Author Topic: Another new micro site... (Read 8931 times)

louoates · « **on:** August 09, 2008, 14:00 »

Just when you think you'll never waste any more time with a new micro stock site along comes... http://www.timestockphoto.com

epixx · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2008, 15:15 »

I tried to sign up, just in case, but got an sql error

RGebbiePhoto · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2008, 15:23 »

We took a look, but there are a few unanswered questions...

"To sell your photos, you first have to sign up as a member. Then just sign in and add a few images in your private folder to show us what you can do. Then post a message on the forum explaining why should you become a photographer!. Once your application is approved, you may begin uploading your photos! "

Hey, we don't have any enemies, so far as I know, but what about those that are a bit more noisy on the forums? Say you put your post on how you are such a brilliant photographer with a proven track record... and your post goes hot because everyone jumps your ass. Wow. While I'd be tentative about posting a "Please Accept Me" post, I'll sure be interested to read them

Ok, so you get your images up online, and you sell one! YAY!!
At what point do you hit payout? At every sale? after $50? after $5,000? When? The $20 bonus for submitting is good, but without knowing what payout requirements are, it's impossible to see how good a deal this is (Albumo offered the same, and is basically dead with a lock-in of 400 days on your images, zero communication from admin)

What about deleting images? Is it easy to do? or do we have to go thru admin to get them removed? Are they locked on the site for a certain amount of time before they can be removed?

What about advertising? Saw the site was just put up in the last month. What movement is going to be made in that area? Is the site going to remain in Beta for a few months while bugs are worked out? Or is it considered Live already?

The only payment option I saw was for Moneybookers. Is there going to be Paypal or check options, as well?

These are just a few questions I have...

vphoto · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2008, 15:43 »

I feel looking for a new promising microstock site akin to trying to find another continent on planet Earth.

dirkr · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2008, 15:49 »

Quote: "This Agreement will be governed under the laws of the Province of Bangladesh and the federal laws applicable therein."

From their membership agreement. Any experts in Bangladesh law around?

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2008, 15:56 »

What is the point in using yet another new site? After the albumo fiasco, I decided to avoid new sites but I gave yaymicro a go and now I am starting to wish I hadn't bothered.

New sites wont have any chance unless they have lots of money to spend on advertising and can do something that the established sites haven't thought of yet. I don't see this one doing that.

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #6 on:** August 09, 2008, 16:12 »

If someone were to start a new site, I'd offer these ideas:

Allow photographers to set their own prices, no subscriptions. Split the sale 50/50.

Limit the number of photos a photographer can have online, based on their conversion rate (say a max of 250 to start and then increasing as downloads increase).

Peer-to-peer review to weed out the crap instead of some hired idiot who makes arbitrary decisions. If enough users flag a photo as crappy, dump it.

A weighted review system where your photos climb in the ratings based not only on how many users like it, but also against a formula that includes how many photos of others the artist has rated him/herself. This gets the photographers involved in keeping high quality stuff on the site.

Images that don't get downloaded in a year get removed. If it's not popular enough for at least one person to download it, then get rid of it.

RGebbiePhoto · « **Reply #7 on:** August 09, 2008, 16:22 »

Quote from: dnavarrojr on August 09, 2008, 16:12

Peer-to-peer review to weed out the crap instead of some hired idiot who makes arbitrary decisions. If enough users flag a photo as crappy, dump it.

A weighted review system where your photos climb in the ratings based not only on how many users like it, but also against a formula that includes how many photos of others the artist has rated him/herself. This gets the photographers involved in keeping high quality stuff on the site.

MostPhotos did this, and it just didn't work... People were rating high quality images with low ratings, and poor quality images had high ratings, just because they had enough friends voting on it...
I'd rather deal with a set of reviewer, this way there is a set standard on the site.

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #8 on:** August 09, 2008, 16:59 »

Quote from: RGebbiePhoto on August 09, 2008, 16:22

Quote from: dnavarrojr on August 09, 2008, 16:12

Peer-to-peer review to weed out the crap instead of some hired idiot who makes arbitrary decisions. If enough users flag a photo as crappy, dump it.

A weighted review system where your photos climb in the ratings based not only on how many users like it, but also against a formula that includes how many photos of others the artist has rated him/herself. This gets the photographers involved in keeping high quality stuff on the site.

MostPhotos did this, and it just didn't work... People were rating high quality images with low ratings, and poor quality images had high ratings, just because they had enough friends voting on it...
I'd rather deal with a set of reviewer, this way there is a set standard on the site.

This could be fixed with a weighting system.

Photographers uploads a photo
Goes into a review queue where only other photographers can view and rate
It's a very good photo, but you give it a poor rating while most others don't and it goes online, you lose points
It's a poor photo, but you give it a good rating while most others don't and it gets rejected, you lose points
The position in queue for review is based on your overall rating points

This type of system encourages photographers to properly review photos. Also, you give very specific instructions about what to look for (technical issues, not whether or not you actually like it). Photographers that upload but never review may never see anything actually get online.

Feedback from ratings is available to the uploader so they can upload a replacement or have the knowledge for future submissions.

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #9 on:** August 09, 2008, 17:01 »

Quote from: RGebbiePhoto on August 09, 2008, 16:22

I'd rather deal with a set of reviewer, this way there is a set standard on the site.

Name one site where there is a set standard for review?

Every single site has guidelines, but the reviewer decisions are arbitrary and based on interpretation.

I don't know how many times I've resubmitted the exact same rejected photo and gotten it past a different reviewer.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 09, 2008, 17:11 »

STOP WASTING YOUR TIME PEOPLE!

I say this every time someone posts this nonsense. You are doing nothing to further yourself financially because these new sites aren't going to make it. If Lucky Oliver didn't make it, these sites won't either.

Give it up, go macro if you want another source of income

vphoto · « **Reply #11 on:** August 09, 2008, 17:16 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on August 09, 2008, 17:11

STOP WASTING YOUR TIME PEOPLE!

I say this every time someone posts this nonsense. You are doing nothing to further yourself financially because these new sites aren't going to make it. If Lucky Oliver didn't make it, these sites won't either.

Give it up, go macro if you want another source of income

I agree that microsprouts are there exclusively for oafs.

which macro sites would you recommend ?

louoates · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2008, 17:50 »

I forgot to mention that I got the info about this new site in a SITE MAIL AT StockXpert. From member sohan_bd.

Clicking on that member you get his info page, empty except for:

Details of sohan_bd

I bet sohan_bd will get his walking papers from StockXpert soon.

I also just realized that by starting this thread about 23 minutes have been wasted with the above responses.

So I declare this thread DEAD. OVER. FINISHED. DECEASED. Please do not respond any more and wasted any more time.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 09, 2008, 19:03 »

Quote from: vphoto on August 09, 2008, 17:16

Quote from: ichiro17 on August 09, 2008, 17:11
STOP WASTING YOUR TIME PEOPLE!

I say this every time someone posts this nonsense. You are doing nothing to further yourself financially because these new sites aren't going to make it. If Lucky Oliver didn't make it, these sites won't either.

Give it up, go macro if you want another source of income

I agree that microsprouts are there exclusively for oafs.

which macro sites would you recommend ?

I can't say that I can recommend any, mainly because I'm just trying out Alamy now and hopefully working my way to something bigger soon.

I hope that doesn't sound too vague, but I've given up on "new" sites and I'm diversifying by different business model, not by companies within the same model

vphoto · « **Reply #14 on:** August 09, 2008, 19:08 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on August 09, 2008, 19:03

Quote from: vphoto on August 09, 2008, 17:16
Quote from: ichiro17 on August 09, 2008, 17:11
STOP WASTING YOUR TIME PEOPLE!

I say this every time someone posts this nonsense. You are doing nothing to further yourself financially because these new sites aren't going to make it. If Lucky Oliver didn't make it, these sites won't either.

Give it up, go macro if you want another source of income

I agree that microsprouts are there exclusively for oafs.

which macro sites would you recommend ?

I can't say that I can recommend any, mainly because I'm just trying out Alamy now and hopefully working my way to something bigger soon.

I hope that doesn't sound too vague, but I've given up on "new" sites and I'm diversifying by different business model, not by companies within the same model

the same here: no hope for the new sites and trying Alamy.

Magnum · « **Reply #15 on:** August 10, 2008, 09:14 »

Quote from: dnavarrojr on August 09, 2008, 16:59

Quote from: RGebbiePhoto on August 09, 2008, 16:22
Quote from: dnavarrojr on August 09, 2008, 16:12

Peer-to-peer review to weed out the crap instead of some hired idiot who makes arbitrary decisions. If enough users flag a photo as crappy, dump it.

A weighted review system where your photos climb in the ratings based not only on how many users like it, but also against a formula that includes how many photos of others the artist has rated him/herself. This gets the photographers involved in keeping high quality stuff on the site.

MostPhotos did this, and it just didn't work... People were rating high quality images with low ratings, and poor quality images had high ratings, just because they had enough friends voting on it...
I'd rather deal with a set of reviewer, this way there is a set standard on the site.

This could be fixed with a weighting system.

Photographers uploads a photo
Goes into a review queue where only other photographers can view and rate
It's a very good photo, but you give it a poor rating while most others don't and it goes online, you lose points
It's a poor photo, but you give it a good rating while most others don't and it gets rejected, you lose points
The position in queue for review is based on your overall rating points

This type of system encourages photographers to properly review photos. Also, you give very specific instructions about what to look for (technical issues, not whether or not you actually like it). Photographers that upload but never review may never see anything actually get online.

Feedback from ratings is available to the uploader so they can upload a replacement or have the knowledge for future submissions.

The weightsystem you are suggesting is a nice thought. But the problem is to teach people what a good photo is. If you have no past in this industry, you don´t know that a noisy sunset is no good, or an out of focus cat, that looks sharp small.
And lets say 8 out of ten voting members are not stockphotographers, there will be no balance.

No matter how many FAQ you write about general stockphotography and quality issues, people are gonna adore their snapshots.

This is the problem Mostphotos are struggeling with. If you can solve it, let them know

stormchaser · « **Reply #16 on:** August 10, 2008, 09:50 »

The only valid parameter for ranking is sales. "Artists" should be kept totally out of the mix.

I am not totally opposed to new sites, but time is better spent increasing your portfolio variety, size, and overall quality to supplement the sites that are proven good earners. For beginners, uploading a port of 100 mediocre shots to a dozen sites and trying every new one that pops up is just a waste of time.

ironarrow · « **Reply #17 on:** August 10, 2008, 09:53 »

here is my opinion:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,5447.msg58332/topicseen.html#new

Fred · « **Reply #18 on:** August 10, 2008, 12:23 »

Quote from: Magnum on August 10, 2008, 09:14

...
This is the problem Mostphotos are struggeling with. If you can solve it, let them know

I don't know why sites bother with reviewing. Just approve based on whether the image was approved by DT or SS or IS. Their reviewers already have a good track record and are competent - contributor complaints are about the images they reject not the ones they approve.

The money saved on paying reviewers could go to marketing and/or increased commissions. Time lag might be a problem I guess.

fred

RacePhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** August 11, 2008, 01:09 »

Quote from: vphoto on August 09, 2008, 15:43

I feel looking for a new promising microstock site akin to trying to find another continent on planet Earth.

That's what I like. No long discussion or complications. I agree with you.

Some people think they have found another continent, Atlantis. Of course new theories come up regularly and they are all over the place, plus they don't agree. The evidence doesn't support any of the claims to date. People keep buying the pitch and believing.

New micro sites are the same. People keep thinking they found one that can make it, but they are just mythology and sunk, before they start.

Doomed to failure.

Cutcaster may be an exception because of the different things they offer and the way they are operating. It's not some cookie cutter copy of the top six business plans, with a few edges rounded off. The me too sites are just jumping in because they think they can get into the market and make some money, maybe build a site and sell it.

Problem is the same people upload the same photos to the upstarts, so if someone was going to buy a site, all they would get, is the same photos they already have. Why pay for dupes?

SnapVilliage may make it, if they ever get around to adding ftp. They have something that the small startups don't have... financial backing to get through the hard times in the beginning.

icefront · « **Reply #20 on:** August 17, 2008, 14:43 »

Quote from: dnavarrojr on August 09, 2008, 16:12

If someone were to start a new site, I'd offer these ideas:

...

Images that don't get downloaded in a year get removed. If it's not popular enough for at least one person to download it, then get rid of it.

It's funny, right now 80% of my images can be removed from Canstock, Stockphotomedia, etc.

Because a) the images are so poor b) they don't have traffic (?)
Seriously I agree with this rule but this must be a more complicated formula, based on site traffic.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another new micro site... (Read 8931 times)

louoates

epixx

RGebbiePhoto

vphoto

dirkr

sharpshot

dnavarrojr

RGebbiePhoto

dnavarrojr

dnavarrojr

ichiro17

vphoto

louoates

ichiro17

vphoto

Magnum

stormchaser

ironarrow

Fred

RacePhoto

icefront

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors