Author Topic: Is E+ proving to be benificial? (Read 11426 times)

KB · « **Reply #25 on:** July 15, 2012, 16:13 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 10:09

Quote from: ShadySue on July 15, 2012, 10:06
Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 09:57
Hey that is my Olympic flag from the "Equestrian" venue during the 2004 Olympics
So, where's the 'horse'?
There was a couple hundred under that flag. Just following the editorial captioning rules ;-)

Your examples fits with my post above yours about what IS said about the best match results.

No offense intended, but it's disappointing to read this from someone who I think should know better. The rest of the keywords in that file are perfectly relevant, but 'horse'? Do you really think that a buyer who searches for 'Horse' AND 'Summer Olympic Games' would be looking for this image (or 'Horse' AND anything, for that matter)?

cmannphoto · « **Reply #26 on:** July 15, 2012, 16:49 »

Quote from: KB on July 15, 2012, 16:13

Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 10:09
Quote from: ShadySue on July 15, 2012, 10:06
Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 09:57
Hey that is my Olympic flag from the "Equestrian" venue during the 2004 Olympics
So, where's the 'horse'?
There was a couple hundred under that flag. Just following the editorial captioning rules ;-)

Your examples fits with my post above yours about what IS said about the best match results.
No offense intended, but it's disappointing to read this from someone who I think should know better. The rest of the keywords in that file are perfectly relevant, but 'horse'? Do you really think that a buyer who searches for 'Horse' AND 'Summer Olympic Games' would be looking for this image (or 'Horse' AND anything, for that matter)?

I went back and looked and I did NOT put in "horse", that came up because I put in "equestrian" and the CV added "horse"

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** July 15, 2012, 16:54 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 16:49

Quote from: KB on July 15, 2012, 16:13
Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 10:09
Quote from: ShadySue on July 15, 2012, 10:06
Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 09:57
Hey that is my Olympic flag from the "Equestrian" venue during the 2004 Olympics
So, where's the 'horse'?
There was a couple hundred under that flag. Just following the editorial captioning rules ;-)

Your examples fits with my post above yours about what IS said about the best match results.
No offense intended, but it's disappointing to read this from someone who I think should know better. The rest of the keywords in that file are perfectly relevant, but 'horse'? Do you really think that a buyer who searches for 'Horse' AND 'Summer Olympic Games' would be looking for this image (or 'Horse' AND anything, for that matter)?

I went back and looked and I did NOT put in "horse", that came up because I put in "equestrian" and the CV added "horse"

I'm not sure the actual photo represents anything 'equestrian' either.
If I submit a photo of a pen on a desk, should I put 'house' because I took it in my house, or 'Scotland' because I took it in Scotland?

cmannphoto · « **Reply #28 on:** July 15, 2012, 16:57 »

Fine, hear you two and I have removed "equestrian" which also removed "horse", but because it was taken at the "Markopoulo Equestrian Center", I left that in.
HAPPY???

ShadySue · « **Reply #29 on:** July 15, 2012, 17:00 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 16:57

Fine, hear you two and I have removed "equestrian" which also removed "horse", but because it was taken at the "Markopoulo Equestrian Center", I left that in.
HAPPY???

KB · « **Reply #30 on:** July 15, 2012, 17:58 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 16:57

Fine, hear you two and I have removed "equestrian" which also removed "horse", but because it was taken at the "Markopoulo Equestrian Center", I left that in.
HAPPY???

I am.

As for "Markopoulo Equestrian Center", that's to me more legitimate than 'horse'. Besides, it's unlikely anyone is going to search using that term, so it doesn't really hurt others as 'horse' does. (If a buyer did search on it, well, they probably wouldn't be happy with it, but at least they should understand it, unlike someone who was searching on 'horse'.)

However, the fact that you wrote: I have removed "equestrian" which also removed "horse" sounds to me as if perhaps you don't fully understand the DA process? 'Equestrian' DAs to 'horse', therefore it IS horse. 'Equestrian' was not in your keyword terms (even though you put it in) because it DAs to 'horse'. (Note I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that DA, just that that's the way it works.)

cmannphoto · « **Reply #31 on:** July 15, 2012, 18:16 »

Quote from: KB on July 15, 2012, 17:58

Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 16:57
Fine, hear you two and I have removed "equestrian" which also removed "horse", but because it was taken at the "Markopoulo Equestrian Center", I left that in.
HAPPY???

I am.

However, the fact that you wrote: I have removed "equestrian" which also removed "horse" sounds to me as if perhaps you don't fully understand the DA process? 'Equestrian' DAs to 'horse', therefore it IS horse. 'Equestrian' was not in your keyword terms (even though you put it in) because it DAs to 'horse'. (Note I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that DA, just that that's the way it works.)

All I can say is when I went into edit the Keywords, the only one I deleted was "Equestrian" which removed "horse".

I have been an Equestrian Photographer for over 25 years and have gone by this

Definition of EQUESTRIAN
1
a : of, relating to, or featuring horseback riding <equestrian Olympic events>
b : archaic : riding on horseback : mounted
c : representing a person on horseback

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equestrian

With "Equus" meaning 'horse'

Definition of EQUUS
: a genus of the family Equidae that comprises the horses, asses, zebras, and related recent and extinct mammals

Also, please don't hide behind anonymity when you are criticizing someones elses work.

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** July 15, 2012, 18:37 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 18:16

Also, please don't hide behind anonymity when you are criticizing someones elses work.

What difference does my non-anonymous criticism or KB's anonymous criticism make in this particular case?
I know what equestrian means, and accept that your flag was been taken at an equestrian centre, but it's an Olympic flag photo, not any sort of equestrian photo.

Sometimes the CV/DA system forces you to spam, whereby you can SM ducksandwich to add the DA you need. I've just emailled him about an exact issue of that nature. He's usually very accommodating about it. But this wasn't one of these cases.
However, if you feel strongly about it, why not try to get an official opinion, or a range of non-official opinions, on the keywords forum over there. Duck usually pops in to contentions threads or difficult questions.

BTW, kudos for pointing up the 'no support by phone' issue on the help thread.

cmannphoto · « **Reply #33 on:** July 15, 2012, 18:45 »

Yes, I have used the Keyword thread and Dave has been very helpful.

In this case it was an accident, not intentional. Once I read your post I understood where you where coming from and corrected my error.

As far as the "anonymity" comment, I don't appreciate KB criticizing my keywording. I guess I am to assume that all their keywords are 100% correct, I doubt that.

I am always willing to learn and I am man enough to admit I made an error.

KB · « **Reply #34 on:** July 15, 2012, 19:02 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on July 15, 2012, 18:45

Yes, I have used the Keyword thread and Dave has been very helpful.

In this case it was an accident, not intentional. Once I read your post I understood where you where coming from and corrected my error.

As far as the "anonymity" comment, I don't appreciate KB criticizing my keywording. I guess I am to assume that all their keywords are 100% correct, I doubt that.

I am always willing to learn and I am man enough to admit I made an error.

I was not meaning to be critical, I was trying to explain that I don't think you understand the DA process. By what you just wrote:
All I can say is when I went into edit the Keywords, the only one I deleted was "Equestrian" which removed "horse".
I think that verifies it. That isn't meant as a criticism; I think many, many contributors don't understand how it works.

As for whether my keywords are 100% correct, there's no need to wonder: They absolutely are not, I guarantee it. Besides those that I intentionally "spam", I'm sure that I probably have some terms that are inadvertently wrong. No one is perfect, especially me.

vonkara · « **Reply #35 on:** July 15, 2012, 20:07 »

This is the last sales of one of my exclusive plus file at Istock. I quit being independent about 2 years ago to stop selling pictures at 25 to 35 cents. I think it worked quite well and the only time I spent on the website in the last 2 years was for requesting payments.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #36 on:** July 15, 2012, 21:04 »

1 picture / 1 year
- 182.77$ in 19 sales (9.62$ rpd)
- 1.58 times per month

interesting numbers, I am sure you would have made that on SS only (I also believe its better to sell only 19 times than perhaps 360)

I know you haven´t questioned anything but I found this curious

wut · « **Reply #37 on:** July 16, 2012, 04:56 »

Quote from: Vonkara on July 15, 2012, 20:07

This is the last sales of one of my exclusive plus file at Istock. I quit being independent about 2 years ago to stop selling pictures at 25 to 35 cents. I think it worked quite well and the only time I spent on the website in the last 2 years was for requesting payments.

That's a pretty sight, especially after looking at peanut sales all the time myself (OK save for occasional ELs and big SODs at SS)

Freedom · « **Reply #38 on:** July 16, 2012, 07:17 »

Besides, you can make higher percentage if your RC rank is higher.

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** July 16, 2012, 08:11 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2012, 21:04

interesting numbers, I am sure you would have made that on SS only (I also believe its better to sell only 19 times than perhaps 360)

Absolutely: 341 fewer places to have your image stolen from.

cmannphoto · « **Reply #40 on:** July 16, 2012, 08:24 »

I have been wrestling moving some good sellers to E+, because I have read mixed reviews on how well people are doing.

I have a file (17764850) that has done pretty well over the last 10 months.
It has earned $405.88 in the 76 DLs for and average of $5.34 per DL. Out of those 76 DLs only 6 have been XSmall.

The six month lock it the biggest deterrent. Also the slow migration to Getty is not helping either.

malamus · « **Reply #41 on:** July 16, 2012, 08:32 »

The six month period is my biggest deterrant, one or two months and I think you could gage how it was working without risking much, (thats one hard working retrever BTW!)

cmannphoto · « **Reply #42 on:** July 16, 2012, 11:11 »

Quote from: malamus on July 16, 2012, 08:32

The six month period is my biggest deterrant, one or two months and I think you could gage how it was working without risking much, (thats one hard working retrever BTW!)

I could live with a 3 month long lock, but in my example it could be a whole season with fewer DLs. Yet it could be a nice jump in $$$ and RCs you never now. Right now I will leave it alone until I see more concrete stats and the moving of files to Getty working smoothly.

Thanks, any dog in my house has to work for their food and a roof over their head

I have to say they are doing a good job.

Zerkalo · « **Reply #43 on:** July 17, 2012, 07:55 »

I think there are two important things about E+. One is whether the increasing price will make for the (if happens) decreasing DL numbers. The other one is the Redemeed Credits on the long run. E+ downloads produce more RCs. This means even your DL numbers can decrease, if it helps you to reach the next level you can make more money and be on the profit side.

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** July 17, 2012, 08:01 »

Quote from: Zerkalo on July 17, 2012, 07:55

I think there are two important things about E+. One is whether the increasing price will make for the (if happens) decreasing DL numbers. The other one is the Redemeed Credits on the long run. E+ downloads produce more RCs. This means even your DL numbers can decrease, if it helps you to reach the next level you can make more money and be on the profit side.

Two other imponderables are what the best match will do (sometimes it seems to penalise E+ files) and whether a similar-enough will be put up, and priced at E or Indie rates. If it happens just after you've nominated a file as E+, you're stuck for six months while they get all the sales you might have got a share of.

wut · « **Reply #45 on:** July 17, 2012, 09:21 »

Quote from: Zerkalo on July 17, 2012, 07:55

The other one is the Redemeed Credits on the long run. E+ downloads produce more RCs. This means even your DL numbers can decrease, if it helps you to reach the next level you can make more money and be on the profit side.

If they're going to set the 2013 RC targets according to that, indies will loose out big time

raclro · « **Reply #46 on:** July 25, 2012, 20:54 »

My 2 cents;
I only put a few dozen into E+ way back when it started, I continue to let it roll. I selected a fairly wide variety and also a few "similars", putting one in, leaving one out. Sale numbers dropped dramtically, income stayed about the same. I really like it whenever an E+ sale occurs like today. Small file $8.20. Looks better than the many other pre E+ sales of less than $1.00.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is E+ proving to be benificial? (Read 11426 times)

KB

cmannphoto

ShadySue

cmannphoto

ShadySue

KB

cmannphoto

ShadySue

cmannphoto

KB

vonkara

luissantos84

wut

Freedom

ShadySue

cmannphoto

malamus

cmannphoto

Zerkalo

ShadySue

wut

raclro

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors