Author Topic: Starting a new RF stock site - would like some feedback. (Read 36677 times)

ICP · « **Reply #75 on:** August 21, 2012, 20:43 »

Quote from: Digital66 on August 21, 2012, 20:16

Quote from: ICP on August 21, 2012, 19:11
Quote from: Digital66 on August 21, 2012, 19:00
Is this yours http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html ?

One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency. So, they will probably close your account if your site www.incolorphotos.com starts working as an agency.

No. That's not me.

Do you still insist this is not you?:

INCOLORPHOTOS.COM
Registrant: Mark Bernard
1309 35th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
US

Mark Bernard's portfolios:
Shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html
iStock: http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548

You are not being honest here. And you expect people to trust you?

Hi, Digital66, Mark here. What's your real name and address? And why does it matter that the person working on this thread is not the same person listed as the registrar? I'm doing other things or would you feel better if it we me you were talking to? Don't forget to search all the other stock sites and report back...thanks.

Digital66 · « **Reply #76 on:** August 21, 2012, 20:53 »

Quote from: ICP on August 21, 2012, 20:43

Quote from: Digital66 on August 21, 2012, 20:16
Quote from: ICP on August 21, 2012, 19:11
Quote from: Digital66 on August 21, 2012, 19:00
Is this yours http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html ?

One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency. So, they will probably close your account if your site www.incolorphotos.com starts working as an agency.

No. That's not me.

Do you still insist this is not you?:

INCOLORPHOTOS.COM
Registrant: Mark Bernard
1309 35th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
US
Mark Bernard's portfolios:
Shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html
iStock: http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548

You are not being honest here. And you expect people to trust you?

Hi, Digital66, Mark here. What's your real name and address? And why does it matter that the person working on this thread is not the same person listed as the registrar? I'm doing other things or would you feel better if it we me you were talking to? Don't forget to search all the other stock sites and report back...thanks.

HAHAHA! Now you are being ridiculous! What a way to start an agency! ROFL

sharpshot · « **Reply #77 on:** August 22, 2012, 03:02 »

It will be very hard to get people to upload if we don't know who the real owner is. Tried that with albumo, that was another big mistake. It took a lot of effort for some of us to get our portfolios removed form there. There are some people that just upload anywhere but I'm more cautious now.

HerMajesty · « **Reply #78 on:** August 22, 2012, 03:34 »

Quote from: Digital66 on August 21, 2012, 20:53

HAHAHA! Now you are being ridiculous! What a way to start an agency! ROFL

You better watch where you poke your nose ...

@OP. Seriously you shot your self in the foot with this one.

You've got the exact same pictures on your 'agency site' and Shutterstock. The whole thread sounded a bit amateurish to me, but getting caught on a lie is not a good starting point for attracting contributors.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #79 on:** August 22, 2012, 06:27 »

Quote from: ICP on August 21, 2012, 20:43

Hi, Digital66, Mark here. What's your real name and address? And why does it matter that the person working on this thread is not the same person listed as the registrar? I'm doing other things or would you feel better if it we me you were talking to? Don't forget to search all the other stock sites and report back...thanks.

I'm sorry, what? So you've had an employee posting for you in the thread?

Now I'm lost.

StockCube · « **Reply #80 on:** August 22, 2012, 07:00 »

But Sean, he can't have! He is the guy with no overheads - duh!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #81 on:** August 22, 2012, 08:39 »

Quote from: ICP on August 21, 2012, 10:21

Quote from: jsnover on August 21, 2012, 06:38
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords

Actually, it's a matter of knowing the proper way to use a search engine. Search any site for Palm Tree and you'll get every image that has palm and tree in it. Do a search (with quotes) "Palm Tree" and you'll only get "palm tree" results.

Check out this site, http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax, and start utilizing search engines correctly...it'll save you lots of time wading through irrelevant results.

You should search for palm tree - no quotes - at Shutterstock, iStock, Google (look at images) and you will see relevant results at all of them. Check all the other stock web sites and you'll find the same thing.

Being rude and wrong is not a great combination

ShadySue · « **Reply #82 on:** August 22, 2012, 09:18 »

Quote from: ICP on August 21, 2012, 19:56

Disallowing any sort of spamming or "not so relevant" keywords will help the buyer.

So you plan to have keyword reviewers?
How will you find and recruit people with the necessary knowledge of everything that might appear in a Stock image? How much will that expertise cost?

Quote

I also plan to educate the buyers on the proper syntax for focussing and using the search engine.

1. Amazon is the online company I spend most money in and most regularly.
2. They don't (need to) 'educate' their buyers on any hypothetical 'proper' syntax. It mostly just 'works'.
Facts one and two are not unrelated.

In business you need to remember two things: the customer is always right and 'customer service'. [1]

You need to make your site work for buyers, not mould buyers to the way you want to do things. If half of the world call a tap a 'faucet', you'd better make sure faucet is keyworded on your tap images. That's where a CV is useful. Same as 'fall'. If you don't have a CV, Amercans searching for autumn pictures might find people falling. How would you deal with stemming?

[1]That without shafting your suppliers, of course.

ICP · « **Reply #83 on:** August 22, 2012, 09:53 »

Quote from: jsnover on August 22, 2012, 08:39

Quote from: ICP on August 21, 2012, 10:21
Quote from: jsnover on August 21, 2012, 06:38
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords

Actually, it's a matter of knowing the proper way to use a search engine. Search any site for Palm Tree and you'll get every image that has palm and tree in it. Do a search (with quotes) "Palm Tree" and you'll only get "palm tree" results.

Check out this site, http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax, and start utilizing search engines correctly...it'll save you lots of time wading through irrelevant results.

You should search for palm tree - no quotes - at Shutterstock, iStock, Google (look at images) and you will see relevant results at all of them. Check all the other stock web sites and you'll find the same thing.

Being rude and wrong is not a great combination

Sorry if this came across as rude. You are correct, most of the large companies address this through their search engines. Assuming what the visitor is looking for is palm tree and not palm 'or' tree they place what they think is the more relevant results up front. The further down the results you go in shutterstock, the more broad the results become.

Small (not million dollar) sites like ICP do not have revenue for this advanced search function (yet). I think it would be helpful to let people know a few of the basics of searching on not-so-advanced search engines.

ICP · « **Reply #84 on:** August 22, 2012, 10:06 »

I'll address sherlock's (digital666) conspiracy revelation. My partner (wife) started this thread no one ever said "Hi, my name is Mark and I'll be answering all your questions". When she was asked "are you Mark?" she said no without feeling it was necessary to explain.

We work in the same office together and share the workload. She got the "hey, let's see if we can get a little insight from the nice people at microstockgroup" task and, yes, we collaborate a bit. It is our company so I don't think it matters whose name is on the registrar for the domain and who is typing (Mark is now for the record).

That's all it is. Nothing sinister. It's all ICP.

ICP · « **Reply #85 on:** August 22, 2012, 10:30 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 22, 2012, 09:18

Quote from: ICP on August 21, 2012, 19:56
Disallowing any sort of spamming or "not so relevant" keywords will help the buyer.
So you plan to have keyword reviewers?
How will you find and recruit people with the necessary knowledge of everything that might appear in a Stock image? How much will that expertise cost?

Quote
I also plan to educate the buyers on the proper syntax for focussing and using the search engine.
1. Amazon is the online company I spend most money in and most regularly.
2. They don't (need to) 'educate' their buyers on any hypothetical 'proper' syntax. It mostly just 'works'.
Facts one and two are not unrelated.

In business you need to remember two things: the customer is always right and 'customer service'. [1]

You need to make your site work for buyers, not mould buyers to the way you want to do things. If half of the world call a tap a 'faucet', you'd better make sure faucet is keyworded on your tap images. That's where a CV is useful. Same as 'fall'. If you don't have a CV, Amercans searching for autumn pictures might find people falling. How would you deal with stemming?

[1]That without shafting your suppliers, of course.

Eventually, if all goes well, we plan on hiring/contracting people help as needed, reviewer(s) being part one of them.
We work in the design industry and know many people that are willing to help. We might even search here for help when the time comes.

Customer is #1 goes without saying if you plan on any level of success.

We will make advances in technology as we can/need to. We're not trying to mould buyers necessarily. Just help them best utilize our limited search engine.

Amanda_K · « **Reply #86 on:** August 22, 2012, 18:32 »

The truth is ktools version 4 search engine does not work as it is. When a buyer can go to any site you consider competition, type in palm trees (no quotes) and get palm trees, but on your site gets every image tagged tree, trees, etc you are clearly at a disadvantage.

Also it does not take a million dollars worth of development to have a search that works. I've been working with a competing script to ktools that costs slightly less and has a normal search function that give the buyer images with all of the tags they searched for as it should.

Unfortunately I seem to be talking to myself when asking about this on the ktools forum and facebook page and it doesn't seem like other users are aware of this or as concerned as they should be.

Apologies for jumping in off topic but this is a giant frustration for me at the moment!

cthoman · « **Reply #87 on:** August 22, 2012, 19:02 »

Quote from: 9lives on August 22, 2012, 18:32

The truth is ktools version 4 search engine does not work as it is. When a buyer can go to any site you consider competition, type in palm trees (no quotes) and get palm trees, but on your site gets every image tagged tree, trees, etc you are clearly at a disadvantage.

Also it does not take a million dollars worth of development to have a search that works. I've been working with a competing script to ktools that costs slightly less and has a normal search function that give the buyer images with all of the tags they searched for as it should.

Unfortunately I seem to be talking to myself when asking about this on the ktools forum and facebook page and it doesn't seem like other users are aware of this or as concerned as they should be.

Apologies for jumping in off topic but this is a giant frustration for me at the moment!

Yeah, it's definitely one of those things I want to get updated. Although, it's not really a deal breaker for sales, since a lot of traffic comes in directly from Google. It's disappointing that it isn't better though.

djpadavona · « **Reply #88 on:** August 22, 2012, 21:21 »

Quote from: leaf on August 21, 2012, 06:50

Quote from: jsnover on August 21, 2012, 06:38
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords

I wonder if that's a problem with the ktools search. I have results for palm tree on my site too and I don't have any palm trees in my port. I think the search looks for the search terms like this *tree* and *palm*

so if you have the keyword street then yep... there is a tree in there sTREEt - simply put, ktools needs a bit better search.

That's absolutely weird. A search for "palm tree" on our site yields a reasonable result. We did some customization work last year...maybe that is the difference?

Amanda_K · « **Reply #89 on:** August 22, 2012, 23:25 »

Are you on version 3.x or 4.0.9? Version 3 includes the option for match all terms, version four does not. There is literally no way to do an "AND" search. Actually one of the things I really liked about ktools which prompted me to switch was the drop down option in V3 that let people choose to match all terms, any terms etc. I wrongly assumed that would be included in V4.

leaf · « **Reply #90 on:** August 23, 2012, 04:55 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 21, 2012, 14:58

Quote from: sharpshot on August 21, 2012, 14:01
But the real problem is trying something that's been done by at least 100 other sites. You need to forget about this until you have a USP that gets us interested. I wouldn't worry about what we want to start with.

I disagree completely. I don't think you need anything overly unique. You just need to do it well. Micro was started by a bunch of people that just wanted to sell a few files and make a little money. They did that and it worked. Then, it grew up and pros moved in. Unfortunately, the model didn't really change to accommodate those contributors. If you are a pro, then you should be getting paid like one. How many sites can really claim that they are paying their contributors like professionals? And how many people can say they are a pro when they don't make a decent wage doing it. My point is that if none of the micros are fulfilling the needs that professional contributors have, then how are there too many sites? I'd like to see more (good ones) and I wish new sites the best.

Well, even if I can say I'm positive about the outlook of the site in the this thread I agree with you cthoman. when people say a certain market is saturated or there are already too many of some profession - teachers for example. My thought / comment is - there is never enough good anythings. There may be a teacher surplus but there is not a surplus of good teachers or in our case a surplus of good microstock sites.

sharpshot · « **Reply #91 on:** August 23, 2012, 06:57 »

There's already several sites that pay a decent commission. Do we need another one when those already doing it are struggling to get sales going? It would be easy for us to only use them and sink the greedy sites but that's not happening. I wish it would but it's human nature to stick with what's making money instead of taking a risk. And buyers could help us by avoiding sites like Thinkstock but they don't. There's still a lot of them using istock, knowing that some contributors only get 15% commission. So how do we change the status quo?

I supported almost every new site that paid a decent commission for years and some of them were extremely contributor friendly but they all had one fault, they couldn't attract buyers. Some of the same people here that were positive about them when they started were deleting their portfolios within a few months. So unless a new sites has some great new ways to sell images that gets buyers interested, I think they're wasting our time.

ICP · « **Reply #92 on:** August 23, 2012, 10:00 »

Quote from: 9lives on August 22, 2012, 18:32

The truth is ktools version 4 search engine does not work as it is. When a buyer can go to any site you consider competition, type in palm trees (no quotes) and get palm trees, but on your site gets every image tagged tree, trees, etc you are clearly at a disadvantage.

Also it does not take a million dollars worth of development to have a search that works. I've been working with a competing script to ktools that costs slightly less and has a normal search function that give the buyer images with all of the tags they searched for as it should.

Unfortunately I seem to be talking to myself when asking about this on the ktools forum and facebook page and it doesn't seem like other users are aware of this or as concerned as they should be.

Apologies for jumping in off topic but this is a giant frustration for me at the moment!

Yeah, V4 came out of the gate short of features which is no secret. The one thing I was waiting for was vector upload capability which it does allow for now. They're responsive to issues though and know what needs to be added. You're right it doesn't take a million dollars to have a good search. Unfortunately I'm not a high level developer so I can't fix it, I need to wait for them to fix it.

ICP · « **Reply #93 on:** August 23, 2012, 10:04 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 22, 2012, 19:02

Quote from: 9lives on August 22, 2012, 18:32
The truth is ktools version 4 search engine does not work as it is. When a buyer can go to any site you consider competition, type in palm trees (no quotes) and get palm trees, but on your site gets every image tagged tree, trees, etc you are clearly at a disadvantage.

Also it does not take a million dollars worth of development to have a search that works. I've been working with a competing script to ktools that costs slightly less and has a normal search function that give the buyer images with all of the tags they searched for as it should.

Unfortunately I seem to be talking to myself when asking about this on the ktools forum and facebook page and it doesn't seem like other users are aware of this or as concerned as they should be.

Apologies for jumping in off topic but this is a giant frustration for me at the moment!

Yeah, it's definitely one of those things I want to get updated. Although, it's not really a deal breaker for sales, since a lot of traffic comes in directly from Google. It's disappointing that it isn't better though.

I believe if enough noise is made about it they'll fix it. I also think they may have most (if not all) of the missing V3 items slated for inclusion into V4 at some point. I don't know for sure but some of their employee posts make me think this is the case.

ICP · « **Reply #94 on:** August 23, 2012, 10:09 »

Quote from: djpadavona on August 22, 2012, 21:21

Quote from: leaf on August 21, 2012, 06:50
Quote from: jsnover on August 21, 2012, 06:38
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords

I wonder if that's a problem with the ktools search. I have results for palm tree on my site too and I don't have any palm trees in my port. I think the search looks for the search terms like this *tree* and *palm*

so if you have the keyword street then yep... there is a tree in there sTREEt - simply put, ktools needs a bit better search.

That's absolutely weird. A search for "palm tree" on our site yields a reasonable result. We did some customization work last year...maybe that is the difference?

I would prefer for it to work by assuming if I type Palm Tree I'm looking for Palm Tree first. So give me the most relevant results first then give me everything with palm and tree. That's the way it's done now everywhere.

ICP · « **Reply #95 on:** August 23, 2012, 10:16 »

Quote from: 9lives on August 22, 2012, 23:25

Are you on version 3.x or 4.0.9? Version 3 includes the option for match all terms, version four does not. There is literally no way to do an "AND" search. Actually one of the things I really liked about ktools which prompted me to switch was the drop down option in V3 that let people choose to match all terms, any terms etc. I wrongly assumed that would be included in V4.

I'm on V4.0.8 (haven't installed 4.0.9 yet). One of my points of contention with them when V4 came out was: It's version 4 (coming from version 3) and a new version of software doesn't go backwards in features and functionality. If you're going to change the software and drop features/functionality call it something new.

To repeat from another reply I made: I also think they may have most (if not all) of the missing V3 items are slated for inclusion into V4 at some point. I don't know for sure but some of their employee posts make me think this is the case.

ICP · « **Reply #96 on:** August 23, 2012, 10:50 »

Sharpshot, Leaf

The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.

At bare minimum this site will always be our portfolio site where we sell our stuff. We're not going to shut it down. Repeat... we're not going to shut it down.

Will it be successful? We think so. What we have is time. If it takes a year or five or ten it makes no difference to us. We are the turtle in the race, we're slow but we won't stop.

We all agree that the software is no shutterstock. But the software does the job. Can it be better? Yes. Will it be better? Yes.

What is being asked of potential contributors? (At least the initial group.)
1. Sign up (when it's ready). (2 minutes.)
2. We give you an FTP link to upload as many images (with IPTC data) as you wish. (10 to 30 minutes depending on your connection speed.)
3. We upload your images into your account.
4. You do nothing ever agin if you choose not to.
5. (Very probably) Collect a little money from us over time. Possibly more than a 'little'.

You've spent 32 minutes.

We continue to market the site (slow but sure) and we continue adding our content. If you have good photos and vector you'll make money. How much is unknown but, comparatively, it''ll be a lot more per sale than what you're getting now in the "big 4".

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #97 on:** August 23, 2012, 11:23 »

Quote from: ICP on August 23, 2012, 10:50

...The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.

At bare minimum this site will always be our portfolio site where we sell our stuff. We're not going to shut it down. Repeat... we're not going to shut it down.

Will it be successful? We think so. What we have is time. If it takes a year or five or ten it makes no difference to us. We are the turtle in the race, we're slow but we won't stop...

We already have a site that fits this bill and that many of us uploaded to because the guy who started it - no big debts but we'll let it grow over time - had started a successful site, StockXpert, that got sold twice (Jupiter which was then swallowed by Getty) before it was shut down. It's a lovely site with decent features and search and other than for a few vector contributors who seem to be doing well, Stockfresh isn't producing after several years. You can read threads about it here, the most recent of which is here.

I completely understand the upload and wait idea, but there has to be some chance of it producing a reasonable income to make it worth the time to upload (and for large portfolios, 30 minutes is unlikely). I am sorry to be negative, but you asked for feedback, and having been around the dance floor a few times, those reasons don't seem to me to be compelling enough to upload.

ICP · « **Reply #98 on:** August 23, 2012, 11:37 »

Quote from: jsnover on August 23, 2012, 11:23

Quote from: ICP on August 23, 2012, 10:50
...The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.

At bare minimum this site will always be our portfolio site where we sell our stuff. We're not going to shut it down. Repeat... we're not going to shut it down.

Will it be successful? We think so. What we have is time. If it takes a year or five or ten it makes no difference to us. We are the turtle in the race, we're slow but we won't stop...

We already have a site that fits this bill and that many of us uploaded to because the guy who started it - no big debts but we'll let it grow over time - had started a successful site, StockXpert, that got sold twice (Jupiter which was then swallowed by Getty) before it was shut down. It's a lovely site with decent features and search and other than for a few vector contributors who seem to be doing well, Stockfresh isn't producing after several years. You can read threads about it here, the most recent of which is here.

I completely understand the upload and wait idea, but there has to be some chance of it producing a reasonable income to make it worth the time to upload (and for large portfolios, 30 minutes is unlikely). I am sorry to be negative, but you asked for feedback, and having been around the dance floor a few times, those reasons don't seem to me to be compelling enough to upload.

I completely understand where you (and others) are coming from. This isn't going to be for everyone. It may or may not be successful. But remember, for all the hours we spend uploading to other agencies they've never once guaranteed success of our portfolios. Yet here we are, countless hours into them, myself included.

sharpshot · « **Reply #99 on:** August 23, 2012, 13:03 »

Quote from: ICP on August 23, 2012, 10:50

....The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.....

As well as Stockfresh, I'm sure FeaturePics hasn't borrowed thousands/millions. And there's Cutcaster, I remember them saying they weren't going to spend lots of money. I don't think Mostphotos spent much. There's probably at least another 10 sites with the same "different" approach. What do they all have in common? Very few buyers, low sales and they aren't popular with the majority of contributors. There's enough already, I think you need to come up with a new and hopefully true difference.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Starting a new RF stock site - would like some feedback. (Read 36677 times)

ICP

Digital66

sharpshot

HerMajesty

Sean Locke Photography

StockCube

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

ICP

ICP

ICP

Amanda_K

cthoman

djpadavona

Amanda_K

leaf

sharpshot

ICP

ICP

ICP

ICP

ICP

Jo Ann Snover

ICP

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors