MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Incorrect Poll figures??  (Read 3139 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 12, 2013, 06:10 »
0
So i have been on this forum for little while now and something that has perplexed me is the value of the polls on the right.
So! Average Shutterstock is around $70 to $80 per month?  At the moment id average 4 time that and consider myself a very low earner. Many on here post earing $$$$ per month, my friend certainly does!  So there must be a lot of people posting up very very low figures! Why would they bother! Worryingly if these figures are what to expect I shall require to move the family into the cardboard box at the end of the street!

Would be nice to see the amount of votes in the poll night only be a few weekender voting.
Or a poll for part timers and full timers.

Not sure how easy for the forum guys to change this.

Also possibly a poll for those on sybiostock please.


« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2013, 06:26 »
0
80 doesn't mean 80 USD. It's percentage. Almost everyone makes more than 80 USD on SS.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/why-is-the-shutterstock-ranking-not-100-anymore
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 06:29 by jm »

« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2013, 06:39 »
0
I see! I couldnt find where is explained what the poll was.

However isnt the poll abit pointless then? And also how is istock exclusive more than 100% of someones total earning? You can only earn a 100% of your earnings.
Would it not be more informative to show average earned per month per agency?

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2013, 07:07 »
0
I see! I couldnt find where is explained what the poll was.

However isnt the poll abit pointless then? And also how is istock exclusive more than 100% of someones total earning? You can only earn a 100% of your earnings.
Would it not be more informative to show average earned per month per agency?

It's not a percentage, I don't think, it's some other relative number. I'm sure Leaf will be along to explain soon.

« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2013, 07:31 »
0
I see! I couldnt find where is explained what the poll was.

However isnt the poll abit pointless then? And also how is istock exclusive more than 100% of someones total earning? You can only earn a 100% of your earnings.
Would it not be more informative to show average earned per month per agency?

I don't think the "average earned" would be any better because we all have different portfolios in size, quality, topics, so there would be no direct relation to us personally anyways.

As far as I remember, the way it is set up is that monthly results are compared to a "random" number in the system (probably set to a value which makes the top agency get close to 100 in good months). So while the top number has no real value, you can say the average votes earns three times more on Shutterstock (73.6) than on Fotolia (24.5).

To measure earnings of iStock exclusives against independents, you would have to add up all the independent values (somewhere in the low 200's) and compare it to the value shown. So the average voting iStock exclusive makes about 50% more than the average of voting independents.

« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2013, 07:42 »
0
an average of earning would be more relevant to everyone, this is not about how big our ports are but what sort of income is being achieved by the industry. this would be national average salary figures not based on hours worked but just how much is earned.
based on the figures in the current poll everyone should be istock exclusive, I think not as people are leaving in droves!!!

any possibility of this info to placed maybe as an addition on the polls page

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2013, 08:16 »
0
80 doesn't mean 80 USD. It's percentage. Almost everyone makes more than 80 USD on SS.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/why-is-the-shutterstock-ranking-not-100-anymore


If you sum all the figures in the right column you get a total higher than 100, so it is not percentage.

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2013, 08:41 »
0
To measure earnings of iStock exclusives against independents, you would have to add up all the independent values (somewhere in the low 200's) and compare it to the value shown. So the average voting iStock exclusive makes about 50% more than the average of voting independents.
Even that isn't fully accurate, as someone like me who is RF exclusive at iS but sells RM at Alamy gets switched by the system to indie at iS. I'm sure there are quite a few of us in that situation.

« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2013, 09:31 »
0
I think there is a baseline some time in the past where the top seller (SS) was listed as 100 and all the current figures relate to that.
Even so, the broad bands the numbers are reported in means that it is no more than a vague comparison between sites. It doesn't mean that a site with a score of 25 provides exactly a third of the cash of one with a score of 75.
Leaf really needs to explain if there is any way of turning these numbers into some sort of cash equivalent, but I don't think there is.

« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2013, 09:32 »
0
yes but that would give information average to istock. i think the poll should show what can be earnt on a site not which site is kind of top  :-\ i think.

anyway your figures would go into exclusive anyway.

i'm just saying a second poll on the polls page would be nice to see.

If it could be done maybe split into 2 or 3 polls depending on amount of years in microstock. i sure this would help newbies with performance questions for early sales stats.

As said would be nice to have, i don't know who the forum guys are and they are doing a cracking job! just a little idea for them if they could and have the time too. i know were are all busy trying to get more stock up.

cheers

rob

« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2013, 09:33 »
0
I liked it better when the poll was based on actual earnings as well. The percentages are nice, but I think it is less useful. Maybe, a combination of the two would be the best solution.

« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2013, 09:47 »
0
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:13 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2013, 11:50 »
0
Actually, JM's link in the first reply explains it all.

« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2013, 12:03 »
0
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:13 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2013, 12:36 »
+1
I think this is being overanalysed - it gives a rough indication of the relative income of sites - everyone's results will be different. It is useful for what it is.

« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2013, 12:52 »
-1
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:13 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2013, 13:04 »
0
.


Ron

« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2013, 13:07 »
+1
The only one who can clear this up is Tyler, any other discussion is just a wet finger in the wind.

« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2013, 13:25 »
0
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:13 by Audi 5000 »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2013, 13:26 »
+1
The only one who can clear this up is Tyler, any other discussion is just a wet finger in the wind.

Yep... why do some of us find it necessary to constantly create a mountain from a molehill? 
just for something to argue about?
???

Ron

« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2013, 13:32 »
0
The only one who can clear this up is Tyler, any other discussion is just a wet finger in the wind.
I guess we'll just have to wait until he comes in here and tells us he meant what he said before.  It seems clear to me what he said in the other thread and I don't have any reason to believe he was lying about it.
You were editing your post while I was typing.

« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2013, 13:34 »
0
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:13 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2013, 13:38 »
0
I think this is being overanalysed - it gives a rough indication of the relative income of sites - everyone's results will be different. It is useful for what it is.
That's not true at all.  100 is equal to the constant figure of $500, it's not relative at all the numbers equate to real numbers.  Right now shutterstock is earning 73.6% of $500 for the average contributor who contributes to that site.

ETA:  A negative for posting something factual, why not?

Leaf:  Now I've set the top value at an arbitrary constant amount so that Shutterstock isn't at 100.  The ratio's would still apply.. if Shutterstock is at 90 and iStock is at 45 then people are on average earning 2x more on Shutterstock but we can also see if Shutterstock is going up or down over time.  This is a bit easier to visualize on the graph.

Later Leaf explains what that arbitrary 100 means:
"Yeah, the magical number is 500 for whatever that's worth... so the average photographer on MSG is saying he is making just under $500 on SS"

I think he meant that results vary by contributor. I know mine are much different than the poll results.

« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2013, 13:40 »
0
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:12 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2013, 13:49 »
0
Oh ok, if that's the case then, duh.  What good would a poll be if it only gave you your results?
It wouldn't be, but, at the same time, a site at the bottom of the poll may not be a waste of your time because you may do really well there compared to others.

For instance, I regularly make 3 to 4 times at GL than I do at Big Stock, but looking at the poll you would think the opposite.

ShadySue

« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2013, 13:51 »
0
If tickstock's interpretation of the stats is correct, I'm grossly underachieving at iStock - but then as explained above, my figures go into the indy score, so don't count towards the exclusive average.

« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2013, 13:58 »
0
an average of earning would be more relevant to everyone, this is not about how big our ports are but what sort of income is being achieved by the industry. this would be national average salary figures not based on hours worked but just how much is earned.
based on the figures in the current poll everyone should be istock exclusive, I think not as people are leaving in droves!!!

any possibility of this info to placed maybe as an addition on the polls page

if bill gates goes to a bar, the average earnings of people in the bar is over a million

this poll does a much better job than previous versions, and is mainly useful for trends and comparisons.  everyone will differ - eg, DT is my second biggest earner while istock gets hardly anything.  in addition, the contributors to the poll vary month by month

and those low ratings at the bottom seem realistic -- - for me, SS makes 50-100 times what gl, yay cut, etc do.  meanwhile my symbio earnings are already in 4th place for jun & thus far in jul (out of about 20 sites I track)


« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2013, 14:10 »
0
The poll is a self selecting sample from a relatively small number of contributors. As someone pointed  out my point is that it shows that shutterstock is likely to be better than say Dreamstime - it may not be as everyone's port and experience is different. For example 123 is very good for me and veer hopeless. Does that mean the poll is wrong?!


« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2013, 14:32 »
0
For the sites that don't get enough votes (unranked ones), are those still ranked by earnings? Or is it number of votes, a combination of two or some other formula?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2807 Views
Last post July 30, 2008, 09:16
by CofkoCof
151 Replies
27641 Views
Last post March 31, 2010, 06:49
by pixel86
82 Replies
15667 Views
Last post May 05, 2012, 17:35
by luissantos84
2 Replies
1958 Views
Last post May 20, 2014, 20:14
by ecadphoto
2 Replies
1656 Views
Last post March 29, 2016, 20:25
by angelawaye

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results