pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Has your position changed recently on Istock charts?  

I moved up on the charts but sales are down
21 (38.9%)
I moved up on the charts and sales are up
12 (22.2%)
I haven't moved on the charts and/or sales are unchanged
11 (20.4%)
I moved down on the charts but sales are up
1 (1.9%)
I moved down on the charts and sales are down
9 (16.7%)

Total Members Voted: 49

Voting closed: May 23, 2011, 11:38

Author Topic: Have you moved on Istockcharts?  (Read 11903 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 23, 2011, 11:38 »
0
Just for fun,  check out your position on http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/.  Have you moved up or down?  

Looking at the IS charts recently, I noticed that there are people moving UP in the charts but complaining of declining sales overall.  

What does this mean?  Well, if you are moving up, but your sales are bad, then the overall sales of the collection are most likely being redistributed among other contributors or collections, or else falling universally.  

At least that's my interpretation.  But I'm no statistician.  Will be interested in hearing other people's theories on the data as the poll progresses. 

I moved up in the charts but sales are way down.  Non-exclusive.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2011, 11:49 by Snowball »


« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2011, 11:48 »
0
I'm slowly moving up in the chart (which is nice) ... but my sales are also steadily declining (which is not so nice). More than anything that tells me that Istock, in their foam-mouthed greed, are basically f*cked. SS have beaten them at their own game. Comfortably. Heigh-ho.

lagereek

« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2011, 12:51 »
0
Same here,  moving up but sales not what they used to be.

« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2011, 12:56 »
0
Assuming you're sorting by downloads?

Same old place...

« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2011, 13:02 »
0
My sales haven't changed much over the last few months but I have gone up a bit.

« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2011, 13:13 »
0
Assuming you're sorting by downloads?

Same old place...

gets a bit lonely at the top (near the top), eh

RacePhoto

« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2011, 14:38 »
0
I'm moving up but my pictures are "CrapStock" just seems that sales dribble in and it must be the people above me are even worse off? :D

I don't shoot models, I shoot the overdone, over supplied, stuff and things. I can't explain why anyone buys anything of mine, but as long as they do, I'll take the spare change.

Believe it or not, I'm in the top 50% of all sellers for total sales. That's pretty sad.

Just for fun,  check out your position on http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/.  Have you moved up or down?  

Looking at the IS charts recently, I noticed that there are people moving UP in the charts but complaining of declining sales overall.  

What does this mean?  Well, if you are moving up, but your sales are bad, then the overall sales of the collection are most likely being redistributed among other contributors or collections, or else falling universally.  

At least that's my interpretation.  But I'm no statistician.  Will be interested in hearing other people's theories on the data as the poll progresses.  

I moved up in the charts but sales are way down.  Non-exclusive.

« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2011, 14:46 »
0
I'm moving up but my pictures are "CrapStock" just seems that sales dribble in and it must be the people above me are even worse off? :D

I don't shoot models, I shoot the overdone, over supplied, stuff and things. I can't explain why anyone buys anything of mine, but as long as they do, I'll take the spare change.

Believe it or not, I'm in the top 50% of all sellers for total sales. That's pretty sad.

If you are in the top 50% and moving up, then you must be shooting "crapstock" people want to buy.
 :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2011, 16:26 »
0
Something seems to have changed again with the way istockcharts allocate positions. For a while, it was alphabetical order within your fuzzy total, i.e. if your name was Aardvark and you had 9901 dls, you'd come well above Zumba who had 9999.
Now that has changed totally. I just rolled over 10,000 on Thursday, which means I must be around 'real' position 1994.  But I'm actually showing at 1858. I can't see how it's worked out, but it's not 'actual' downloads and it's not alphabtical within fuzzy totals. It also seems not to be dl/ul ratio or dl per time on site, both of which would be useful differentiators within the fuzzy total.
Ironically for a long time when there was an 'absolute' total, I was position 1860.
I have counted my 'real' position as being c1994, so have voted for lower position/lower dls.

« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2011, 16:37 »
0
Something seems to have changed again with the way istockcharts allocate positions. For a while, it was alphabetical order within your fuzzy total, i.e. if your name was Aardvark and you had 9901 dls, you'd come well above Zumba who had 9999.
Now that has changed totally. I just rolled over 10,000 on Thursday, which means I must be around 'real' position 1994.  But I'm actually showing at 1858. I can't see how it's worked out, but it's not 'actual' downloads and it's not alphabtical within fuzzy totals. It also seems not to be dl/ul ratio or dl per time on site, both of which would be useful differentiators within the fuzzy total.
Ironically for a long time when there was an 'absolute' total, I was position 1860.
I have counted my 'real' position as being c1994, so have voted for lower position/lower dls.

Strange.  Would be nice to know what methodology they are using now.  That might explain some of my growth too, but unless I know what changed I can't be sure.

« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2011, 19:35 »
0
I moved up, but sales are down.  I'm in the top 5% or so, but lately IS has been rejecting almost everything I send.  I now submit a small fraction of what I produce, guessing as to which shots have the best shot at approval, but even doing this, only about 20% of my "best" stuff is passing the test... these are shots quite similar to ones that have been approved in the past and are selling quite well, relatively speaking.  Very frustrating.

« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2011, 19:45 »
0
Looks to me like it's sorted with two criteria: first by rounded sales by the thousands, then by number of approved uploads in the past 30 days.  So if you had 9901 downloads but uploaded (and somehow convinced the reviewers to accept!) 100 files in the past thirty days, you'd rank well above someone with 9999 downloads but has had 0 approved uploads.  Seems like a better methodology than alphabetically within the group of contributors within that range of 1,000 downloads.

Something seems to have changed again with the way istockcharts allocate positions. For a while, it was alphabetical order within your fuzzy total, i.e. if your name was Aardvark and you had 9901 dls, you'd come well above Zumba who had 9999.
Now that has changed totally. I just rolled over 10,000 on Thursday, which means I must be around 'real' position 1994.  But I'm actually showing at 1858. I can't see how it's worked out, but it's not 'actual' downloads and it's not alphabtical within fuzzy totals. It also seems not to be dl/ul ratio or dl per time on site, both of which would be useful differentiators within the fuzzy total.
Ironically for a long time when there was an 'absolute' total, I was position 1860.
I have counted my 'real' position as being c1994, so have voted for lower position/lower dls.

Strange.  Would be nice to know what methodology they are using now.  That might explain some of my growth too, but unless I know what changed I can't be sure.

« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2011, 22:13 »
0
Once IS blurred the sales totals the day to day changes on the charts became a lot less interesting. I wonder what percentage of contributors are on those charts.

« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2011, 06:05 »
0
Up in charts.
Up in sales.
Up in $$$.

« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2011, 06:57 »
0
I don't look that often, but if I remember right from the last time I looked then I'm moving up. After my last week or so that's surprising.

lisafx

« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2011, 09:12 »
0
Looks to me like it's sorted with two criteria: first by rounded sales by the thousands, then by number of approved uploads in the past 30 days.  So if you had 9901 downloads but uploaded (and somehow convinced the reviewers to accept!) 100 files in the past thirty days, you'd rank well above someone with 9999 downloads but has had 0 approved uploads.  Seems like a better methodology than alphabetically within the group of contributors within that range of 1,000 downloads.


Very interesting.  I had been wondering how that worked.  I just moved to the head of my group and was very surprised. 

Now I am kind of bummed.  Maybe I am not outselling these people but have just been uploading more.  Which is kind of weird too, because I have been really slacking off lately. 

« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2011, 12:45 »
0
I am at 27702, so far from Sean or Lisa it is like I am not even on the same site.  I am a long long way from the top; heck, I can't even see the middle.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 18:47 by visceralimage »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2011, 12:51 »
0
I am at 27702, so far from Sean or Lisa it is like I am not even on the same site.  I am a long long way from the top; heck, I can't even see the middle.
Hey, you gave them several years of a start.  :D
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 04:36 by ShadySue »

« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2011, 14:39 »
0
I am at 27702, so far from Sean or Lisa it is like I am not even on the same site.  I am a long long way from the top; heck, I can't even see the middle.
Hey, you8 gave them several years of a start.  :D

I don't like excuses; can't be number one making excuses.  Then again, pretty hard to be number one if you start the race four years behind the starting gun.  Guess I will just need to work harder; that will cutting deep into my margarita time.  In Russia, that was no problem because there were no margaritas; but now that I am back in USA, that becomes a real problem. ;D

lisafx

« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2011, 09:09 »
0
It's not really a race.  As Liz points out, timing is everything.  Those who started early were able to establish a foothold before the market became so oversaturated. 

Although, to be fair, when I started in 2005, there were already newbies saying it was too late for them because they missed out on the glory days.   With that attitude, I doubt those people every got any kind of success. 

There are different markets for different types of images too.  Some subjects are higher demand than others.  If your specialty is landscape and wildlife, and that is what you love, that is what you should shoot and be happy, even if it will not land you in some privileged spot on some chart :)

« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2011, 11:30 »
0
Thanks Lisa; wildlife photography feeds my soul.  I do a bit of product and food photography, hopefully it will help feed my stomach.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2011, 11:35 »
0

There are different markets for different types of images too.  Some subjects are higher demand than others.  If your specialty is landscape and wildlife, and that is what you love, that is what you should shoot and be happy, even if it will not land you in some privileged spot on some chart :)
Wildlife pics are in high demand, at least in the UK, but there are so many places you can get pretty good to excellent wildlife images free (e.g. ARkive), or at least free for non-commercial use that many of the 'expected' end users (schools and wildlife societies) don't actually need to pay for a lot of the content theu use. They things they can't source for free are the rare species you're unlikely to get in micro shot in the wild, partly because some micros don't understand natural light (iStock and I'm now hearing SS, for instance). Plus of course it's in pretty big supply.

RacePhoto

« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2011, 01:01 »
0
I am at 27702, so far from Sean or Lisa it is like I am not even on the same site.  I am a long long way from the top; heck, I can't even see the middle.

Middle by which search? Just click on a heading and see.

Or click on a page and see.

Maybe I'm not making that easy.

It starts on Download Total as default. There are 739 pages, so lets be easy and say the middle is 370. In the box that says page # of [   ] type in 370. There's the middle.

Or search on your name and see where you are in user numbers, "Jump to position#"

What's the middle? If you are asking what I'm guessing, that would be Downloads total? (correct me if I'm wrong)

Page 370 shows... 100 downloads as the middle. Now since the fizzy numbers (as someone else appropriately called it) the next level is 200 downloads.

100 DLs goes from 16526 to 20252 - or 3,726 people between 100 and 200 downloads. It goes by hundreds from 100 up to 1000 (and tens below that)

Member 8584 has 1000 DLs or another 11,668 people between 100 and 1000 dls.Once again the IS info and charts go by 100 DLs per identifiable change after 100.

8,584 people have over 1000 DLs. You can easily call that $1000 total earnings. Roughly 20,000 people have had 100 DLs and cashed out of the 36902 total members. You can take that as half have cashed, or half have never cashed. :D

« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2011, 17:38 »
0
Race;

You have to much free time on your hands; you need a day  job or another dayjob :-\

I have hopes of making it to 100 downloads before year end; I dream of downloads such as Sean or Lisa-I bet they get hundreds a day

Time to get back to work, will not get anything uploaded chatting here on MSG ;)  Yesterday was Hot Dog photography day, today was Grilled Cheese photography day.  I think tomorrow will be breakfast day, eggs and bacon; I can smell it already.  This is what I shoot after 10 am and before 5 pm when the light sucks in Florida; no wildlife photography during these mid-day hours

lisafx

« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2011, 17:44 »
0
Race;

You have to much free time on your hands; you need a day  job or another dayjob :-\


Amen!  Had to be said. 

Take a heart :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
5452 Views
Last post June 06, 2009, 21:17
by Jonathan Ross
8 Replies
5671 Views
Last post July 03, 2009, 11:07
by puravida
0 Replies
2777 Views
Last post August 31, 2009, 14:53
by Sean Locke Photography
0 Replies
1403 Views
Last post September 27, 2012, 09:25
by RacePhoto
0 Replies
1845 Views
Last post August 13, 2014, 08:22
by Mantis

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle