MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: stockphoto sites with lenient or non-existent QC?  (Read 5589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 01, 2011, 20:36 »
0
I've heard these two have no QC at all:
mostphotos.com
shutterpoint.com

And alamy.com only checks image quality, not contents.

Are there any other sites  with lenient or non-existent QC?

I figure I should start with one of these sites, then take only the best-selling images to the more picky sites like IS, SS.

Thoughts?


« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2011, 22:04 »
0
Yes, the best thing you can do is try to sell content on sites that don't care what kind of garbage they sell.  Buyers love that.

« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2011, 22:28 »
0
dont have pictures on shutterpoint but I do have on mostphotos (just a few months and few sales too), the zoom feature is quite good and I believe only a "dumb" buyer/designer would buy a picture without having 100% of the picture they are getting, that said obvious a agency with "QC" is another thing and sure the buyer dont need to look close and find which one is good apart from the crap..

seriously if you wanna approach stock you should first work and be approved on top agencies, beside that it is not worth the run

p.s: you can "sell" there all the brasilian woman at the beach :)

« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2011, 23:16 »
0
So far your posts are all asking the same question - roughly speaking. How can I do no work and sell anything I happen to have lying around.

For what it's worth, the approach of starting with sites with no or lenient QC will hurt you rather than helping; it's a terrible idea (as terrible as most of the images at sites with no QC).

There's no point in asking people here to help you do something that can't be done.

« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2011, 01:17 »
0
Yes, the best thing you can do is try to sell content on sites that don't care what kind of garbage they sell.  Buyers love that.
Sales have picked up with Mostphotos, so it does look like some buyers prefer to do their own QC than have a reviewer do it for them.  I quite like them because they have a USP, unlike most of the other microstock sites.

lagereek

« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2011, 01:39 »
0
HA!  just goes to show what some noobs think about the micro industry. Stone rich over night and crap-in, crap-out.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2011, 01:45 »
0
sales at mostphotos are better than at some other sites which have quality control;
so buyers may prefer to choose freely - in this sense I agree that supposed LCV should not be a reason for rejection

but it doesn't mean that just because they accept everything, YOU should upload everything; mostphotos is not a litter bin (there are file-sharing, photo-albums, social-networks already for that)
YOU have to do your own quality control, and also be careful about copyright and property issues

« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2011, 02:01 »
0
I've heard these two have no QC at all:
mostphotos.com
shutterpoint.com

And alamy.com only checks image quality, not contents.

Are there any other sites  with lenient or non-existent QC?

I figure I should start with one of these sites, then take only the best-selling images to the more picky sites like IS, SS.

Thoughts?

You are right, MostPhotos and Alamy (perhaps shutterpoint as well, I don't submit there) don't check content quality.

Like Jsnover said, you really aren't doing yourself a favor by sending your images to the sites without reviews and ignoring the better microstock sites. If I were you, I'd send images to the top 4 microstock sites.  If the images get rejected figure out what you are doing wrong and fix the problems.  You won't get any (or very very few) sales or learn anything by submitting images to sites that don't have any quality control.  Rather spend your time creating good content that can get through microstock quality control and in turn, get sales.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2011, 07:39 »
0
Lenient or non-existent QC will yield virtually non-existent buyers, or <10c per image sold. Pointless, really.
Beqar in mind that there are tankloads of photos available under Creative Commons on Flickr. Some of them are very good indeed.

« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2011, 09:44 »
0
I could shut my mouth and perhaps should but hey dont care!

Started in May 2011!

2011-09-23 - 0.80
2011-09-19 - 7.05
2011-09-19 - 7.05
2011-09-16 - 1.15
2011-09-11 - 0.15
2011-09-10 - 0.20
2011-09-10 - 0.82

2011-08-29 - 0.28
2011-08-29 - 0.28
2011-08-25 - 2.48
2011-08-20 - 22.50

2011-07-29 - 0.43
2011-07-25 - 0.52
2011-07-24 - 3.43
2011-07-22 - 0.28
2011-07-22 - 0.28
2011-07-22 - 0.28

2011-06-16 - 0.17

Sold images - 18
Earning - 48.15

what does this mean? nothing yep! BUT it is already more than I have at SF, GLO, YAY, FP, C (and 2 years online) they are also having more earnings than CanStockPhoto and BigStock (of course not total but who knows..)

if the upload is smooth why not? (not even going to talk about the free backup)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2011, 09:46 by luissantos84 »

Microbius

« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2011, 10:07 »
0
Sorry Luiss, is that Flickr you're referring to or Mostphotos?

« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2011, 10:08 »
0
Sorry Luiss, is that Flickr you're referring to or Mostphotos?

never been on Flickr

« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2011, 12:28 »
0
You still need to keyword your images on these sites which you didn't seem to want to do on another thread.  You really aren't going to make anything if you aren't willing to put in the work.  I'm beginning to wonder if you are just trolling!!

« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2011, 15:09 »
0
You still need to keyword your images on these sites which you didn't seem to want to do on another thread.  You really aren't going to make anything if you aren't willing to put in the work.  I'm beginning to wonder if you are just trolling!!

I don't mind some level of keywording. But I'm opposed to the more intense keywording which appears to be required by the more stringent sites. Example:

If I have a photo of a car on fire, I just want to keyword it "car on fire". I don't want to have to research what kind of car it was or who owns it or why it was on fire.

And no I'm not trolling. I'm just really confused.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2011, 15:11 by atramos »

« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2011, 15:31 »
0
Most sites have a minimum amount of keywords allowed usually about 9 keywords so just putting one or two won't work.  Why don't you take a few of your best images keyword them and upload to a few of the top sites to see how they get on

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2011, 15:38 »
0
You still need to keyword your images on these sites which you didn't seem to want to do on another thread.  You really aren't going to make anything if you aren't willing to put in the work.  I'm beginning to wonder if you are just trolling!!

I don't mind some level of keywording. But I'm opposed to the more intense keywording which appears to be required by the more stringent sites. Example:

If I have a photo of a car on fire, I just want to keyword it "car on fire". I don't want to have to research what kind of car it was or who owns it or why it was on fire.

And no I'm not trolling. I'm just really confused.
"car on fire" iStock: 595
                  Alamy: 1607
What relevant keywords could you add to your keywords to help a potential buyer?
Actually, 'car on fire' isn't a great example, as these are relatively small searches.
But say you had a 'flower', and didn't want to have to research it.
Flower: iStock: 404634 (and that's if you filter down to 'photos only)
            Alamy: 914,776
What chance to you think you'll have of having your flower seen, i.e. considered for purchase, in among all the others?

Can I reiterate what others have already told you: micro is NOT a get rich quick scheme. If you are 'opposed' to putting decent keywords onto your images, you'll have a fit when you see the technical stringency required.

« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2011, 16:37 »
0
You still need to keyword your images on these sites which you didn't seem to want to do on another thread.  You really aren't going to make anything if you aren't willing to put in the work.  I'm beginning to wonder if you are just trolling!!

I don't mind some level of keywording. But I'm opposed to the more intense keywording which appears to be required by the more stringent sites. Example:

If I have a photo of a car on fire, I just want to keyword it "car on fire". I don't want to have to research what kind of car it was or who owns it or why it was on fire.

And no I'm not trolling. I'm just really confused.
"car on fire" iStock: 595
                  Alamy: 1607
What relevant keywords could you add to your keywords to help a potential buyer?
Actually, 'car on fire' isn't a great example, as these are relatively small searches.
But say you had a 'flower', and didn't want to have to research it.
Flower: iStock: 404634 (and that's if you filter down to 'photos only)
            Alamy: 914,776
What chance to you think you'll have of having your flower seen, i.e. considered for purchase, in among all the others?

Can I reiterate what others have already told you: micro is NOT a get rich quick scheme. If you are 'opposed' to putting decent keywords onto your images, you'll have a fit when you see the technical stringency required.

Thank you^.  Ya know there are still sites out there promoting micro as an easy way to make extra income. Maybe years ago, not today.   


Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2011, 20:46 »
0
I have yet to make a single sale on any of the no-inspection sites.  Daily sales on SS.  I'm guessing that buyers don't want to wade through the crap that inevitably finds its way to the no-inspection sites.

« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2011, 04:21 »
0
I have sold on Most Photos they claim to have some kind of algorithim to alllow good images to rise. The images sold have been accepted elsewhere - if something isn't good enough for Yay Micro or Canstock I would be amazed if anyone would buy it!

RacePhoto

« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2011, 12:20 »
0
You still need to keyword your images on these sites which you didn't seem to want to do on another thread.  You really aren't going to make anything if you aren't willing to put in the work.  I'm beginning to wonder if you are just trolling!!

I don't mind some level of keywording. But I'm opposed to the more intense keywording which appears to be required by the more stringent sites. Example:

If I have a photo of a car on fire, I just want to keyword it "car on fire". I don't want to have to research what kind of car it was or who owns it or why it was on fire.

And no I'm not trolling. I'm just really confused.

Something others have not hit upon unless it's in one of your other threads, because you started a flock of them almost all asking the same questions, worded in a different way.

But, getting things up on Mostphotos and assuming that sales there will mean they will get accepted and sell on Micro sites, is not a logical chain of fact. You may not get accepted and even if they do, you may not get sales. Microstock is about images that tell a story and that buyers want to tell their story. It's not at all about "pretty pictures" or art. I hope that helps?

As for Alamy, please go pass the test and submit ten for review and come back. I think you are going to get a real awakening. Alamy is very picky about quality and image size, although yes, they do not review for contents. Want to make money, go get accepted at IS and SS and you'll have the best earning sites working for you.

If you go to the lower sites on the right, you will find easier reviews, because many of them are hard up for images. Problem is, they are hard pressed for buyers as well. Move to the Middle Tier and reviews get tougher, still (in my opinion) sales are rather pathetic for the time involved. Look at the numbers on the right. You are on this forum where the top 5% of all microstock shooters in the world participate and they are averaging $15 a month. Oh Whoopee! Unless you have 20-30 sites like that and put in all the time keywording, editing and uploading. But you want quick and easy, so I can skip that part?

That leaves the top two and they are picky about what they take. They aren't going to accept random vacation snapshots. No shots of anyone, without releases. Keep in mind this is about marketing, selling images to people who will probably use them to sell something else, or their website or some other promotional use.

Ladies on the beach? Send me all you have, I'll look at them. LOL ;)

tab62

« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2011, 22:16 »
0
Okay, I am uploading pics to most photos- I had two sales this month. I gave up on them a while back and didn't even realize I had sales there until I read this interesting thread...


T

« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2011, 22:43 »
0
Shutterpoint doesn't have inspection, so you can submit any trash you want. OTOH, you have to pay for storage, so if you are willing to do that, you have other choices such as Smugmug.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4044 Views
Last post February 22, 2007, 07:06
by epixx
1 Replies
3760 Views
Last post December 10, 2007, 14:07
by hospitalera
11 Replies
5106 Views
Last post September 05, 2008, 17:35
by Karimala
39 Replies
16225 Views
Last post August 19, 2010, 22:03
by neotakezo
14 Replies
3232 Views
Last post August 29, 2018, 04:52
by Verdi

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle