part to make their collection "different" by including more small players without tons of similars I applaud it.

However, it will take a looooong time for their huge supply of images to present itself as different. This won't happen until more contributors become exclusive, and more agencies favor and promote their exclusives. Yes, I'm a small player and exclusive but I'm looking at this from a buyer's perspective.

I'd much prefer if DT, and other stock sites, got rid of all the so, so similar images from the big players. They are starting to look very dated. Culling is always controversial because it is subjective but it would be wonderful if one of the agencies took it upon themselves to really get rid of the similars, meaning between different photographers. Too many copiers. I'm not describing similars in terms of a few different angles of the same shoot - I sometimes wish an image was shot just a bit different for my particular need, but I mean all the different, but same, shots (such as business meetings who always seem to only include good-looking young executives on a white background) from the multiple photo factories.

lisafx

« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2010, 09:39 »
0
Thanks, Cuppa, for the buyers perspective.

Seems like there is a fine line to walk between having variety and also having the best work from top producers.  IMO none of the agencies has really worked it out perfectly yet.

I agree the copying and the shear "sameness" of so much of the content is a problem.  And if even if you aren't producing along the same formulas your stuff can be nearly impossible to find, buried as it is by the factory stuff.

I applaud Dreamstime for trying to do something about the problem and differentiate their collection from the others.  Just hope it works out as planned without losing them some top producers in the process.

« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2010, 09:41 »
0
Why is this a new vs. old contributor argument?  Looks like it's simply based on acceptance ratio.  Mine has been around 90% since I started contributing at DT just over a year ago, so it applies to me.  Of course, I only submit 2 or 3 a day, so it won't affect me.  I see this as a good thing.

Maybe I missed something, but where do you see that it is an old vs new contributor argument.  Most of the comments were referring to the 'factories' (whether they are old or new).  It applies to them because they are probably the only ones who would really feel the effects of this change.

For reference here is the changes.
Quote
Old limits:
50 images/day +80%
10 images/day 50-80%
5 images/day 30-50%
2 images/day 0-30%

New limits:
20 images/day +80%
10 images/day 50-80%
6 images/day 30-50%
5 images/day 10-30%
3 images/day 1-10%

« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2010, 10:06 »
0
This is the telling statement at the head of the post:
"The gap between contributors with high approval ratio and low approval ratio is set high and several drawbacks were reported. Low AR contributors find it difficult to recover a mistake they did in the initial stages. High AR contributors usually don't reach the upper limit, generating less self-selection as the contributor hurries to increase his database exposure.This dillutes RPD, lowers the royalty percentage of the contributor and attracts more subscription downloads (leading again to a lower RPD)."

Very pointed.

Dook

« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2010, 10:31 »
0
I don't know about the others, but it is almost impossible to upload every day for me. I have to travel, to shoot outdoors or I just have day off, so I can use only around 70-80% of my upload limit. It would be better to have weekly limits.

« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2010, 10:39 »
0
This is the telling statement at the head of the post:
"The gap between contributors with high approval ratio and low approval ratio is set high and several drawbacks were reported. Low AR contributors find it difficult to recover a mistake they did in the initial stages. High AR contributors usually don't reach the upper limit, generating less self-selection as the contributor hurries to increase his database exposure.This dillutes RPD, lowers the royalty percentage of the contributor and attracts more subscription downloads (leading again to a lower RPD)."

Very pointed.
It is very pointed, but only in the unique DT image level system. Most revenue comes from level 2+ images, so you should avoid uploading similars since this means competing with yourselve (and attracting subs, which is new to me). People like Yuri had no problem reaching the top on IS with just 15 per week, so those won't be harmed that much by "only" 140 per week. On the contrary, being more selective on similars might paradoxically increase their revenue. A sub site like SS needs a totally different approach. There are no levels so you can upload similars but mixed of several shoots per batch, so that every shoot will have extended exposure.

« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2010, 10:39 »
0
20 a day is plenty, even for a bulk contributor.  At first I said hey, what, don't limit the GOOD photographers - but then I thought that I've never been able to upload 7200 images.  This may truly affect 5-10 people in the world on the high end.

« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2010, 10:48 »
0
It would be better to have weekly limits.
+1 - but, if you produce in bursts (like me) you can always upload in bulk and let them hibernate in the "unfinished" section. It's a bit like Deepmeta for IS where you can prepare/mrf-attach/disambiguate your excess images in advance, then let that queue slowly run empty by a weekly upload. Reviewing is an important part of the cost of running a stock site and you keep your reviewers happy by a steady amount per day.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 10:50 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2010, 12:38 »
0
I am not an "image factory", but I find this very confusing. I thought DT's purpose, like any other stock agency's, was to make money selling images. Production companies exist because people who run them know what sells and can shoot it well. They have their expenses, and if a certain subject stops making money, they don't just keep shooting it (not if they have half a brain) but move on to something else that proves to be profitable. How else can you run a successful business? Why would any agency choose to limit contributions from people who produce high quality highly sellable images? If there will be too many of curtain subject, supply-demand law will take care of it automatically. Production companies won't keep shooting the same stuff in a same way and lose money - well, I already said that:) So.... to me it looks like DT is not focusing on making money anymore... I am not sure what they are focusing on though.... Unless the whole thing with limiting uploads is due to the shortage of reviewers (but then why not say that?...)

« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2010, 13:44 »
0
Why would any agency choose to limit contributions from people who produce high quality highly sellable images?

The way I understand it, say Yuri (sorry Yuri) can produce 100 amazing images a day.  Well DT makes more money on higher level images, so do we.  So they'd rather have the BEST 20 from that day - they get to L2 faster and thus make everyone more money faster.

Xalanx

« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2010, 14:43 »
0
I think it's a good move. It evens a bit between massive uploaders and the other contributors. Which should only be beneficial to sales and diversity, in my opinion.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2010, 14:51 »
0
Maybe THATwill convince the big guys to go exclusive.   :o ;D

« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2010, 17:10 »
0
we've gone so negative on the image factories now :) I would think Yuri's 30k images would be a drop in the ocean in a library of 8 or 10 million images.

I think the bigger problem is search engines. why can an image average a couple of sales a day on one site yet go for a few years without a single sale on another, I'm sure the difference in buyers between sites isnt that big. I also have sets where 1 image does well on one site and a different image from the same series does well on another.

I can see why DT do it with their structure, concerns over too many people wanting to save money and buy the similar rather than pay for the higher ranked image, so they make less. Concerning considering how much they dropped commissions. But then someone will just buy someone elses similar image, there is not that many really unique subjects / images :)

daily rather than weekly amount gets going to the site each day so generates a nice amount of traffic.

« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2010, 17:41 »
0
Interesting and well-thought decision. I know why they did it and even if I disagree this is a good solution to solve their most recent 'problem'. My upload ratio is over 95% and yes I could use that daily 50. Now it will be daily 20. My uploader will be happy... less work. I am not that happy... more retouched and keyworded images will stay on my HD. Fortunately DT is not such a big earner so it doesn't hurt too much. If FTL or SS would do the same I should have to click on that exclusivity button on IS next day. Let's hope others will not follow. Not that I wouldn't do more money with less work as IS ex :) ...all my friends are converting one after the other.

« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2010, 20:42 »
0
I am not sure what they are focusing on though....
Be logical. 20 per day is more than 7,000 per year, that is 70% of your current port over 5 years. Are you really throttled down with "only" 7,000 images per year, especially if you're working alone and not with an editing crew like Arcurs? Are you telling that DT is not commercial with 7,000 per year, and IS is, with 750 or 1,000 per year?
If you produce in bursts, having particular days of 50 images ready for instance, the only thing you will lose is convenience, since you will have to submit them over a period of several days. It's still more convenient than on IS with weekly limits.

« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2010, 21:28 »
0
I am not sure what they are focusing on though....
Be logical. 20 per day is more than 7,000 per year, that is 70% of your current port over 5 years. Are you really throttled down with "only" 7,000 images per year, especially if you're working alone and not with an editing crew like Arcurs?

Monthly uploads:     191.36 average

You used to be able to do 1500 a month and you were doing 191.  Now you can do 600.  Either way it's not all that limiting.

« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2010, 22:40 »
0
I am not sure what they are focusing on though....
Be logical. 20 per day is more than 7,000 per year, that is 70% of your current port over 5 years. Are you really throttled down with "only" 7,000 images per year, especially if you're working alone and not with an editing crew like Arcurs?

Monthly uploads:     191.36 average

You used to be able to do 1500 a month and you were doing 191.  Now you can do 600.  Either way it's not all that limiting.

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? To make the life of Arcurs or Monkey Business or the likes difficult? How does that make sense? And ya, Istock upload limits suck more, but how's that relevant?

« 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.

Xalanx

« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2010, 15:56 »
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.

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.

« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2010, 16:00 »
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.

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.

« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2010, 16:10 »
0
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.

« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2010, 16:11 »
0
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.

« Reply #54 on: March 16, 2010, 16:12 »
0
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.

« Reply #55 on: March 16, 2010, 16:16 »
0
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.  ;D
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 16:18 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #56 on: March 16, 2010, 16:24 »
0
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.  ;D

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 :-)
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 16:27 by melastmohican »

« Reply #57 on: March 16, 2010, 17:57 »
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.

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.

« Reply #58 on: March 17, 2010, 02:27 »
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.

 ;D Nice catch.

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

« Reply #59 on: March 17, 2010, 05:45 »
0
You can still upload more in 2 days at DT than at IS in a week.

« Reply #60 on: March 17, 2010, 06:01 »
0
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.

« Reply #61 on: March 17, 2010, 07:13 »
0
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.
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 »
0

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.   

« Reply #63 on: March 17, 2010, 11:44 »
0
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.

« Reply #64 on: March 17, 2010, 11:51 »
0
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.

« Reply #65 on: March 17, 2010, 12:09 »
0
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:)

« Reply #66 on: March 17, 2010, 12:23 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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...


« Reply #70 on: March 17, 2010, 15:46 »
0
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.  ;D

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 .


 

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.

« Reply #71 on: March 17, 2010, 15:51 »
0
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

« Reply #72 on: March 17, 2010, 15:51 »
0
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.

« Reply #73 on: March 17, 2010, 17:12 »
0
deleted
 
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 18:06 by Phil »

« Reply #74 on: March 17, 2010, 17:14 »
0
deleted
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 18:06 by Phil »

« Reply #75 on: March 17, 2010, 17:29 »
0
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.



I'll raise your series with a search on "pepperoni pizza chilli";

http://tinyurl.com/pizzachilli

Sort those babies by 'upload date descending' and I reckon that's nearly 180 images by the same contributor of essentially the same set-up all shot on the same day __ beat that!

Those 180 images have attracted just 14 sales between them after nearly a year online. Hardly surprising that the photographer has a 'Downloads per image' ratio of just 0.09.

IMHO DT should be hammering idiots like that one (of whom there are plenty) rather than the hardest working and most successful contributors who are very few in number.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 17:39 by gostwyck »

« Reply #76 on: March 17, 2010, 17:39 »
0
Well there's a cure for insomnia!

This sort of silliness is what happens when you try to use a proxy for what you really want to tackle.

If similars are the problem, then tackle that. And with all the tools now available to find matching images I find it hard to see how agencies would have to weed this stuff out by hand. If they could just automatically see what's already uploaded (which would put a halt to all this gaming the system by trying to spread out the uploads) then they could easily handle this via the existing inspection process.

Encouraging diversity in the collection seems like a great goal. Increasing the number of shots of old wooden doors, rusted locks, photogenic rotting window frames, piles of nails, etc. etc. by giving higher limits to those who haven't figured things out just yet isn't going to do that - a decent policy on similars would.

« Reply #77 on: March 30, 2010, 21:40 »
0
interesting thing is that one of the top contributors had not any (or "ruled") limitations about uploading when he appeared on dt site.
 interesting thing is also that when one of contributors (my good friend b.t.w.) mentioned this fact, actually asked a question - why rules are applied to major community (with never mind... on that time it  was some 100 images/day for contributors with high approval ratio), but for someone else, these rules do not apply? - he was warned????

« Reply #78 on: June 24, 2010, 10:36 »
0
Dreamstime has seemingly responded to feedback and is trying out a weekly limit:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_22821

« Reply #79 on: June 24, 2010, 11:11 »
0
It's good to know they are listening to suggestions.

Quote
From gostwyck:
I'll raise your series with a search on "pepperoni pizza chilli";

This is a perfect example of what not to accept. There are many shots that are similar...an overall shot could be cropped by the buyer and that would eliminate about 6 or 7 others that the contributor uploaded. And they did that a ton of times. I quit looking after the second page.

Quote
From yadayadayada:
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.

I looked at these shots. Yes, they were the same model, same subject. But as a designer, depending on where I want copy, how much copy I have, what the focus of the piece is, I can see a use for almost every one of those. I do see four that are almost identical, so three could go, and I see 2 that are identical, the photog just stepped a little closer. But you could use the farther away one and crop to match the second one, so you could eliminate one there.


 

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