MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime is going nuts?  (Read 24772 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 18, 2011, 09:12 »
0
I received an email today from Dreamstime with a list of about 500 of my images that have been removed from my on-line portfolio with them because they are "similar" to other images.
Apparently, it's done to "improve my sales". And the files that were removed were "approved by accident".
It looks like they are losing it. It sure looks and feels like complete insanity.


« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2011, 09:18 »
0
...and, by the way, lots of removed files are not similar at all to anything I have in my port... and lots of them are new files, too - didn't have a chance to sell yet.

« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2011, 09:28 »
0
I got this recently too. Fortunately they only removed 2 files.

« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2011, 09:40 »
0
And the files that were removed were "approved by accident".

Accidental approval.  Yes, this is a new one.

« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2011, 09:53 »
0
I expect more of this sort of thing in the future, as the microstocks start to accept the fact that their search results can't be much better than they already are, unless they start to actually sort through those millions of images, deleting repetitious junk and spam keywords.   And they might very well hire new people to do this, and not give them much training, so lots of mistakes will be made.

500 images?  Obviously no one actually looked at all of them and made intelligent decisions. Someone is just in there swinging an axe.

« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2011, 09:56 »
0
Does this practice actually improve the overall site and sales for the company? I doubt it.

Also the idea of "accidental" approvals is silly. How old do they think you are? If your are moving ahead with such a policy at least have the ba**s to call it what it is.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 10:23 by Zeus »

« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2011, 10:20 »
0
I'm so pleased I haven't wasted my time uploading there lately.  Do they ever consider how long it takes to upload 500 images there?  It isn't a quick process, when you have to go through all those categories.

What I still don't understand is why most of the big sites are being much harder with new images now.  Why don't they just remove all those old files that were taken years ago with inferior cameras and lenses?

My oldest photos were taken with a 6mp camera with a cheap kit lens.  Are they really superior to a 5DMKII with good glass?

Hopefully buyers will realize they can get better quality new images on other sites like Stockfresh, Canstockphoto and Graphic Leftovers.

« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2011, 10:22 »
0
This getting ridiculous, they took off some of mine as well for insane reasons.

The kicker is that they keep approving low quality images while deletimg high quality "similars".

I dont get it.

« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2011, 10:35 »
0
I expect more of this sort of thing in the future, as the microstocks start to accept the fact that their search results can't be much better than they already are, unless they start to actually sort through those millions of images, deleting repetitious junk and spam keywords.   And they might very well hire new people to do this, and not give them much training, so lots of mistakes will be made.

500 images?  Obviously no one actually looked at all of them and made intelligent decisions. Someone is just in there swinging an axe.

This is what I am thinking. And I know that from a contributor's standpoint, this stinks. But I do believe it will be an improvement for buyers. Having to wade through two or three pages of images that are so similar, one has difficulty finding the difference, is really annoying and never should have happened in the first place. I understand the concept of similars, as we have discussed in the past, and in that context I agree that similars are useful.

Like stockastic says, it might be people with little or no training, going overboard. There never seems to be a happy medium anymore with micros.  ::)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 10:43 by cclapper »

« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2011, 10:39 »
0
Just implement a search feature like Alamy does which groups similars automatically into a lightbox kind of search results page.

The contributor has no extra work and the search results are not cluttered with pages and pages of similars.

Dreamstime is doing it the hard way/cheap way.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2011, 10:39 »
0
I had 3 pictures removed recently for the same reason; but 500 is completely insane. Removing approved images without a serious reason is a waste of time for contributors and for them as well. I don't think this will help them sell more pictures - in fact they will lose buyers, annoyed by the lack of choice.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 12:41 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2011, 10:44 »
0
Surprised so many have been removed from one of the top sellers! 

« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2011, 10:44 »
0
Just implement a search feature like Alamy does which groups similars automatically into a lightbox kind of search results page.

The contributor has no extra work and the search results are not cluttered with pages and pages of similars.

Dreamstime is doing it the hard way/cheap way.

This would be a most excellent way of doing it.

« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2011, 10:52 »
0
They are only removing files with no sales though aren't they?  I haven't received my notice yet, I know it's coming though!

« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2011, 10:53 »
0
From Achilles in the DT forum:
Starting today we will begin to select portfolios that are dramatically affected by this issue and clean them of blatant similars, identicals, flipped images and small angle variations that have 0 downloads. We will try to be gentle but some users will see a significant amount of content being removed. Once they are reviewed they will be removed without refusals being counted in the approval ratio.

Strange indeed they call them 'accidentally approved' while its obviously only about the new similars policy...

« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2011, 11:22 »
0
From Achilles in the Dreamstime forum:
Starting today we will begin to select portfolios that are dramatically affected by this issue and clean them of blatant similars, identicals, flipped images and small angle variations that have 0 downloads. We will try to be gentle but some users will see a significant amount of content being removed. Once they are reviewed they will be removed without refusals being counted in the approval ratio.

Strange indeed they call them 'accidentally approved' while its obviously only about the new similars policy...

Do you have a link for the thread?

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2011, 11:43 »
0
I expect very soon DT to be in Middle Tier. With this policy the only thing they gain is losing their suppliers.
Wake up DT!

« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2011, 11:48 »
0
From Achilles in the Dreamstime forum:
Starting today we will begin to select portfolios that are dramatically affected by this issue and clean them of blatant similars, identicals, flipped images and small angle variations that have 0 downloads. We will try to be gentle but some users will see a significant amount of content being removed. Once they are reviewed they will be removed without refusals being counted in the approval ratio.

Strange indeed they call them 'accidentally approved' while its obviously only about the new similars policy...


Do you have a link for the thread?


Half way down:

http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_26339_pg7

lagereek

« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2011, 11:50 »
0
Well, dont flame me but actually I approve of this kind of action if its justyfied that is ( dont know about Elena though) .  Clogging up the files in an agency is IMO, one of the chief reasons why we have this terrible state at the moment, I bet all in all with the entire Micro world, some 60% could be removed and leave 40% of relevant, not copycats material.

« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2011, 12:02 »
0
Half way down:

http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_26339_pg7


Thanks!

Well, dont flame me but actually I approve of this kind of action if its justyfied that is ( dont know about Elena though) .  Clogging up the files in an agency is IMO, one of the chief reasons why we have this terrible state at the moment, I bet all in all with the entire Micro world, some 60% could be removed and leave 40% of relevant, not copycats material.


It really depends on how is it implemented. Are we talking scalpel or rusty hacksaw? Like someone said above, it would be nice if they came up with a better solution like grouping similars as collections in the search instead of just rejecting them.

« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2011, 12:21 »
0
Well, dont flame me but actually I approve of this kind of action if its justyfied that is ( dont know about Elena though) .  Clogging up the files in an agency is IMO, one of the chief reasons why we have this terrible state at the moment, I bet all in all with the entire Micro world, some 60% could be removed and leave 40% of relevant, not copycats material.
In theory it's a good idea but I stopped uploading after I did a basic search for one of my "similars" that was rejected and couldn't find one photo like it on the site.  It just isn't worth me uploading there when they do that.

velocicarpo

« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2011, 12:32 »
0
I expect more of this sort of thing in the future, as the microstocks start to accept the fact that their search results can't be much better than they already are, unless they start to actually sort through those millions of images, deleting repetitious junk and spam keywords.   And they might very well hire new people to do this, and not give them much training, so lots of mistakes will be made.

500 images?  Obviously no one actually looked at all of them and made intelligent decisions. Someone is just in there swinging an axe.

This is what I am thinking. And I know that from a contributor's standpoint, this stinks. But I do believe it will be an improvement for buyers. Having to wade through two or three pages of images that are so similar, one has difficulty finding the difference, is really annoying and never should have happened in the first place. I understand the concept of similars, as we have discussed in the past, and in that context I agree that similars are useful.

Like stockastic says, it might be people with little or no training, going overboard. There never seems to be a happy medium anymore with micros.  ::)

Simply wrong. As said in other threads I buy arround 100 - 150 images each month. It takes me 2 sec to overlook a page of results and many times I have to download various "similars" to find the right ones. Dreamstime just doesn`t understand designers needs.

Imagine you need an isolated to be placed on a 480x120 web banner and need the right angle to represent a project nicely. Imagine you need an 4000x1000 cut for a quarter page print add, lets say a smiling girl with a wood in the background. In one image she may stand in a Angle or the shot has a angle that the person is cutted badly in this format. In another one there is not enough wood over the head of the girl to place the desired text. I could give MILLIONS of those examples. And finally we contributors notice too when a whole series of one shooting gets downloaded. Dreamstime is jsut unprofessional. Nothing else.

« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2011, 12:33 »
0
like I said on other topic I had 46 pictures removed, some from like 2 weeks :P

 ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2011, 12:49 »
0

Simply wrong. As said in other threads I buy arround 100 - 150 images each month. It takes me 2 sec to overlook a page of results and many times I have to download various "similars" to find the right ones. Dreamstime just doesn`t understand designers needs.


You should contact them and let them know.  These types of comments will mean more coming from a designer than from a rank-and-file contributor. 

« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2011, 12:59 »
0
what is the more concerning is what is going in at this minute.. I am far from pro but I dont send crappy pictures, tons are approved from new contributors, they are giving them incentives to upload but those pictures shouldnt be approved, they are not even done properly but as they are new they get in.. not going to pick portfolio but you can find this quite fast..

I really think that Dreamstime want a picture of something from everyone, if you produce a better one they said you have already on portfolio, they are just looking for new contributors but not looking into what are approving..

velocicarpo

« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2011, 13:02 »
0

Simply wrong. As said in other threads I buy arround 100 - 150 images each month. It takes me 2 sec to overlook a page of results and many times I have to download various "similars" to find the right ones. Dreamstime just doesn`t understand designers needs.


You should contact them and let them know.  These types of comments will mean more coming from a designer than from a rank-and-file contributor. 

I did this already month ago. But (un?)fortunately I am a Contributor too, so I guess my voice wasn`t heard :-/

« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2011, 13:08 »
0

I did this already month ago. But (un?)fortunately I am a Contributor too, so I guess my voice wasn`t heard :-/

Too bad.  Doesn't Istock have the same issue?  I don't understand that attitude. 

You can be a pro designer, but if you ever submitted a picture your opinion is suspect??!

velocicarpo

« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2011, 13:10 »
0

I did this already month ago. But (un?)fortunately I am a Contributor too, so I guess my voice wasn`t heard :-/

Too bad.  Doesn't Istock have the same issue?  I don't understand that attitude. 

You can be a pro designer, but if you ever submitted a picture your opinion is suspect??!

They didn`t rejected my request. I jsut got an generic mail with some blabla and thats it :-)

WarrenPrice

« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2011, 13:48 »
0
On the bright side, seems Shutterstock is taking advantage of Dreamstime's tendency to step on their "whatchamacallit."   Get rejected at Dreamstime; sell it as OD at Shutterstock.   ::)

« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2011, 14:23 »
0
Well. to people that say it's a good thing, here is an example.
This one they kept:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-young-woman-cleaning-kitchen-image17802489
This one they marked for deletion as similar:
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_573/1294910263pwP7UQ.jpg

If it's not obvious, I can assure you these 2 images convey different moods, have different copy space and both of them can be used in the same project.

This is one of my more recent series, so the bozos saw that the second one didn't have downloads yet and decided to get rid of it. It has been online since 01/25/2011 - less that 3 months!!!.
I know I should be really mad about this, but somehow it's so ridiculous I can't even be angry. I don't know if this is what Serban has intended - if he did, he is killing his business with his own hands, if he didn't and it's an incompetent employee he is still killing his business with his own hands by letting them do that... Either way, you can always come buy all of my images directly from my site ;-)

« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2011, 14:43 »
0
Both of those images would be very useful in a project. Different body angle, one she's looking down the other she's looking up with that beautiful smile ...... I wouldn't have thought they were too similar either. 

« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2011, 14:49 »
0
I agree with you Elena. Mind you IMHO DT are not going nuts, they've actually been nuts for years. This is not really that different from having images rejected on submission for 'too many' which in my case is often just ... er ... two (such as a horizontal and vertical variation).

I'd imagine this is probably a customer complaint driven issue as searches do bring up rows of similars or images from the same artists. Unfortunately DT are addressing an effect rather than the cause of the problem. They really need to change their search engine results to promote individual images rather than millions from the same contributors, as appears the case now.

The customers get lousy search results because DT have a lousy search algorithm, not because of too many 'similars'. For example SS have even larger series of similar images but the search engine and the customers' buying habits are able to sort the wheat from the chaff quite easily.

grp_photo

« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2011, 14:52 »
0
To get a clearer picture of this it would be nice if contributors could post percentage figures instead 3,46 or 500 files have been removed. 5% or 10% of my portfolio has been removed would be more meaningful IMHO.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2011, 15:02 »
0
Well. to people that say it's a good thing, here is an example.
This one they kept:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-young-woman-cleaning-kitchen-image17802489
This one they marked for deletion as similar:
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_573/1294910263pwP7UQ.jpg

If it's not obvious, I can assure you these 2 images convey different moods, have different copy space and both of them can be used in the same project.

This is one of my more recent series, so the bozos saw that the second one didn't have downloads yet and decided to get rid of it. It has been online since 01/25/2011 - less that 3 months!!!.
I know I should be really mad about this, but somehow it's so ridiculous I can't even be angry. I don't know if this is what Serban has intended - if he did, he is killing his business with his own hands, if he didn't and it's an incompetent employee he is still killing his business with his own hands by letting them do that... Either way, you can always come buy all of my images directly from my site ;-)


I personally don't see a vast difference in the moods of these two images and knowing Dreamstime's policy on "similars", you had to have known that one would be rejected.  I suspect you did know which is why one was uploaded October 15, 2010 and the rejected one on January 25, 2011.  Both images are nice but I can see why the first one was accepted and the second one wasn't.  I'm not saying the second one isn't good enough because it's a nice image too, but knowing Dreamstime's policy, which has been around for quite some time, the rejection of the second image shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.  I've had similars rejected when they were two totally different concepts... one was about career and family and the other was buying and leasing.  

« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2011, 15:09 »
0
The customers get lousy search results because Dreamstime have a lousy search algorithm, not because of too many 'similars'. For example Shutterstock have even larger series of similar images but the search engine and the customers' buying habits are able to sort the wheat from the chaff quite easily.

Exactly!...
Well... some of them make it, some of them don't. I know good people who tried to talk sense into them, to no avail. People that make them most of their money. They are spending all this time and effort manually * images out of library which cost money and is error-prone instead of investing the same time and money into improving search algorithm or at least implementing grouping "similar" images together. One can only shrug....

« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2011, 15:24 »
0
I personally don't see a vast difference in the moods of these two images and knowing Dreamstime's policy on "similars", you had to have known that one would be rejected.  I suspect you did know which is why one was uploaded October 15, 2010 and the rejected one on January 25, 2011.  Both images are nice but I can see why the first one was accepted and the second one wasn't.  I'm not saying the second one isn't good enough because it's a nice image too, but knowing Dreamstime's policy, which has been around for quite some time, the rejection of the second image shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.  I've had similars rejected when they were two totally different concepts... one was about career and family and the other was buying and leasing.  

Watcha talking about dude... both images went online on the same day, Jan 25, 2011. They still show near each other on my portfolio (you can't click on deleted one though, it shows you DT's "oops we have a problem thingy:)). Next time you wanna get me, do your homework better ;-)

« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2011, 15:35 »
0
I am saying it's a good thing, and here is the context to which I am speaking:

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-tomato-image3537031
and
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-tomato-image3537053

and thats after a search for pizza.

Here's one more:

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-bread-cheese-and-jam-image1187948

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-cheese-sandwich-image1188010
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-sandwich-closeup-image1188043

Two of those are almost identical. These are the types of similars that I think definitely need to be weeded out.

And this is just a quick and dirty search I just did in ten minutes. I have come across similar instances where the whole page was filled with images that had such minute differences, it was difficult to tell whether they were accidentally uploaded twice or they actually were different images.

In your particular example above, Elena, those are, in my opinion, two different images. The woman is facing different directions, and it is immediately clear that those are two different images. Those are NOT the kind of similars that I am talking about that should be deleted. Just to be perfectly clear.

« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2011, 16:00 »
0
For me it's a sign that company is struggling to survive. They do not make enough to pay for a storage of millions of images they ingested. It is a quick fix to cut down the cost. Maybe they try to fix balance sheets to look better for selling company.

« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2011, 16:15 »
0
For me it's a sign that company is struggling to survive. They do not make enough to pay for a storage of millions of images they ingested. It is a quick fix to cut down the cost. Maybe they try to fix balance sheets to look better for selling company.

I respectfully disagree that they are struggling to survive. I see it as a way to clean up their site and do something positive for buyers. Some of the similars on there should never have been accepted in the first place. Unfortunately, looks like they still don't have experienced enough people making the right decisions to chop, as in Elena's case.

« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2011, 16:23 »
0
Big difference between the pics pointed out by Cathy and the ones pointed out by Elena.  The ones Cathy linked to are way too similar.  Not to mention they are low interest subjects and pretty bad photos in general.

Elena's pics are very different from each other.  One image she's looking at the camera and clearly interacting with it.  In the other, she's looking down and seems unaware of the camera.  Sends a completely different message.  Can't see how anybody could think those two are redundant.   :-\

« Reply #40 on: April 18, 2011, 16:24 »
0
For me it's a sign that company is struggling to survive. They do not make enough to pay for a storage of millions of images they ingested. It is a quick fix to cut down the cost. Maybe they try to fix balance sheets to look better for selling company.

I respectfully disagree that they are struggling to survive. I see it as a way to clean up their site and do something positive for buyers. Some of the similars on there should never have been accepted in the first place. Unfortunately, looks like they still don't have experienced enough people making the right decisions to chop, as in Elena's case.

I'm not so sure.  Their cutting upload limits to the bone feels more like a way of reducing costs by reducing reviewers than any legitimate effort to improve their offering to buyers.  Dreamstime's definition of similars has always struck me as unreasonable; many shots of the same model are a good thing for buyers, since they allow the selection of just the right pose and expression for the project.  If Dreamstime's search engine displays too many from one session, surely that's a problem with the search engine and the way it presents results, not with having many different (if only subtly) images of the same subject.  But fixing their search and presentation would take effort and money, while cutting back on new images takes neither.

« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2011, 16:27 »
0
For me it's a sign that company is struggling to survive. They do not make enough to pay for a storage of millions of images they ingested. It is a quick fix to cut down the cost. Maybe they try to fix balance sheets to look better for selling company.

I respectfully disagree that they are struggling to survive. I see it as a way to clean up their site and do something positive for buyers. Some of the similars on there should never have been accepted in the first place. Unfortunately, looks like they still don't have experienced enough people making the right decisions to chop, as in Elena's case.

I'm not so sure.  Their cutting upload limits to the bone feels more like a way of reducing costs by reducing reviewers than any legitimate effort to improve their offering to buyers.  Dreamstime's definition of similars has always struck me as unreasonable; many shots of the same model are a good thing for buyers, since they allow the selection of just the right pose and expression for the project.  If Dreamstime's search engine displays too many from one session, surely that's a problem with the search engine and the way it presents results, not with having many different (if only subtly) images of the same subject.  But fixing their search and presentation would take effort and money, while cutting back on new images takes neither.

I was going to reply something similar. If they wont improve experience for buyers they would invest, expand not cut.

« Reply #42 on: April 18, 2011, 16:38 »
0
It's a shame because there are all those people out there who really love aardvarks.  ;D


« Reply #43 on: April 18, 2011, 17:22 »
0
Have any of your aardvarks been cut?


Quote
I'm not so sure.  Their cutting upload limits to the bone feels more like a way of reducing costs by reducing reviewers than any legitimate effort to improve their offering to buyers.  Dreamstime's definition of similars has always struck me as unreasonable; many shots of the same model are a good thing for buyers, since they allow the selection of just the right pose and expression for the project.  If Dreamstime's search engine displays too many from one session, surely that's a problem with the search engine and the way it presents results, not with having many different (if only subtly) images of the same subject.  But fixing their search and presentation would take effort and money, while cutting back on new images takes neither.

I was going to reply something similar. If they wont improve experience for buyers they would invest, expand not cut

So you two are saying that virtually identical images are ok and should be approved? Wow. I have a totally different buying experience than you guys do. I think it's an annoyance to have virtually identical pictures. I don't want to be wasting my time trying to figure out what the subtle difference is. Why would you want to clog up server space with virtually identical images?

If they spend money to improve their search engine, by adding a function whereby similar images come up as a lightbox, let's say, who do you think is going to pay for that? Yeah...the contributors. Rather than have my commissions cut so they can "improve" their search engine, ala istock, I'd rather they do exactly what they are doing. But that's just me.  :)

And let's suppose for a minute that they actually did make it so that one or two of a series came up in a search with a link to similars. Do you still think virtually identical images should be accepted? If so, I just see that as a way for contributors to bloat their upload numbers. In fact, you would be cannibalizing and diluting your own portfolio. But then we've had that discussion before too and some folks think that's ok, they'd rather do it to themselves than have someone else do it to them. To me it just seems like someone trying to game the system.

« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2011, 17:34 »
0
Have any of your aardvarks been cut?


Quote
I'm not so sure.  Their cutting upload limits to the bone feels more like a way of reducing costs by reducing reviewers than any legitimate effort to improve their offering to buyers.  Dreamstime's definition of similars has always struck me as unreasonable; many shots of the same model are a good thing for buyers, since they allow the selection of just the right pose and expression for the project.  If Dreamstime's search engine displays too many from one session, surely that's a problem with the search engine and the way it presents results, not with having many different (if only subtly) images of the same subject.  But fixing their search and presentation would take effort and money, while cutting back on new images takes neither.

I was going to reply something similar. If they wont improve experience for buyers they would invest, expand not cut

So you two are saying that virtually identical images are ok and should be approved? Wow. I have a totally different buying experience than you guys do. I think it's an annoyance to have virtually identical pictures. I don't want to be wasting my time trying to figure out what the subtle difference is. Why would you want to clog up server space with virtually identical images?

If they spend money to improve their search engine, by adding a function whereby similar images come up as a lightbox, let's say, who do you think is going to pay for that? Yeah...the contributors. Rather than have my commissions cut so they can "improve" their search engine, ala istock, I'd rather they do exactly what they are doing. But that's just me.  :)

And let's suppose for a minute that they actually did make it so that one or two of a series came up in a search with a link to similars. Do you still think virtually identical images should be accepted? If so, I just see that as a way for contributors to bloat their upload numbers. In fact, you would be cannibalizing and diluting your own portfolio. But then we've had that discussion before too and some folks think that's ok, they'd rather do it to themselves than have someone else do it to them. To me it just seems like someone trying to game the system.

I do not say I like excessive similar but so far I have seen more examples of unjustifiable cuts than real issues. I would rather trust algorithm than human to make judgment cause they prove every day how easy is to make mistake. If they got search engine right and cull old images instead virtually stopping a flow of new images and and arbitrary cherry pick what reviewers like. Instead they try to "hibernate" until better times come.

« Reply #45 on: April 18, 2011, 17:38 »
0
I do not say I like excessive similar but so far I have seen more examples of unjustifiable cuts than real issues. I would rather trust algorithm than human to make judgment cause they prove every day how easy is to make mistake. If they got search engine right and cull old images instead virtually stopping a flow of new images and and arbitrary cherry pick what reviewers like. Instead they try to "hibernate" until better times come.

I understand what you mean and I agree.  :)

« Reply #46 on: April 18, 2011, 17:49 »
0

So you two are saying that virtually identical images are ok and should be approved?

I never said that.  You use the phrase "virtually identical" where I used the word "similar".  Dreamstime has declared war on "similars", which they use against multiple appearances of the same model in the same situation.  The images are not virtually identical, and a buyer would have no problem distinguishing among them.  My question is whether the buyer might have a preference for one pose over another, and whether an agency should offer that choice.  My answer is that they should, and their mechanism for presenting images should support both a broad selection of different content and the ability to drill down to a set of similar and related but not identical images.  Dreamstime doesn't support that kind of two stage view, nor do they seem inclined to do so.

« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2011, 17:51 »
0
It appears to me that they are treating the symptoms and not the problem.  If the root of the problem is the search engine or the limits of storage, shouldn't they fix those problems?  It's like chopping off your hand because you can't stop picking your nose.  It solves the problem, but your hand may still be useful in other situations, don't you think?

« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2011, 17:53 »
0

So you two are saying that virtually identical images are ok and should be approved?

I never said that.  You use the phrase "virtually identical" where I used the word "similar".  Dreamstime has declared war on "similars", which they use against multiple appearances of the same model in the same situation.  The images are not virtually identical, and a buyer would have no problem distinguishing among them.  My question is whether the buyer might have a preference for one pose over another, and whether an agency should offer that choice.  My answer is that they should, and their mechanism for presenting images should support both a broad selection of different content and the ability to drill down to a set of similar and related but not identical images.  Dreamstime doesn't support that kind of two stage view, nor do they seem inclined to do so.

I agree.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2011, 18:06 »
0
I wonder if Serban and Yuri ever settled their differences?  Wasn't there a near boycott at one time?  
There must be some exceptions?

ed:  I know that I'm glad I didn't buy Serban's pitch on going exclusive. 
Oh Happy Days.   ;D
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 18:07 by WarrenPrice »

« Reply #50 on: April 18, 2011, 18:15 »
0
Have any of your aardvarks been cut?

Nope, they haven't gone on the endangered species list yet. I guess Dreamstime has a right to run their business as they see fit and that may not jive with how I want to run mine. I do think it's odd that they seem to have more and more subs and small credit buyers everyday and those are exactly the same buyers that buy multiple images in a series. It seems a strange cannibalization.

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #51 on: April 18, 2011, 18:48 »
0
The only good thing with DT is their pricing system.
EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS

« Reply #52 on: April 18, 2011, 19:41 »
0
They also misleading us to make new images with new cameras with same concepts, and after that this is what is happening.
Maybe they are just earning more with 3-5 level images from old 4-6 mpix noisy cameras then with new 18-24 mpix at level 1.

« Reply #53 on: April 18, 2011, 19:46 »
0
in cases of like the tomatoes are great example of what needs cleaning, but they really dont need to go crazy with it.

to me the bigger issue is the keywords, isolated tomatoes with keywords 'pizza'.
Unfortunately keyword spamming is so rife, and there are some very big sellers doing it.
try a search for cities

http://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_rf=y&s_ed=y&srh_field=cities&firstvalue=cities&lastsearchvalue=null&s_sm=all&s_st=new&memso=y&s_cf=1&s_catid=&s_cliid=356522&s_colid=&memorize_search=1&s_exc=&s_excp=&s_sp=&s_sl0=y&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

it also shows that dreamstime's 'relevancy' search is pretty much garbage.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #54 on: April 18, 2011, 19:53 »
0
I personally don't see a vast difference in the moods of these two images and knowing Dreamstime's policy on "similars", you had to have known that one would be rejected.  I suspect you did know which is why one was uploaded October 15, 2010 and the rejected one on January 25, 2011.  Both images are nice but I can see why the first one was accepted and the second one wasn't.  I'm not saying the second one isn't good enough because it's a nice image too, but knowing Dreamstime's policy, which has been around for quite some time, the rejection of the second image shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.  I've had similars rejected when they were two totally different concepts... one was about career and family and the other was buying and leasing.  


Watcha talking about dude... both images went online on the same day, Jan 25, 2011. They still show near each other on my portfolio (you can't click on deleted one though, it shows you Dreamstime's "oops we have a problem thingy:)). Next time you wanna get me, do your homework better ;-)


Wanna get you?  A little paranoid aren't you?  No one wants to get you "dude".  I simply looked at the date the photo was taken on the image and assumed you had uploaded it around then.  Forgive me for not bothering to sift through 148 pages of your work originally.  Having a look at the entire series in your portfolio now here:

http://www.dreamstime.com/portfolio.php?clientun=Elenathewise&page=&sortcriteria=8

I can see others that are similar as well and using Dreamstime's 'similars' policy, I'm surprised that even more of those images in that series weren't scheduled for deletion.  Again, I'm not out to "get you".  I'm not even saying the policy is a good thing.  I'm simply saying that this isn't a policy that Dreamstime just created, it's been around for a while and no one should be surprised that your image was scheduled for deletion.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #55 on: April 18, 2011, 20:04 »
0
For me it's a sign that company is struggling to survive. They do not make enough to pay for a storage of millions of images they ingested. It is a quick fix to cut down the cost. Maybe they try to fix balance sheets to look better for selling company.

I don't see that it's a sign that the company is struggling to survive.  Quite the opposite.  They've grown to the point where they're going to start to be even more fussy.  It's only natural that as their database grows with more and more quality images, they're going to want to weed out the ones that don't make the cut or the ones that are similar to others in the contributors portfolio and to those in the entire database.  This wouldn't be about storage costs but rather about quality and improving search results.

« Reply #56 on: April 18, 2011, 21:11 »
0
Forgive me for not bothering to sift through 148 pages of your work originally.  

Ok. You are forgiven  ;D

idspopd

« Reply #57 on: April 18, 2011, 21:56 »
0
from what i see here and other threads similar like this, i found that all agencies are nuts, since they all always have something to grump on. i wonder why you all don't sell direct from day one, and forget about uploading to agencies.

« Reply #58 on: April 18, 2011, 22:23 »
0
from what i see here and other threads similar like this, i found that all agencies are nuts

Sadly, so true!  ;)

« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2011, 02:03 »
0
from what i see here and other threads similar like this, i found that all agencies are nuts, since they all always have something to grump on. i wonder why you all don't sell direct from day one, and forget about uploading to agencies.
That might happen in a few years time.  If someone could sort out a decent universal search and payment system, I think we would all be much better off.  This is such a big market, I do think someone will come up with a great way to sell direct one day.  It could have big benefits for buyers and contributors.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2011, 02:12 »
0
could also be a royal POA for buyers.  Unless, as you mentioned, ONE search engine could search all those thousands sellers, millions of files looking for that one perfect image.

It is going to take a major break through to have a lot buyers leaving a central depository to find one of MY images on my very own site.   8)

« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2011, 03:21 »
0
^^^That's why I don't have my own site to sell direct yet but I hope its possible for someone to set up a way for buyers to purchase credits that then let them buy from lots of different sites, without the hassle of registering on every site.  Then there will have to be a way to search through all those sites and to make sure the images found have decent technical quality.  It wont be easy but I hope someone is working on it.

« Reply #62 on: April 19, 2011, 03:30 »
0
that's why I vote by toes.

« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2011, 04:07 »
0
Actually I think it is good that DT is starting to get rid of some pictures. But I disagree in the way they do it.
The similars are in many cases not really the problem. Crappy images and nonsellers are the problem combined with a search engine which is not that good.

If DT would lets say delete images which have not sold within a year many problems would be solved. DT even does not have to go through all the similars anymore, because the buyer would decide. If there are similars which all get downloaded once in a while there would be no problem with them. If there are similars which are not interesting to the buyer, they would get disabled after a year. I have no idea why there is no one of the big angencies which implements s.th. like that. It would be the best for all of us.

« Reply #64 on: April 19, 2011, 05:14 »
0
istock had a system like that for the dollar bin. They moved files there that didnt sell after several years and once in the dollar bin they had a "30 day clock" ticking. Every time an image was bought in the dollar bin, the clock was reset and the file had another 30 days to go. If it wasnt bought a single time then after 30 days it was deleted.

It was a great system and many files started getting noticed and flaming there.

At the moment the clocks have been stopped and no new images are being put in the dollar bin. They say they want to do something special with the bin, but we have no idea when.

many photographers now delete older files from istock but put them on the partner program. so you can do your own spring cleaning but the files can still have a life somwhere. Like the dollar bin, many files that didnt sell at all on istock are now popular in the PP.

Sorry about losing those images elena, only 3 months old and a lovely series. Very bizarre decision.

« Reply #65 on: April 19, 2011, 05:28 »
0
I don't know why so many people think that old non selling images are a problem and clog up the searches.   If an image is old and non selling it will be at the back of just about any search on any site.

« Reply #66 on: April 19, 2011, 05:53 »
0
I don't know why so many people think that old non selling images are a problem and clog up the searches.   If an image is old and non selling it will be at the back of just about any search on any site.

Yeah, but if 5% of the images deliver 95% of the earnings (as I suspect they do) then if the storage cost is more than 5% of the overall costs, 95% of the images become uneconomical to store, don't they? Something like that, anyway. Serban's got at thing against images with zero downloads, which certainly do not pay for their storage.

How many hundreds of thousands of non-selling similars should DT store to ensure a buyer whose going to buy one anyway gets a big choice?

In addition, the shift to subscriptions might lead a buyer to download five similar images to compare at full size just to select the best, in which case each of the extra similars is costing DT commission but delivering no return - it just increases the payout from DT to the photographer.

So there are plenty of reasons why they might not like similars.

« Reply #67 on: April 19, 2011, 07:05 »
0
Yeah, but if 5% of the images deliver 95% of the earnings (as I suspect they do) then if the storage cost is more than 5% of the overall costs, 95% of the images become uneconomical to store, don't they? Something like that, anyway. Serban's got at thing against images with zero downloads, which certainly do not pay for their storage.

How many hundreds of thousands of non-selling similars should Dreamstime store to ensure a buyer whose going to buy one anyway gets a big choice?

I doubt that it has anything to do with 'storage costs', which frankly must be fairly minimal in the greater scheme of things. If you wanted to significantly reduce storage costs then you'd have to trim down the entire collection by 20%+ and there's no likelihood of that happening. DT were ruthlessly rejecting perfectly good images years ago for being 'too similar' when at the same time they were breathlessly celebrating every 100K target attained on their way to 1M images. I'm sure that this is a reaction to customer complaints about the poor search results but of course that issue is almost entirely to do with the pathetic algorithm.

I think it's quite likely that the upload limits were imposed to save money on reviewing costs though as those must be fairly hefty. Even if the costs of reviewing were as little as 10c per image, with 100K new images per week being uploaded, it adds up to over $500K per annum.

« Reply #68 on: April 19, 2011, 07:12 »
0
Yeah, but if 5% of the images deliver 95% of the earnings (as I suspect they do) then if the storage cost is more than 5% of the overall costs, 95% of the images become uneconomical to store, don't they? Something like that, anyway. Serban's got at thing against images with zero downloads, which certainly do not pay for their storage.

How many hundreds of thousands of non-selling similars should Dreamstime store to ensure a buyer whose going to buy one anyway gets a big choice?

I doubt that it has anything to do with 'storage costs', which frankly must be fairly minimal in the greater scheme of things. If you wanted to significantly reduce storage costs then you'd have to trim down the entire collection by 20%+ and there's no likelihood of that happening. Dreamstime were ruthlessly rejecting perfectly good images years ago for being 'too similar' when at the same time they were breathlessly celebrating every 100K target attained on their way to 1M images. I'm sure that this is a reaction to customer complaints about the poor search results but of course that issue is almost entirely to do with the pathetic algorithm.

I think it's quite likely that the upload limits were imposed to save money on reviewing costs though as those must be fairly hefty. Even if the costs of reviewing were as little as 10c per image, with 100K new images per week being uploaded, it adds up to over $500K per annum.

and pictures will be a lot more selective like at IS which will be more "enjoyable" to them (to sell to) but I guess they are going "pretty" further from acting this way when they are not close to Shutterstock, IS

Slovenian

« Reply #69 on: April 19, 2011, 07:38 »
0
I think it's a great idea and most of the MS sites should get 2/3 of the content deleted, IS probably about 50% and SS and similar agencies, where ppl post series of tens of photos with little or no variety and terrible quality up to 90%. I'd delete all of the files with heavy and obvious keyword spamming as well, I'm loosing my mind trying to track my newly approved photos on SS. For instance I made a series in a hair salon, every ppl shot has the keyword hair, although a man with a helmet is standing in front of his house. But there are much worse cases, I just uploaded an athletics series, searching for athletics and I get a series of 30 totally crappy shots of BUGS, that immediately pushed my images to the 2nd page. Looking for shopping and finding cartons of eggs. Ahhh. Keyword spamming and huge series of crappy shots are killing MS. And when will they start looking for qualities such as originality, concept and marketability, just checking for IQ doesn't cut it anymore. It's driving away the buyers. I'd say 90% of the pre 2007 content should be deleted, the best shots from that era are just average now (most of them anyway)

« Reply #70 on: April 19, 2011, 08:11 »
0
I think it's a great idea and most of the MS sites should get 2/3 of the content deleted, IS probably about 50% and Shutterstock and similar agencies, where ppl post series of tens of photos with little or no variety and terrible quality up to 90%. I'd delete all of the files with heavy and obvious keyword spamming as well, I'm loosing my mind trying to track my newly approved photos on Shutterstock. For instance I made a series in a hair salon, every ppl shot has the keyword hair, although a man with a helmet is standing in front of his house. But there are much worse cases, I just uploaded an athletics series, searching for athletics and I get a series of 30 totally crappy shots of BUGS, that immediately pushed my images to the 2nd page. Looking for shopping and finding cartons of eggs. Ahhh. Keyword spamming and huge series of crappy shots are killing MS. And when will they start looking for qualities such as originality, concept and marketability, just checking for IQ doesn't cut it anymore. It's driving away the buyers. I'd say 90% of the pre 2007 content should be deleted, the best shots from that era are just average now (most of them anyway)

now you are just going NUTS like the topic name.. removing 2/3 ?? thats like bringing SS from 15 million to 5 million, that is just dumb in my opinion, they should have done it from start not now erasing everything and not even on that amount, that is like paying again a reviewer to go all around (when it should have been done before) thats is just too much work and a lot more money.. they should look to some that really have similar stuff (and not well done..) they should look for new cntributors, not calling them and approved their first pictures that arent worth and good enough to be online..

lagereek

« Reply #71 on: April 19, 2011, 08:37 »
0
A good clean-up will only benefit us in the long run.

« Reply #72 on: April 19, 2011, 09:01 »
0
A good clean-up will only benefit us in the long run.

a good one! (not removing pictures that arent that similar)

more important is not approving every new "apple" from each contributor that enter microstock unless it is very good, DT is one of the most "friendly" agencies, they approve a little for each contributor and some of those new pics are really bad, less than average is only pulling microstock down.. DT is quite depressing and perhaps a few old SS pictures.. IS may be the only with really nice pics, not approving only to get "more uploads" from contributors

« Reply #73 on: April 19, 2011, 10:30 »
0
I don't know why so many people think that old non selling images are a problem and clog up the searches.   If an image is old and non selling it will be at the back of just about any search on any site.

I agree. Plus, Dreamstime is a slow site with not-so-great search algorithm, and the fact that images have not sold there doesn't mean they are not sellable - many of my images that had no or very few sales on DT are very good sellers elsewhere.
And they do have their "donate for free" or "disable" option for images that hasn't been sold in a while - so why go manual and spend so much effort on combing through collection??... If someone has too many similars and only one or two images out of the series get sold, the rest will go automatically into their free section or get disabled after a while, right? Right. Then it looks like they are just wasting time and effort and pissing off contributors for no good reason. <shrug>

« Reply #74 on: April 19, 2011, 11:00 »
0
A good clean-up will only benefit us in the long run.

Unless they pour out the baby with the bathwater.

I understand concerns people voiced here and agree with examples of image spamming. However, I am not a spammer. Why don't they go after the guy with 50 shots of the same pizza slice instead of deleting very questionable "similars" from my portfolio? 

I also don't understand why automatic removal of unsold images (which they already have in place) is not enough.

Dreamstime and other agencies exist because you and me and all of us give them our images to sell. Submitting images to them and get them approved only to find out later that they removed them is a huge waste of time and effort for us.
From now on, DT goes on a "back burner" - there are many agencies that are waiting for our submissions, we've been doing extremely well with some of them especially in Europe.
Dreamstime will get what they are asking for - much less images from us, if any at all.

Slovenian

« Reply #75 on: April 19, 2011, 11:16 »
0
From now on, Dreamstime goes on a "back burner" - there are many agencies that are waiting for our submissions, we've been doing extremely well with some of them especially in Europe.
Dreamstime will get what they are asking for - much less images from us, if any at all.

They aren't getting any from me, I just uploaded 100+ on DT and FT to test the site and they both suck (combined together they never made more than 10% of what SS does). I don't even know how some of you manage to contribute to numerous agencies, even to those with tiny traffic with no hope of selling at least 10% of what IS and SS do. I'm currently contributing to IS, SS and just started at Alamy. And I'm already fed up with Alamy, the 3rd agency is just too much for me, I don't have the will for all that keywording and arranging (licences, releases etc).

Which European agencies did you have in mind?

« Reply #76 on: April 19, 2011, 11:20 »
0
Which European agencies did you have in mind?

Most of them by invitation only:)

lisafx

« Reply #77 on: April 19, 2011, 11:21 »
0

They aren't getting any from me, I just uploaded 100+ on Dreamstime and Fotolia to test the site and they both suck (combined together they never made more than 10% of what Shutterstock does). I don't even know how some of you manage to contribute to numerous agencies, even to those with tiny traffic with no hope of selling at least 10% of what IS and Shutterstock do. I'm currently contributing to IS, Shutterstock and just started at Alamy. And I'm already fed up with Alamy, the 3rd agency is just too much for me, I don't have the will for all that keywording and arranging (licences, releases etc).

Which European agencies did you have in mind?

If you do your keywording in the IPTC, through photoshop or some other program, it will be read by all the sites and you only have to do it the one time.  Then you just FTP the images and (on some sites) attach categories and releases.  It's not really any harder to upload to 10 sites than two or three.  Especially if one of the two or three you are on is Istock.  It takes me an hour to upload, disambiguate, etc. 15 images on Istock, and it takes less than an additional hour to get them on 9 other sites.  

« Reply #78 on: April 19, 2011, 11:37 »
0
If you do your keywording in the IPTC, through photoshop or some other program, it will be read by all the sites and you only have to do it the one time.  Then you just FTP the images and (on some sites) attach categories and releases.  It's not really any harder to upload to 10 sites than two or three.  Especially if one of the two or three you are on is Istock.  It takes me an hour to upload, disambiguate, etc. 15 images on Istock, and it takes less than an additional hour to get them on 9 other sites.  

LOL. This is sad, but true.

lagereek

« Reply #79 on: April 19, 2011, 11:52 »
0
A good clean-up will only benefit us in the long run.

Unless they pour out the baby with the bathwater.

I understand concerns people voiced here and agree with examples of image spamming. However, I am not a spammer. Why don't they go after the guy with 50 shots of the same pizza slice instead of deleting very questionable "similars" from my portfolio?  

I also don't understand why automatic removal of unsold images (which they already have in place) is not enough.

Dreamstime and other agencies exist because you and me and all of us give them our images to sell. Submitting images to them and get them approved only to find out later that they removed them is a huge waste of time and effort for us.
From now on, Dreamstime goes on a "back burner" - there are many agencies that are waiting for our submissions, we've been doing extremely well with some of them especially in Europe.
Dreamstime will get what they are asking for - much less images from us, if any at all.

Oh I like that one!!  pour out the baby with the bath water!!!  brillant!  how . do I translate that one into Swedish, to make sense?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2011, 12:05 by lagereek »

« Reply #80 on: April 19, 2011, 12:03 »
0
A good clean-up will only benefit us in the long run.

I mostly agree with this. Painful in the short term, but beneficial in the long term.

Slovenian

« Reply #81 on: April 19, 2011, 12:51 »
0

They aren't getting any from me, I just uploaded 100+ on Dreamstime and Fotolia to test the site and they both suck (combined together they never made more than 10% of what Shutterstock does). I don't even know how some of you manage to contribute to numerous agencies, even to those with tiny traffic with no hope of selling at least 10% of what IS and Shutterstock do. I'm currently contributing to IS, Shutterstock and just started at Alamy. And I'm already fed up with Alamy, the 3rd agency is just too much for me, I don't have the will for all that keywording and arranging (licences, releases etc).

Which European agencies did you have in mind?

If you do your keywording in the IPTC, through photoshop or some other program, it will be read by all the sites and you only have to do it the one time.  Then you just FTP the images and (on some sites) attach categories and releases.  It's not really any harder to upload to 10 sites than two or three.  Especially if one of the two or three you are on is Istock.  It takes me an hour to upload, disambiguate, etc. 15 images on Istock, and it takes less than an additional hour to get them on 9 other sites.  

Tnx for your reply Lisa. I'm just curious, how do you enter keywords in PS?

« Reply #82 on: April 19, 2011, 16:23 »
0

... I'm just curious, how do you enter keywords in PS?

In the File Info dialog. You can do it in Lightroom too if that's your preferred way of working.

Alamy has some special procedures (three categories of keywords, how many people in the image, picking the license type, where the image was shot, etc.) that take extra time and you can't deal with anything but the title, description and keyword via the image's metadata.

In general, your goal should be to keep all that image related data in the file as much as possible. Gives you all sorts of flexibility for future uses. Unfortunately there isn't a single standard for keywording - do you include plurals/not, how to handle (or if they handle) multi-word terms, do you include UK as well as US English spellings, etc. Try to work out the closest to universally useful and then modify at the site where necessary.

« Reply #83 on: April 19, 2011, 17:07 »
0
I don't know why so many people think that old non selling images are a problem and clog up the searches.   If an image is old and non selling it will be at the back of just about any search on any site.

I agree. Plus, Dreamstime is a slow site with not-so-great search algorithm, and the fact that images have not sold there doesn't mean they are not sellable - many of my images that had no or very few sales on Dreamstime are very good sellers elsewhere.
And they do have their "donate for free" or "disable" option for images that hasn't been sold in a while - so why go manual and spend so much effort on combing through collection??... If someone has too many similars and only one or two images out of the series get sold, the rest will go automatically into their free section or get disabled after a while, right? Right. Then it looks like they are just wasting time and effort and pissing off contributors for no good reason. <shrug>

laughed the other day, one the images in my list of 4 year old unsolds being deleted has had over 1000 sales elsewhere, one a few weeks ago has consisently sold twice a week on Shutterstock for 4 years :) (not a criticism of Dreamstime, I have images at every agency that barely sell at others, just the luck of search engine placement and I'm sure you've seen the same type of thing)
« Last Edit: April 19, 2011, 17:17 by Phil »

« Reply #84 on: April 19, 2011, 17:21 »
0
laughed the other day, one the images in my list of 4 year old unsolds being deleted has had over 1000 sales elsewhere, one a few weeks ago has consisently sold twice a week on Shutterstock for 4 years :) (not a criticism of Dreamstime, I have images at every agency that barely sell at others, just the luck of search engine placement and I'm sure you've seen the same type of thing)

Yep. One good reason to NOT go exclusive anywhere.

lisafx

« Reply #85 on: April 19, 2011, 17:23 »
0
JoAnn was faster, but to expand on what she said - Go to File>File Info.  Then you will get this dialogue box where you can fill in the title, keywords, author, and whether it is copyrighted.  



When I do it on similar images (but wait, I never upload similar images! ;) ) I will cut and paste the same keywords into each, but then modify them by image, taking out the irrelevant ones and adding ones specific to that pose.  For example if they are "smiling" in one and "serious" in another.  

For images you've already edited but want to add or change keywords to, Irfanview is great.  It's free, and you can make the changes without recompressing the image and losing quality.  

Hope that helps :)

WarrenPrice

« Reply #86 on: April 19, 2011, 17:38 »
0
^^^ I haven't been able to use cut and paste but I use Elements.  Is it supposed to work in Elements?

« Reply #87 on: April 19, 2011, 18:12 »
0
...Oh I like that one!!  pour out the baby with the bath water!!!  brillant!  how . do I translate that one into Swedish, to make sense?

I can't help with the translation, but I loved a story from several years ago when some Russian-speaking dignitary was visiting the US (I think Clinton). The translator asked about a sentence that included "...been there, done that..." and after getting the meaning said that in Russian, the equivalent phrase - translated to English - was "I've stepped on that rake before". I just adore the visual my brain conjures for the Russian version - so evocative!

« Reply #88 on: April 19, 2011, 20:04 »
0
In the days of old, the women would warm up the bathwater for the men.  Then the oldest boy down to the wife and daughters would use the same bath and of course the baby was last.  That's where the phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" was supposed to originate (although the meaning has slightly changed).  The water was supposed to be so filthy by then you could no longer see the baby in it!

« Reply #89 on: April 19, 2011, 23:07 »
0
laughed the other day, one the images in my list of 4 year old unsolds being deleted has had over 1000 sales elsewhere, one a few weeks ago has consisently sold twice a week on Shutterstock for 4 years :) (not a criticism of Dreamstime, I have images at every agency that barely sell at others, just the luck of search engine placement and I'm sure you've seen the same type of thing)

Yep. One good reason to NOT go exclusive anywhere.

Hopefully if you are exclusive you concentrate on the things that do sell on that agency :)

« Reply #90 on: April 19, 2011, 23:21 »
0
I got some files removed too apparently for helping increasing my sales. I get it, no pb, theres not much one can do about it. What I dont get is wich ones were removed, all I got was some file numbers, at least they could have give me the names of those files so I can see wich of my graphics are really stopping DT from making me a billionaire.:(

rubyroo

« Reply #91 on: April 20, 2011, 03:26 »
0
"I've stepped on that rake before". I just adore the visual my brain conjures for the Russian version - so evocative!

Oh that's wonderful.  Thanks for that!  ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
42 Replies
16196 Views
Last post August 26, 2007, 15:12
by ianhlnd
22 Replies
7938 Views
Last post August 29, 2008, 09:51
by Bateleur
123RF is NUTS!!

Started by luissantos84 « 1 2  All » 123RF

25 Replies
10667 Views
Last post July 16, 2010, 21:09
by luissantos84
8 Replies
6207 Views
Last post April 14, 2011, 04:07
by ShadySue
15 Replies
10399 Views
Last post May 13, 2014, 09:20
by Nasima

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle