Author Topic: Get over rejection and then... BIG 5 are cheating us!!! (Read 10679 times)

justice · « **on:** April 17, 2008, 09:15 »

when you get over the rejections part of the microstock sites

you get into library ranking process that reduces your sales, here is a witness wrote .....

Quote from: patrick1958 on April 14, 2008, 00:11

To succeed in stock you need to have a site that realy pushes your portfolio to the front day after day, thus depending on the one reviewer or site owner that likes you... no more, no less... an believe me... been a reviewer on a one of the big 5 for almost 3 years, i know what i've seen, i know how it works.

This is a very intresting part of a post from a member and would like to hear your opinions.

I was suspecting that something like that was going on but now i'm sure about it.

I Believe that the leader of this kind of attitude is the BIG FIVE, they make money out of our work but obviously that's not enough for them they want some more.

Working very hard for a year on this project "microstock" reading watching and learning i come to the conclusion that stock sites especially the "big 5" are playing games on photographers.

Presume that the concept is something like :
"We want to find reviewers for FREE so we get some of the contributors with small fee and in advance we promote their work higher places in their stock SITE" so they make some kind of inside ranking to photographers according to their own wills.

I have been trying to do something very simple sagest you to do the same too, try to find some of your photos in a site to see in witch place your photo is placed by "relevancy" for example and you will find out that there are images before yours that are not relevant with the keywords you are searching .

Imagine that photographers who have a decent income from stock sites must be involved with them , the rest of us are useful just for the traffic and ranking of the SITE.

I will put 30 questions to think about microstock sites the next days you will see the first one, but i'm sure that you have some intresting questions too.

to be continued .....

justice

bittersweet · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2008, 10:25 »

never mind.

i taught my kids not to mock crazy people. i should practice what i preach.

helix7 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2008, 10:32 »

Quote from: justice on April 17, 2008, 09:15

...Imagine that photographers who have a decent income from stock sites must be involved with them, the rest of us are useful just for the traffic and ranking...

Source?

I know a good number of people who do well in microstock and are not in any way affiliated with a site. Besides, how do you account for people who do well on multiple sites? Are they reviewers on multiple sites? I don't think that's possible.

basti · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2008, 10:41 »

I dont think many of good photographers are "with them" though I completely agree they do play games with us with tons of requirements and restrictions with incredibly small commision if we realize they are nothing without us. Thats of course also our own fault - they just push us where we let them push.

Pixart · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2008, 10:42 »

Oh, boy.

I can see some agencies applying a rank to individual photos in the background so that those with a higher ranking appear sooner than the junk. It's a business. Why shouldn't they do every possible thing they can to make the end user happy? BigStock even shares with us how they rank a photo. I just don't buy into this whole conspiracy theory. The best editors don't have to be brilliant photographers. Whey would an agency want to elevate their photos if they aren't the best? It's only bad for business.

If I owned an agency, I would make darn sure that the best of Iofoto or Yuri Arcurs photos float to the top. I would hate to see some of that total crap that I submitted two years ago rank better than quality photos. (Doesn't bother me if it does sell though!)

rjmiz · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2008, 10:47 »

The old adage goes: "Believe nothing of what you read, and half of what you see."

This is was a I call "Shock Posting". (Coming out of left field with a claim to something that will affect all of us in a negative way.)
This post has no valid basis for truth. I can get on any forum and claim anything. If you believe me without proof of what I claim
then you are a moron, or even worse, an ignorant moron.

A moron knows he is a moron, because he has heard other people say he is one.
An ignorant moron is a moron who is deaf.

The MIZ

justice · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2008, 10:55 »

well...

- Bitters : glad you change "a bit" your first post - defense - go on....

- Helix : i'm not saying that every body is involved , but there are a lot just try keywords searching and you will find that there are images that appears in very high rank.

and just to think about...

as we all know when someone makes the first submissions to SS gets a lot of DL's in no time afterwards as match as he uploads the downloads percentage keep falling.

how do you explain that?

i'll be back soon

Justice

helix7 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2008, 11:00 »

Quote from: justice on April 17, 2008, 10:55

...as we all know when someone makes the first submissions to SS gets a lot of DL's in no time afterwards as match as he uploads the downloads percentage keep falling.

how do you explain that?

That's just SS, and their particular system. They push new images, regardless of who submits them. It's not favoritism or some reviewer conspiracy as you claim.

justice · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2008, 11:03 »

Quote from: rjmiz on April 17, 2008, 10:47

The old adage goes: "Believe nothing of what you read, and half of what you see."

An ignorant moron is a moron who is deaf.

The MIZ

well said miz

you sould think about it

Justice

justice · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2008, 11:05 »

Quote from: helix7 on April 17, 2008, 11:00

Quote from: justice on April 17, 2008, 10:55
...as we all know when someone makes the first submissions to SS gets a lot of DL's in no time afterwards as match as he uploads the downloads percentage keep falling.

how do you explain that?

That's just SS, and their particular system. They push new images, regardless of who submits them. It's not favoritism or some reviewer conspiracy as you claim.

That means that they DO push images AS YOU SAY

the they do it when ever they want and for who ever they want

isn't Hellix

Justice

leaf · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2008, 11:13 »

Quote from: justice on April 17, 2008, 10:55

as we all know when someone makes the first submissions to SS gets a lot of DL's in no time afterwards as match as he uploads the downloads percentage keep falling.

to elaborate on whta helix7 said...
That is the way shutterstock works and everyone knows it.
Shutterstocks customers are ONLY subscription customers. Therefore many of them have allready downloaded all the fruit images they want for example. Therefore many buyers sort the search by 'newest first' and download all the new images that they like... therefore new images get a boost on shutterstock because they are of particular interest to the buyers. Shutterstock used to have default search as newest which favoured the new images even more. They have since changed the default search to best match, but many buyers still change it to newest first. Once your images are buried by other new images, the downloads tapper off.

I would guess that most of the sites have a ranking system. Perhaps partly based on overal customer rank ... perhaps something to do with how many images online vs how many sales, or how many rejections you have had or other stats. I know that a number of sites give individual images rankings so that the better images float to the top but this is picture specific and not photographer specific.

Whatever the case is... one thing is true. Photographers who have amazing portfolios are earning very well with microstock. The good images / photographers float to the top in the end.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 17, 2008, 11:13 »

who is this guy? seriously

thesentinel · « **Reply #12 on:** April 17, 2008, 11:36 »

Thirty more to come?! Can't wait!

dbvirago · « **Reply #13 on:** April 17, 2008, 11:59 »

Name: justice
Posts: 4 (N/A per day)
Position: Newbie
Date Registered: Today at 05:43 AM
Last Active: Today at 12:49 PM

I have a feeling we have heard from this guy before under a different alias. A couple come to mind.

windmill · « **Reply #14 on:** April 17, 2008, 12:02 »

Business is about making money, both for the siteholder and the provider. If a siteholder likes your photos be happy, if a siteholder does not like your photos, too bad.

Whatever hes/her arguments are for not putting your photos highest its his right to do so. He should do so for his business is first, if you cant deal with that, too bad.

If you are in the culture business, then don't believe to much in justice because like DNA people have different taste, and should have. You can either adopt or drop.

If you learn to listen what the market asks for even you might be prosperous one day. But i can guarantee you that spreading rumors about things you are not totally 100% sure of is not going to gain your creativity or own business.

So please keep on learning and educate your self, don't tell the rest of the world that the world of photobusiness and culture is i dirty.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 17, 2008, 12:18 »

file him under the category of crap disturber.

no good can come from this thread other than "justice" gets banned....

....and "justice" for all?

justice · « **Reply #16 on:** April 17, 2008, 12:30 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on April 17, 2008, 12:18

file him under the category of crap disturber.

no good can come from this thread other than "justice" gets banned....

....and "justice" for all?

- inchiro :
you got some problem with my post???
are you involved in the above ??

Got you....

Justice

Peter · « **Reply #17 on:** April 17, 2008, 13:23 »

lol, if you think that stock agencies are scam, or conspiracy, just dont submit photos and go making candles or something else....

bittersweet · « **Reply #18 on:** April 17, 2008, 13:29 »

Quote from: Chode on April 17, 2008, 13:23

lol, if you think that stock agencies are scam, or conspiracy, just dont submit photos and go making candles or something else....

Exactly. Why put so much energy into something you don't believe in?

ichiro17 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 17, 2008, 13:50 »

Quote from: justice on April 17, 2008, 12:30

Quote from: ichiro17 on April 17, 2008, 12:18
file him under the category of crap disturber.

no good can come from this thread other than "justice" gets banned....

....and "justice" for all?

- inchiro :
you got some problem with my post???
are you involved in the above ??

Got you....

Justice

Yes I'm the CEO of all the sites. I usually take a magic marker and draw facial hair when I make public appearances to stay in cognito.

Phil · « **Reply #20 on:** April 17, 2008, 21:54 »

I have heard many times how being a favourite is required to succeed in stock...but always in context of a client ringing / walking into an agency to see their account manager. Who would have a think and pull out the transparencies / slides of the images he/she liked and showed those to the client.

With clients doing their own searching I think it may not be so obvious / appropriate?

shutterstock -> primary methods -> age, not many variables here. - most popular -> some sort of algorithm based on sales vs time so basically length of time between sales of an image.

dreamstime -> primarily factored on portfolio size, acceptance rate etc.

BigStock mentioned

istock -> primarily number of downloads or best match based heavily on number of downloads, number of views and age. I wouldn't be surprised to find it has a hidden starting rating, but I think after that its up to the image.

I think most of it is pretty obvious weighted on images that sell well go to the top, people who get lots of sales go to the top. pretty much standard business? you dont put the stuff that doesnt sell in the shop window and hide the stuff that does down the back. (well, perhaps you might if your shop was into discretion / illegal activities

now that I got this far, I wonder about the point of the original post, to say "hey the agencies are companies and they are behaving as such? doing what it takes to make money?

phil

timburton · « **Reply #21 on:** April 18, 2008, 02:26 »

Haha I think this post is great

especially the part about shutterstock. Id like to add another theory. I suspect that istock puts the most popular files first in the search. Explain that people. Clearly, theyre favouring people who sell more. I agree with this guy-theyre cheating us!!!

Karimala · « **Reply #22 on:** April 18, 2008, 03:15 »

Oh no...here we go again.

When I was still reviewing, people on the forums continually accused me of receiving favoritism from the site I worked for, because I had decent sales there and they didn't. Nothing was further from the truth. I just had a large portfolio full of diverse images (in terms of size, it was almost always in the Top 50). No conspiracy...but of course a lot of folks didn't believe me and believed the conspiracy theories they conjured up instead.

Look at your own portfolio before accusing a site of unfair practices. Figure out what sells, where it sells, and give it to the buyers. It's as simple as that.

shutterdrop · « **Reply #23 on:** April 18, 2008, 08:00 »

I believe all agencies have a weighted indexing component. They would be stupid if they did not.

Portfolio also is a determining factor too. The more images you have and the better images you have; will cause your portfolio to rise to the top. Of course your portfolio maybe better suited for one agency than another. Select your agency were your portfolio fits the best. This is better than a shotgun approach of submitting all agencies.

As contributors, it is your job to become involved in the success of your portfolio and your agencies.

Become involved, "Make it Happen." This is a contact sport!

DanP68 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 18, 2008, 09:04 »

Oliver Stone should direct this thread.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #25 on:** April 18, 2008, 09:10 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 17, 2008, 10:42

Oh, boy.

It's a business. Why shouldn't they do every possible thing they can to make the end user happy? BigStock even shares with us how they rank a photo. I just don't buy into this whole conspiracy theory.
If I owned an agency, I would make darn sure that the best of Iofoto or Yuri Arcurs photos float to the top. I would hate to see some of that total crap that I submitted two years ago rank better than quality photos. (Doesn't bother me if it does sell though!)

i think the older guys with more experience in stock photos here say it right.
it's up to you to decide whether you want to play the game by the rules or waste your breath submitting and getting rejections.

they would be idiotic if they favor certain photographers just to "sleep with them". clients are not idiots, they know what to buy.

as a newbie, you can learn from the rejects and make changes to your attitude. soon you will see more accepts.
it happened to me. BigStock first 25 submits 2 accepts.
i changed to send what they are looking for. now i got 8 accepts.

at DST, i got 4 rejects of 5, then i deleted the lot waiting for review and uploaded what they told me they wanted. i ended up with 2 of 3 accepted. i went back into my files to look for those they want.
worked on them to give them the composition and color they insist.

sure, i slow down my submission though. but my acceptance percentage is higher.
it's a learning process. you don't win first round , nobody does.

you'll benefit if you just listen to why they reject you and what they want from you

nativelight · « **Reply #26 on:** April 18, 2008, 10:05 »

I can blow the OP's theory out of the water. Search for Sydney Opera House on SS and you'll find two of my images in the top row. The only reason they're on the first page is they're recently uploaded and they started selling quickly. I can assure you I am not an SS "favorite" contributor by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, I've been contributing to SS for 15 months and I have yet to hit the $500 mark to get last year's raise!

michaeldb · « **Reply #27 on:** April 18, 2008, 18:34 »

Quote from: clearviewstock on April 17, 2008, 21:54

istock -> primarily number of downloads or best match based heavily on number of downloads, number of views and age. I wouldn't be surprised to find it has a hidden starting rating, but I think after that its up to the image.

I think it is common knowledge that IS puts both non-exclusive and exclusive images in the first few hits on a customer's search. After those first few, IS packs the search results with the images of exclusives.

Is this fair to non-exclusive submitters? Maybe, maybe not; after all, I can choose to go exclusive there any time I want, if Iwant to :
-give up the 75% of my stocking which comes from other sites
-give up the revenue from the 30-40% of my images which IS rejects because they are "not suitable for stock" but which sell very well elsewhere. (Although maybe they wouldn't reject those images if I were exclusive?)

But is it fair to the customers? Shouldn't they see the best matches to their search terms, and not results packed instead with the images of IS's favorites and pets?

yingyang0 · « **Reply #28 on:** April 18, 2008, 18:50 »

Quote from: michaeldb on April 18, 2008, 18:34

I think it is common knowledge that IS puts both non-exclusive and exclusive images in the first few hits on a customer's search. After those first few, IS packs the search results with the images of exclusives.

I don't think it is common knowledge, I think it is a commonly mistaken belief. People keep putting up single search results as, at most, anecdotal evidence, but the truth is that they don't "pack" search results with images of exclusives. You see slightly, and I mean slightly, more exclusive images in search results because, as the admins at IS have stated, the exclusives generate the majority of the images (myself excluded).

michaeldb · « **Reply #29 on:** April 18, 2008, 18:56 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on April 18, 2008, 18:50

Quote from: michaeldb on April 18, 2008, 18:34
I think it is common knowledge that IS puts both non-exclusive and exclusive images in the first few hits on a customer's search. After those first few, IS packs the search results with the images of exclusives.
I don't think it is common knowledge, I think it is a commonly mistaken belief. People keep putting up single search results as, at most, anecdotal evidence, but the truth is that they don't "pack" search results with images of exclusives. You see slightly, and I mean slightly, more exclusive images in search results because, as the admins at IS have stated, the exclusives generate the majority of the images (myself excluded).

You may be right, maybe it is an urban legend that IS puts non-exclusives in an equal ratio with exclusives only in the first [n] search results, but I seem to recall having seen it stated as fact by reliable sources. Hm, if I'm wrong I'll be glad to eat crow.

Boylet · « **Reply #30 on:** April 19, 2008, 10:07 »

Why do we even bother replying to this nut job

helix7 · « **Reply #31 on:** April 19, 2008, 11:21 »

Quote from: justice on April 17, 2008, 11:05

That means that they DO push images AS YOU SAY

the they do it when ever they want and for who ever they want

Geez, man. Way to selectively quote someone.

Yes, I said they do push new images. However I also said NEW images, for ALL contributors. Don't twist my words to spin your bizarre theories.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Get over rejection and then... BIG 5 are cheating us!!! (Read 10679 times)

justice

bittersweet

helix7

basti

Pixart

rjmiz

justice

helix7

justice

justice

leaf

ichiro17

thesentinel

dbvirago

windmill

ichiro17

justice

Peter

bittersweet

ichiro17

Phil

timburton

Karimala

shutterdrop

DanP68

etudiante_rapide

nativelight

michaeldb

yingyang0

michaeldb

Boylet

helix7

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors