I am giving them until Christmas to improve my sales and to make my portfolio more visible.  There are far to many images with no views at the moment. 

What is the point in deleting a portfolio though?  It is sensible if the site is likely to vanish, like some have but I don't see LO doing that.  I have seen some people delete their portfolios and then upload them again later.  Isn't it more sensible to just leave the site alone and check to see if there is any progress in a few months?

I'm giving them until the end of the year to show some signs of life.  I've noticed my images with the highest views on LO are the same ones that are selling well elsewhere (SS, IS, DT) which seems to make a certain amount of sense.  But on LO, zero sales.  Are people looking at LO, but then going and buying elsewhere?  I stopped uploading new stuff to them a few months back.  If I don't see activity on some of my best selling images, why waste time uploading more, only to have them languish in obscurity.  If between now and the end of the year things pick up, fine.  I can easily upload more.  But if it continues as it has for over a year now, I'll probably pull out and concentrate on those sites that give me at least some return for my time invested.

Quote from: sharpshot on October 13, 2007, 15:19What is the point in deleting a portfolio though?

I did it very rarely. Galastock because of fraud for instance. LO, because of the high view count and the large unprotected thumbs. I thought it was only so for the high-key shots, but can anybody tell me what watermark is so annoying on this giant "thumb"? Takes me 5 sec in Photoshop to un-annoy it, et voila ;-)
If I want to put up shots for grab, I do it at Flickr and with my own shots... and not with shots that are on sale at *selling* MS sites too. LO stepped way out of line doing this.

I had hoped we would be offered a good alternative watermark but I didn't like the changes.  Here's an example http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/2199673/

All I wanted was something similar to SS,IS,DT etc.  Now if I can't see the watermark, the photo gets deleted.

That's the other extreme of poor watermarking.  Why can't LO find a more suitable one?  They work fine in most sites (FT before the change).

Regards,
Adelaide

Had my first LO extended license sale recently, other than that, sales are pretty slow, but then, I've got less than 200 images there. A little slow to join in, not much time to contribute to so many sites.

Thankfully, LO's submission process is relatively painless.

Lately I have been crying the blues about my very, very limited sales versus high views at LO.  I've been away this past week on a shoot down in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Tenn & NC).... returned tonight, checked out all my sales and low & behold... not only did I have a few sales on LO this past week, I also got my first EL there.  So today, I'm a happy carny!! 
    I sure would like to see LO generate the same sales I experience especially on IS & SS.  I've got over a year into LO now, I'm still hanging in there. I sure would like to get some sideshow action going there!
-tom

Quote from: sharpshot on October 13, 2007, 19:27I had hoped we would be offered a good alternative watermark but I didn't like the changes.  Here's an example http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/2199673/

This one's looking very well protected to me.

Quote from: w7lwi on October 13, 2007, 17:24
Are people looking at LO, but then going and buying elsewhere? 

Possibly yes - especially since they downsize images so drastically. For instance:
Original 10mp - 3872x2592 = 12.9x8.64 (inches @300dpi)
LO Downsampled - 2709x1813 = 9x6 (inches @300dpi)

Digiology, they do sell the original size in the Extended License.  The problem though, if the buyer doesn't know, or doesn't click through to purchase, they will never know.  I've mentioned on their forum that they should consider adding the dimensions on the original public page, and I was led to believe they added on their to do list.  LO does seem to sell a disproportionately high number of EL's.  I found out my large files were only available as EL by accident - so it cannot be immediately clear to buyers either.  I think they may lose sales because it is not immediately clear to buyers.

However, I just checked one of my images, 2592 x 3872 and it states 9.6 mp, by my math it should be 10.03.  Minisclue difference in size, but less than 10 mp for some reason makes it look more consumer, less pro.

Pixart - I never realised the original size is available as EL. That's good to know. Thanks