MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Everything is going down...  (Read 3836 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 07, 2008, 03:09 »
0
I see red arrows everywhere  ;)


« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2008, 03:42 »
0
Yes...me too...I'm off this business  ;D

« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2008, 04:06 »
0
yeah doesnt look so nice  :o
same for my personal earnings

« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2008, 04:24 »
0
yeah everyone gets is a tuff when the arrows go down but it doesn't really mean anything.. at least not for me.

In the voting  - I give my best site a 10 and my worst site(s) a 1 and put everything else in the middle.  Just because a site goes down doesn't mean people experienced lower sales, it just means that people experience lower sales COMPARED to the other sites.

So really, it is just a placement number compared to the other sites.  So why would all the arrows go down??? because people are voting in general lower than they used to or a few people started voting and voted most of the sites lower than they were before etc. etc.

DanP68

« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2008, 05:02 »
0
Leaf,

Instead of a non-descript rating for each site's earnings power, how about implementing a poll which rates each site based on monthly earnings per image online?

The top might be $3.00+ per image, the middle around $0.75-$1.00, the bottom basically no return.  That would take the "opinion" out of the rating, and the trend would actually be measurable.

Of course, not everyone tracks earnings per image.  But I do.   8)

bittersweet

« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2008, 06:28 »
0
I wondered about this myself since the thread discussing April earnings has very few responses that would indicate an across the board loss. On the contrary, there were quite a few reports of BME (by the vast majority of thread participants). I agree with DanP that earnings per image might be a more useful number (though of course dependent on the quality/size of a portfolio).

I'm just not sure what the arrows are supposed to indicate. When I look at them, it seems they are telling me that most of the sites were down.

« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2008, 06:34 »
0
Yes earnings/image/month would be great to have. Leaf, why does Panthermedia and Zymmetrical have no arrows?

« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2008, 06:36 »
0
The numbers are meant simply to give a reasonable comparison of how the sites relate to each other.

What standard people use to vote doesn't 'really' matter as long as they are consistent from month to month. 

The arrows could easily get flipped like this if one person goes in a votes one site 10 and the rest a 1.  If that one site had a big minus to start with it might still get a down area as well as all the other sites.  Having the poll by earnings/image would still be victim of the same 'voting spam'

The totals as they are now will still be able to be tracked over time and I think will be usefull to see if one of the sites gains a little market share in earnings over time.  Also note that most of the sites that are going down are going down .01, or .02 which is very little.  Easily the result of 1 or 2 spam voters.

« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2008, 06:37 »
0
Yes earnings/image/month would be great to have. Leaf, why does Panthermedia and Zymmetrical have no arrows?

because there is not enough people voting im them yet.  When most photos had only 10 voters, their earnings rating was something crazy like 3.something or low 4's.  ... a few too many people a little too eager to promote most photos were voting i think.  Now that there are over 50 voters, their rating is 1.3 which i feel is fairly accurate.

I'll see how hard it would be to implement earnings/pic/month .. no promises :)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 06:39 by leaf »

bittersweet

« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2008, 06:52 »
0
I see how the poll is set up, but I don't see how there is any way to get meaningful statistics from this method. For example, if a photographer contributes to only 2 sites and marks SS as a 75% earner, I would think it would mean something very different than if a photographer contributes to 6 or 8 or 10 sites and also marks SS as a 75% earner. The one number is only meaningful in the context of all the other numbers for that photographer. When everyone's percentages are lumped together, it doesn't mean much since we have no idea of the context.

But thank you for looking into earnings/image. While still imperfect, it would remove the factor that makes one site's earnings relative to another's.



« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2008, 07:22 »
0
well i don't vote as %'s.. i vote in a rating of 1 - 10

shutterstock is my best.. so i give it a 10
the next two sites don't earn as good they get 7's
the sites with poor earnings get 1's

someone who submits to only 2 sites
their best site.. would get a 10
their next best site which is almost as good but not quite.. might get a 9 or 8 or something

if that makes sense??

I nice thing about having the voting this way is that people can factor in uploading time, acceptance ratio, upload limits etc.

Istock is only a medium performer for me simply because it is SO time consuming to get images online.  Therefore I give them a lower rating than shutterstock.  If it was only $/pic/month istock would be higher than shutterstock for me, but i feel the poll should reflect where someone can expect to earn the most $$.  $/pic/month wouldn't neccesarily reflect this.

« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2008, 07:57 »
0
In the voting  - I give my best site a 10 and my worst site(s) a 1 and put everything else in the middle.  Just because a site goes down doesn't mean people experienced lower sales, it just means that people experience lower sales COMPARED to the other sites.

While this is how you are voting, I never even thought of doing it that way.  ranging the sites from 1-10, assuming 10 sites.  There really isn't much for instructions in the voting section.  It really just has excellent, or very poor or somewhere in between. It is all very subjective. 

Also, I think it is somewhat misleading that the voting starts at one.  I bet if there was a zero for no sales that month that the low earners numbers would go down even more.


« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2008, 08:07 »
0
i don't know about you but for me the arows are fine with a little changes...

sutter : more down
IS : up
and
FP : down too

« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2008, 08:20 »
0
i think you all are maknig this more difficult than it needs to be...

the earnings poll is simply a ranking out of 10.  Do you think the earnings on site X are excellent.. then give it a 10.  Not quite excellent then give the site a 9.. do the earnings stink.. give site X a 1

If we had the $/pic/month, or perhaps $/pic/year is generally a better number... how would you suggest accounting for the negative fact that it is hard to upload to certain sites, or get images online at other sites.

bittersweet

« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2008, 08:47 »
0
I don't know. Maybe it's the "earnings" title that is the confusing part. The bottom line dollar amount it what comes to mind when I see that word, not uploading procedures. However, I see your point, though I still think the purpose and meaning behind the "earnings" poll is a bit unclear to the uninformed. It's fine though, I have a spreadsheet that tells me my bottom line dollar amount and my arrows are all green.  ;)


p.s. By the way, it's the "earnings/10" at the top of that arrow column that put the whole misguided percentage idea in my head
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 09:42 by bittersweet »


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors