MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: wiser on August 08, 2011, 20:16
-
I keep my identity unknown here because I was harassed by another member under a previous username where I was not anonymous.
Two questions:
1. If you care to share, why do you (if you do) keep your identity unknown?
2. Do you think less of the posts of people who are anonymous?
thanks
-
2. Do you think less of the posts of people who are anonymous?
thanks
depends on the content - if it's general response to discussions, i dont see much of a problem
but when the anon is posting supposed advice based on their experience i treat it as near worthless - eg posts that get specific about portfolio content, rejections, income, etc when there is no trace to examine
-
I use the user name here that is on all the stock sites. In an ideal world I would like everyone to know who they're dealing with.
However, having been a vocal critic of Fotolia in the past (when I was independent before) and (a) being threatened with having my account closed because I was coordinating contributors who wanted to change FT's initial unreasonable subscription terms (to withhold uploads until they improved the deal; (b) having my account closed after I went exclusive because I was discussing some of FT's actions here, then (c) having them refuse to allow me to open a new account when I returned to independence this year, I think that there's a very good reason for some to remain anonymous to protect their livelihood.
It's a shame that there's nothing I can see anyone can do about Fotolia's behavior, so anonymity permits contributors to discuss issues more freely in off-site forums.
Some people don't want to mix up their traditional agency and microstock identities, which seems like another reasonable thing given how some folks in the traditional world loathe and despise us in microstock.
When you get someone mouthing off in their first couple of posts and they're anonymous so you can't check their portfolios, I generally just ignore the person and assume they're only here to cause trouble. We have enough trouble from the agencies without adding forum trolls :)
If I knew then that Fotolia would take truthful if unflattering comments in public forums as a reason to remove accounts, I might have taken a different path and gone for anonymity, but that horse is already out of the barn, so it's just a guess.
For many of the anonymous posters who are regulars, I either know who they are or have a reasonable guess and so I don't think any less of their posts.
-
I was harassed by another member
shank ainīt here anymore ;D
-
2. Do you think less of the posts of people who are anonymous?
It's very difficult for me to take anyone seriously who isn't even willing to sign their name. It seems the anonymous feel empowered to provoke and make personal attacks. It's very difficult for me to respect that.
If you feel confident enough to criticize the work of other photographers it should be a requirement to show your own work. Some of the most vocal, controversial members of this forum I have very serious doubts about whether they have even one photograph available for sale at even one site.
Mat Hayward
Seattle, WA
425-422-0006
www.MatHaywardPhoto.com (http://www.MatHaywardPhoto.com)
www.MHWildlife.com (http://www.MHWildlife.com)
www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com (http://www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com)
www.facebook.com/mat.hayward (http://www.facebook.com/mat.hayward)
-
[url=http://www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com]www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com[/url] ([url]http://www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com[/url])
glad you posted it, stunning pictures, digging it!
-
.
-
My Links:
Facebook: [url=http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sunny-Mars-Designs/150453311638512]www.facebook.com/pages/Sunny-Mars-Designs/150453311638512[/url]
Twitter: [url]http://twitter.com/sunnymarsdesign[/url]
Squidoo: [url]http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/sunnymars[/url] ([url]http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/sunnymars[/url])
Zazzle: [url]http://www.zazzle.com/sunnymars?rf=238145929896990616[/url] ([url]http://www.zazzle.com/sunnymars?rf=238145929896990616[/url])
Canstock: [url]http://www.canstockphoto.com/search.php?mem=66177&r=66177[/url] ([url]http://www.canstockphoto.com/search.php?mem=66177&r=66177[/url])
Dreamstime: [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/Sunnymars_info-resi2206586[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/Sunnymars_info-resi2206586[/url])
Graphic Leftovers: [url]http://graphicleftovers.com/designer/sunnymars/ref=sunnymars/[/url] ([url]http://graphicleftovers.com/designer/sunnymars/ref=sunnymars/[/url])
Stock Fresh: [url]http://stockfresh.com/gallery/sunnymars?affiliate=2551[/url] ([url]http://stockfresh.com/gallery/sunnymars?affiliate=2551[/url])
123rf: [url]http://www.123rf.com/src_sunnymars/portfolio_sunnymars[/url] ([url]http://www.123rf.com/src_sunnymars/portfolio_sunnymars[/url])
Bigstock: [url]http://www.bigstock.com/profile/w81e9L41aY?refid=w81e9L41aY[/url] ([url]http://www.bigstock.com/profile/w81e9L41aY?refid=w81e9L41aY[/url])
My site: [url]http://sunnymars.com[/url] Coming soon.
For me, this post and you posting your links here adds a ton of credibility to the previous posts I have read of yours.
I may be in the minority but I believe if you are going to say something you should be willing to say it whether it's face to face or online. Anonymous posts imply to me that the author wouldn't be willing to make the same comments in person. They create a sort of alter-ego that isn't truly representative of who they really are.
Mat
P.S. LuisSanto84...thank you!
-
1. I want to be able to criticize the sites withtout the fear of getting thrown out
2. Microstock isn't my main business, my comissioned work is. I don't want people to make connections between my rants on forums and my business.
-
.
-
I used all different names on the sites when I started but I mostly use this one now. I used to have all the links to my portfolio but that makes it too easy for people to make copies of my best sellers. I'm as guilty as anyone of looking at people's portfolios and thinking "that's a good idea" but I don't like it when people do something too similar.
I've not had too many problems with others, had an idiot abusing me a few years ago but he's just crazy and I know he can't help it. One of his first posts here was an attack on Leaf and that was the end of his first attempt here, then he came back and was banned over and over again. I wasn't the only one to get abuse, some had it much worse than me. The first time it happened, I was angry but then I thought it's silly being angry at something someone has typed on a keyboard. Now I really don't take forum posts too seriously.
I'm not frightened about the sites, I give my honest opinion and sometime try to correct people that I think are just making things up. I think the majority of people that have been banned by the sites for something they have said on a forum have probably gone too far, of course there might be exceptions.
-
2. Do you think less of the posts of people who are anonymous?
It's very difficult for me to take anyone seriously who isn't even willing to sign their name. It seems the anonymous feel empowered to provoke and make personal attacks. It's very difficult for me to respect that.
If you feel confident enough to criticize the work of other photographers it should be a requirement to show your own work. Some of the most vocal, controversial members of this forum I have very serious doubts about whether they have even one photograph available for sale at even one site.
Mat Hayward
Seattle, WA
425-422-0006
[url=http://www.MatHaywardPhoto.com]www.MatHaywardPhoto.com[/url] ([url]http://www.MatHaywardPhoto.com[/url])
[url=http://www.MHWildlife.com]www.MHWildlife.com[/url] ([url]http://www.MHWildlife.com[/url])
[url=http://www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com]www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com[/url] ([url]http://www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com[/url])
[url=http://www.facebook.com/mat.hayward]www.facebook.com/mat.hayward[/url] ([url]http://www.facebook.com/mat.hayward[/url])
Very NICE pics Matt! cool monochromes!
I agree with you 100%, although I can understand Joannes predicament. As far as Im concerned any forum and perhaps even more so, this forum, is full of members sharing experiences, sharing frustrations and the good and bad, etc.
Isnt it strange then that the ones complaining or pressing ignore buttons are often the ones which are totally anonymous and maybe in order to hide their small ports or whatever?
Ive always maintained and in many forums the rule is: dont like it, dont read it and if you cant take the heat?, then get out.
best.
-
Were/are you the Fotolia forum moderator? I find it hard to take criticism or anonymity seriously if it comes from someone linked to an organisation that likes to hunt out people's identities and punish them if they criticise it somewhere on the net. It's like NATO criticising Gadaffi's army for not coming out in the open so it can be blown up with the minimum inconvenience.
If someone wants to be a cheerleader for such an organisation, it is hardly surprising if he/she wants to publish his real name so his chums can see what a good job he is doing for them, is it?
A named cheerleader who might be looking for preferential treatment seems no more credible to me than an anonymous critic who wants to avoid persecution. In both cases there is the possibility of information being distorted to serve a hidden agenda.
I'm not aware of members hiding behind anonymity to "criticise the work of other photographers". Where are the threads launching attacks on the artistic ability of particular people? I can't remember any. Or do you count the owners of Fotolia as photographers and their slashing of artists' commissions as being their "work"?
2. Do you think less of the posts of people who are anonymous?
It's very difficult for me to take anyone seriously who isn't even willing to sign their name. It seems the anonymous feel empowered to provoke and make personal attacks. It's very difficult for me to respect that.
If you feel confident enough to criticize the work of other photographers it should be a requirement to show your own work. Some of the most vocal, controversial members of this forum I have very serious doubts about whether they have even one photograph available for sale at even one site.
Mat Hayward
Seattle, WA
425-422-0006
[url=http://www.MatHaywardPhoto.com]www.MatHaywardPhoto.com[/url] ([url]http://www.MatHaywardPhoto.com[/url])
[url=http://www.MHWildlife.com]www.MHWildlife.com[/url] ([url]http://www.MHWildlife.com[/url])
[url=http://www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com]www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com[/url] ([url]http://www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com[/url])
[url=http://www.facebook.com/mat.hayward]www.facebook.com/mat.hayward[/url] ([url]http://www.facebook.com/mat.hayward[/url])
-
See above, I'd like to keep my speech 'free'.
-
I am who I am. My name is Ed (really - it's Ed!)
I perceive this as a discussion on the street, or in a cafe, or at a conference. Just because we are on a computer, in different parts of the world, doesn't make a difference to me.
When you strike up a conversation on the street, do you ask people for their ID and a resume before you start talking about the weather, or the economy, or politics or any other random topic? When you talk about politics on the street, do you discredit them if they aren't a politition? When you talk about religion, do you discredit them because they aren't ordained? When you talk about the weather, and they haven't presented you with credentials as a meteorologist, do you tell them they don't know what they're talking about?
I don't - I take people's opinion at face value. I judge them (GASP - someone judging someone else) by what they have to say and how they say it.
That's why you won't find links to my portfolio or my website. Some folks here know who I am and others don't. That's fine with me.
-
For me it is pretty simple, I don't really want an internet search on my name to lead to a bunch of forum posts rather than my portfolio or other more relevant content... As for trust - it is the internet, there is no way to know if anything I post is really linked with my claimed name, if my portfolio that is linked is really mine, etc. You have to evaluate comments at face value anyways. If someone links to a stunning portfolio, are you suddenly going to take their advice on how to run your business? I tend to make posts where I can add fact or information, rather than commenting on other people's business or portofolio. I'm not here enough to become known, so what is the point of giving my name? It isn't a secret either, though :)
-
Whenever you are endangered of facing possible bad consequences or punishmentes by (in our case) stock companies there occurs an psychological effect which is called "SELF CENSORSHIP".
This means that, in order to protect your name, your reputation or your accounts from getting blocked because of critizizing a Agency (yes, taht happened in the past!) you are tempted not to say what you want to say but ONLY tos ay what does not get you in trouble. This is a well defined psychological symptom and everyone can observe that.
The result is that it is much less likely that the powerful parties in a game, even if their actions are questionable, get less attacked and therefore more powerful.
Anonymity is protecting free speech.
Sure there are lots of anomymous accounts that talk bu*****it. But from my point of view I value all post depending on their content. A real name account may lose credibility because he is tempted to say only what he thinks people want to hear. An anonymous account may lose credibility because he can claim anything without prove. It doesn`t matter. The argument is what counts.
-
I choose to use my "artist name" (I use this name already when I was a teenager)
it's a combination of my initials KC and pronounce in a American way: Kaycee .
My real full name is very hard to use on the Internet because with the search engines around, they only find santa claus if you know what I mean.
-
I was harassed by another member
shank ainīt here anymore ;D
It was not him, but someone who is just as two-faced and/or schizophrenic. ;)
-
Thank you for some concise and thoughtful answers from both sides of the aisle.
I rarely post about sales or statistics. I don't give advice or share my knowledge of the nuances of the microstock business, as I have very little. I have a microscopic portfolio and and I am a part-part-timer.
However, I will post about my human experience, as it relates to this business. No matter the size of your port or the sales that you have achieved I think that one should always be able to comment and express an honest, non-baiting, opinion without being shut-down by some who come right out and tell you, "you are small potatoes, your opinion holds no weight". I think that is elitism and just plain rude. You can disagree with me and tell me why, but being a small-timer is not a good enough reason, IMO.
I read voraciously the posts of those who have been around forever and are making a living in this crazy business. I roll my eyes at the trolls, but even trolls have a place, as I feel their roles are to keep my perspectives in check, and to not behave like them.
Hope some more folks post on this topic.
I really enjoy this forum, there is often some real debate here and without censorship, and I like reading it. Keep it coming.
-
I would never hide behind an anonymous mask, it is alway me - GRP ;D
-
Generally I stay anonymous to avoid retaliation from agencies. I would never have posted the list of partner sites if the agencies knew who I was as there is no telling how they would have responded. http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/a-list-of-partner-programs/
Also there is a trend for some here and in the IS forums to judge the value of a comment by the size and content of the commenters portfolio, rather than the comment itself. Sure depending on the topic, portfolio might provide useful insight, but in the balance I think it provides very little of value and it frequently side-tracks an otherwise useful thread.
The downside is no referrals. When I went independent, I used referral links found here from posters who shared useful info as a way to give back to them.
-
.
-
I see anonymity as a valuable tool here. It is the best way to get honest opinions. I post as myself, but have, on occasion, posted anonymously too.
Considering JoAnn's and Pseudonymous' experiences of being banned from a site and stalked by a site admin (respectively) it is perfectly reasonable to want to protect oneself when posting an opinion that is critical of the agencies.
Most folks here aren't that anonymous anyway. After awhile it is pretty easy to figure out who the regular posters are.
I choose to use my "artist name" (I use this name already when I was a teenager)
it's a combination of my initials KC and pronounce in a American way: Kaycee .
My real full name is very hard to use on the Internet because with the search engines around, they only find santa claus if you know what I mean.
Oh my! Seriously?!! That's your name? Cool! I though it was bad having a common name like "Lisa Young", but you have me beat :D
-
Thank you for adding validity to one of my points regarding personal attacks by cowardly anonymous posters Mr. Trousers.
I have one question for you. Say we were at a Photoshop seminar in Las Vegas and we were introduced to each other by a mutual friend. You knew who I was but I didn't know you. Do you suppose you would talk to/about me in the same way with that the mutual acquaintance that introduced us? If not, then you sir (or ma'am) are a coward.
I would say 95% of the most interesting and important threads in this forum get derailed by anonymous posters looking to stir the pot or make themselves feel important. It can be very frustrating.
Mat
Were/are you the Fotolia forum moderator? I find it hard to take criticism or anonymity seriously if it comes from someone linked to an organisation that likes to hunt out people's identities and punish them if they criticise it somewhere on the net. It's like NATO criticising Gadaffi's army for not coming out in the open so it can be blown up with the minimum inconvenience.
If someone wants to be a cheerleader for such an organisation, it is hardly surprising if he/she wants to publish his real name so his chums can see what a good job he is doing for them, is it?
A named cheerleader who might be looking for preferential treatment seems no more credible to me than an anonymous critic who wants to avoid persecution. In both cases there is the possibility of information being distorted to serve a hidden agenda.
I'm not aware of members hiding behind anonymity to "criticise the work of other photographers". Where are the threads launching attacks on the artistic ability of particular people? I can't remember any. Or do you count the owners of Fotolia as photographers and their slashing of artists' commissions as being their "work"?
2. Do you think less of the posts of people who are anonymous?
It's very difficult for me to take anyone seriously who isn't even willing to sign their name. It seems the anonymous feel empowered to provoke and make personal attacks. It's very difficult for me to respect that.
If you feel confident enough to criticize the work of other photographers it should be a requirement to show your own work. Some of the most vocal, controversial members of this forum I have very serious doubts about whether they have even one photograph available for sale at even one site.
Mat Hayward
Seattle, WA
425-422-0006
[url=http://www.MatHaywardPhoto.com]www.MatHaywardPhoto.com[/url] ([url]http://www.MatHaywardPhoto.com[/url])
[url=http://www.MHWildlife.com]www.MHWildlife.com[/url] ([url]http://www.MHWildlife.com[/url])
[url=http://www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com]www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com[/url] ([url]http://www.HaywardPhoto.blogspot.com[/url])
[url=http://www.facebook.com/mat.hayward]www.facebook.com/mat.hayward[/url] ([url]http://www.facebook.com/mat.hayward[/url])
-
I think this might be a good moment to thank Leaf for maintaining this forum and allowing free speech...even if there might be a lot of rant and criticism every now and then ;-) Finally, it is a good place to get independent and uncensored opinions on the market (don`t try this at istocks forum hahaha).
-
@Matt,
I think any disrespect, Matt, was aimed at FT, not you personally. Most who have dealt with that agency understand this.
-
.
-
I think this might be a good moment to thank Leaf for maintaining this forum and allowing free speech...even if there might be a lot of rant and criticism every now and then ;-) Finally, it is a good place to get independent and uncensored opinions on the market (don`t try this at istocks forum hahaha).
+1 I read MSG every morning like normal people read the newspaper. Great forum.
-
I'm semi-anonymous here, i.e. my user name isn't my real name, but if anyone cared, they can easily find out who I am.
Before I started iStock it seemed most contributors (that frequented the forums) had 'silly' usernames (this has changed since then) and I thought it was required, so thought one up as I registered. My name here is a variation.
Not having my real name here means someone in another context searching my name won't find it here (which I hadn't thought about until I read it earlier in this thread).
I am anonymous on the Alamy forum, as there are so many micro haters there. If they know you're a microstocker, particiularly iStock, they gang up on you (so what?), and sometimes refuse to answer your questions even if you've been helpful in previous posts . As I'm anonymous there, it hasn't happened to me, but I've seen it happen to others.
(Don't bother trying to guess. I changed computer and forgot all my passwords, and haven't posted on there for weeks.)
-
I don't care if they have a portfolio of 200,000 or just 100. What difference does it make to the validity of an opinion?
Really? I think that it makes a great difference in the validity of an opinion. Are you telling me that you hold the anonymous poster with a portfolio of 17 poorly composed, improperly lit photos in the same regard as a photographer like Yuri? I'm not talking about their qualities as a human being. I'm talking about the validity of their opinion on a subject related to photography and the Microstock industry.
What if that anonymous poster spoke the truth in his posts. Something like...."I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording. This system sucks!" compared to an actual photographer that has a genuine vested interest in the success of the microstock industry.
If that is the case then you have a truly open mind. Me? I guess I'm a pessimist by default then. By default I assume the anonymous poster falls in the category of contributor that has invested little or no time or money in this industry.
Mat
-
What if that anonymous poster spoke the truth in his posts. Something like...."I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording. This system sucks!" compared to an actual photographer that has a genuine vested interest in the success of the microstock industry.
If that is the case then you have a truly open mind. Me? I guess I'm a pessimist by default then. By default I assume the anonymous poster falls in the category of contributor that has invested little or no time or money in this industry.
Mat
That assumption may appear logical, but I know several of the anonymous posters identities and they are top tier sellers who have been doing this for quite a few years.
Any poster who says something like: "I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording. This system sucks!" is clearly an idiot. Doesn't matter if they are posting anonymously or under a scan of their driver's license.
Same thing goes for posts that are reasonable, knowledgeable, and make total sense. Whether I know who the poster is or not, I can judge their veracity based on the logic (or lack) of what they are saying.
-
Why must someone who is anonymous have to invested little into his photography? Many people have stated in this thread very valid reasons why they do not use their real names, it doesn't make their opinions less valued. You either agree with someones point of view or you don't it really shouldn't have anything to do with by what name they sign into the forum. A bit naive I think....
Druid (no its not my real name, could be my religion though)
-
What if that anonymous poster spoke the truth in his posts. Something like...."I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording. This system sucks!" compared to an actual photographer that has a genuine vested interest in the success of the microstock industry.
If that is the case then you have a truly open mind. Me? I guess I'm a pessimist by default then. By default I assume the anonymous poster falls in the category of contributor that has invested little or no time or money in this industry.
Mat
That assumption may appear logical, but I know several of the anonymous posters identities and they are top tier sellers who have been doing this for quite a few years.
Any poster who says something like: "I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording. This system sucks!" is clearly an idiot. Doesn't matter if they are posting anonymously or under a scan of their driver's license.
Same thing goes for posts that are reasonable, knowledgeable, and make total sense. Whether I know who the poster is or not, I can judge their veracity based on the logic (or lack) of what they are saying.
Totally agree , Lisafx ( whoever you are ;) )
As for Matt Hayward, I notice he sidestepped the points made by Joanne about FT.
-
What if that anonymous poster spoke the truth in his posts. Something like...."I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording. This system sucks!" compared to an actual photographer that has a genuine vested interest in the success of the microstock industry.
If that is the case then you have a truly open mind. Me? I guess I'm a pessimist by default then. By default I assume the anonymous poster falls in the category of contributor that has invested little or no time or money in this industry.
Mat
That assumption may appear logical, but I know several of the anonymous posters identities and they are top tier sellers who have been doing this for quite a few years.
Any poster who says something like: "I've invested nearly a hundred dollars in camera gear and spent nearly 5 full hours shooting, editing, uploading and keywording. This system sucks!" is clearly an idiot. Doesn't matter if they are posting anonymously or under a scan of their driver's license.
Same thing goes for posts that are reasonable, knowledgeable, and make total sense. Whether I know who the poster is or not, I can judge their veracity based on the logic (or lack) of what they are saying.
Totally agree , Lisafx ( whoever you are ;) )
As for Matt Hayward, I notice he sidestepped the points made by Joanne about FT.
I have no interest in going there. It isn't my place to do so.
Mat
-
I have no interest in going there. It isn't my place to do so.
Mat
If you were anonymous you could. ;D ;D ;D
-
Really? I think that it makes a great difference in the validity of an opinion. Are you telling me that you hold the anonymous poster with a portfolio of 17 poorly composed, improperly lit photos in the same regard as a photographer like Yuri?
Mat
If they were anonymous, how would you know which category they fell into?
-
Really? I think that it makes a great difference in the validity of an opinion. Are you telling me that you hold the anonymous poster with a portfolio of 17 poorly composed, improperly lit photos in the same regard as a photographer like Yuri?
Mat
If they were anonymous, how would you know which category they fell into?
I don't think the OP said anything like that. Are you taking "spin" lessons from Achilles? ;D
-
This is just an internet forum, not a condominium association. There's no need for anyone's real identity to be known. The culture of an internet forum (going all the way back to Usenet in the 80s) is that the content of your posts - standing on their own - determines whether you'll be taken seriously. We all know that some of the people running microstock agencies are just a bit goofy, tempermental and petty, and we'd like to be able to post negative opinions of those businesses without having some dweeb like "lobo" (whoever he actually is) run down the hall and tell his buddy in IT to "stiff this guy" in the search rankings.
Sure, it would be fun to post a link to the fabulous photos on my web site and bask in the glow of praise; but I guess I'd rather just continue to be able to post my unvarnished thoughts and opinions and risk the Ignore buttons of my peers.
-
So, Mat, you are hiding behind your name.
If I give my name and Fotolia throws me out as a result, will you pledge to close your account there in solidarity with me? If not, you have no right to whinge about people remaining anonymous.
Were I to meet you and you presented the same case against anonymity, I would indeed point out the holes in your argument.
Now, instead of putting on your "I've been insulted by an anonymous person" hat, how about giving a sensible response to the genuine arguments I raised against your position. Or can't you answer them?
And I will say I have no idea whether or not you feel you will benefit from posting in favour of Fotolia here.
Did you feel able to criticise the appalling cut in commissions Fotolia recently imposed, or the equally dreadful deceit over the commission payments being collected as one currency and the "percentage" being paid out on another? I assume you are disgusted by these things. Can you tell us that you are?
-
Really? I think that it makes a great difference in the validity of an opinion. Are you telling me that you hold the anonymous poster with a portfolio of 17 poorly composed, improperly lit photos in the same regard as a photographer like Yuri?
Mat
If they were anonymous, how would you know which category they fell into?
I don't think the OP said anything like that. Are you taking "spin" lessons from Achilles? ;D
My reply to the OP is above. That one was a reply to Mat.
-
Those of us with smaller ports may not want to risk the "tsk tsk" of those who think that only the big guys have valid opinions. If we don't have images everywhere we can only spout our wisdom about the sites where we do but might ask questions about those where we don't. We might offer info we run across on the industry in general.
We might be buyers, we might be reviewers, we might be keymasters, we might be designers or webmasters or even site admins. Perhaps we lurk, pop in now and then to say something if we feel strongly about it. We hide in the bushes and only jump out if the prey is slow, tasty and worth hunting down.
Catherine Deneuve said, "I like being famous when it's convenient for me and completely anonymous when it's not."
-
there are anonymous and anonymous, I really donīt mind about them unless they donīt enter here attacking everywhere and talking bs without assuming who they are, thatīs just coward.. on the other hand there a few anonymous here that I have been reading and agreeing for a little while so I donīt find that weird, if I have the curiousity to know? sure I do!
when I want really to find out I can get there (not contacting other members) but googling and some are quite easy to track, the last one that I have found was aeonf, nothing against him but the continuous desire of him to know everybody income got me curious, sometimes I do read comments of that person and they have holes which we can sneak in, never lost a lot of time doing it but surely a lot of the anonymous can be found.. but I have no problem with them when they have a consistent speech and things that I found familiar from own experiences
the other thing that Bladricks talked is a very important subject too, sometimes it is a lot better to talk "bad" about agencies without showing who we are, had my own learning (not that I wanted to be there) but because of a topic about CC I got kicked out after saying they were dead (2 sales in 2 years)
-
Really? I think that it makes a great difference in the validity of an opinion. Are you telling me that you hold the anonymous poster with a portfolio of 17 poorly composed, improperly lit photos in the same regard as a photographer like Yuri?
Mat
If they were anonymous, how would you know which category they fell into?
I don't think the OP said anything like that. Are you taking "spin" lessons from Achilles? ;D
My reply to the OP is above. That one was a reply to Mat.
Sorry, Sue. I didn't want to be confusing. The part I was responding to was What Mat Said. I highlighted it in bold.
Long series of quotes always confuse me. I'm old, you know. I would change to being anonymous but might forget my name. ;D
-
I have no interest in going there. It isn't my place to do so.
Mat
If you were anonymous you could. ;D ;D ;D
LOL! Brilliant!
-
I would never hide behind an anonymous mask, it is alway me - GRP ;D
Does GRP stand for Genuine Real Person? :)
LOL :D :D :D
-
I really don't mine anonymity when people are jusr looking for protection against eventual retaliation, but it does get a nuisance when people use that to play in the forum.
-
As much as I love to talk about myself I find it interesting that I am singled out here. I am expressing my opinion just like the rest of you. That being said Mr. or Mrs. Trousers I will respond to your friendly post.....
are you the Fotolia forum moderator?
Yes. I am a contributing photographer that helps moderate the forum. I am not an employee of Fotolia. This has been discussed to death in this forum and others.
I find it hard to take criticism or anonymity seriously if it comes from someone linked to an organisation that likes to hunt out people's identities and punish them if they criticise it somewhere on the net.
"Likes to hunt out peoples identities and punish them." ? Hmmm..again, not gonna go there.
It's like NATO criticising Gadaffi's army for not coming out in the open so it can be blown up with the minimum inconvenience.
Really? I think you are overestimating the importance of this discussion.
If someone wants to be a cheerleader for such an organisation, it is hardly surprising if he/she wants to publish his real name so his chums can see what a good job he is doing for them, is it?
I didn't realize I was a cheerleader. As I mentioned, I am a contributing photographer with a strongly vested interest in the success of this industry. I publish my real name because I don't say anything in this forum or another that I wouldn't say on the record either in person or online. In my opinion, as discussed I think it lacks integrity to provide a sort of false bravado if you will when hiding behind the cloak of anonymity on the internet. I can assure you that if you spoke directly with every employee of Fotolia past or present you would not find one person that says I pointed out anything I have said or done in this forum or another and asked for praise or acknowledgment of any kind. If I had to guess there are more times than others because of my perceived relationship they would probably prefer me to simply shut . up. For that matter, my wife feels the same way about me sometimes. Heck, so does pretty much everyone I've ever met....hard to imagine eh?
A named cheerleader who might be looking for preferential treatment seems no more credible to me than an anonymous critic who wants to avoid persecution. In both cases there is the possibility of information being distorted to serve a hidden agenda.
To me, I perceive this personal. A classic example of anonymous posting false bravado. Preferential treatment has always been thrown at me in an accusatory tone. I can assure you that I have not and do not receive preferential treatment at Fotolia. Take a look at my portfolio. Pick a random photo or a hundred of them. Then, go to the database and search for them. Tell me about my preferential treatment after you do this please.
I'm not aware of members hiding behind anonymity to "criticise the work of other photographers". Where are the threads launching attacks on the artistic ability of particular people? I can't remember any.
You are right, I was generalizing and I don't have a specific link in mind to back my statement. I stand corrected.
Or do you count the owners of Fotolia as photographers and their slashing of artists' commissions as being their "work"?
Oh brother.
Does that make it all better for you now? Everyone is clearly entitled to their opinion. It just so happens to turn out in this case that mine is right and yours is wrong. :)
Have a great day!
-
.
-
Anyway, the above scenario doesn't matter because this person is anononymous. I won't know how many is his port and I won't know if they're poorly composed or not. This person may have submitted 17 beautiful shots of which 17 were approved. They might be not be new to photography but new to microstock. They may be new to it all but still have some good advice. They may have had advice given to them by someone else and are sharing it here. They may have read something interesting somewhere that I missed. They may have had an experience with an agent that concerns me in some way. The number of images in their port should have no impact on the words they wrote. If they come here offering good advice that makes sense or throws us some suggestion that we haven't heard before, should we disregard it and not think about it just because we don't know the number of images in their port? Does the number of images in his port make what he wrote any more or less valid? What he wrote is either valid or it isn't, it's either relevant or it isnt, it's either interesting or it isn't, it's either important or it isn't... it has no correlation to his port size... or the size of anything else ;)
You are right. That is a strong point and I agree.
This has <mostly> been an interesting debate and I think some of you have made your points well. I suppose having read all this I should chalk it up to a pet peeve rather than a legit beef for me.
I still think that it's bad manners to have a discussion/debate with someone and not be willing to at least sign your first name. That being said, in the grand scheme of things...who really cares?
Have a good one,
Mat
-
.
-
I still think that it's bad manners to have a discussion/debate with someone and not be willing to at least sign your first name. That being said, in the grand scheme of things...who really cares?
Have a good one,
Mat
If that's the worst example of bad manners you experience on the web, I'll be amazed. ;)
-
I still think that it's bad manners to have a discussion/debate with someone and not be willing to at least sign your first name. That being said, in the grand scheme of things...who really cares?
Mat
I go back to the point many have made here. Some agencies are petty and vindictive in how they deal with criticism. It is important to be able to discuss these agencies without the fear of some suck-up trying to win favor by ratting someone out. I think most people here base their judgments on what is written by the poster, not the portfolio. I don't judge others photography, and I have no idea, or interest, in what you shoot. I just think what you write is not correct. ( and, no, I'm not calling you a suck-up)
-
It's funny, but this whole discussion appears to revolve around something that's similar to the forums at iStock.
You've got some contributors with canisters of a certain color, and others with badges from "cage matches" and others who simply have a badge for being this or that. Everyone has brownie points for one reason or another.
In fact, for a time, they created classifications for contributors that were assigned based on a posting pattern - like a clown for those that joke. The system was scrapped because it did nothing but create silos amongst contributors.
Leaf provides for a way for folks to promote their portfolios by allowing people to create referral links to the micros - and that's terrific for those that want to participate but, based on what I'm reading here, a person may have a 20,000 image portfolio at a traditional agency (or series of agencies) and a 500 image portfolio at a micro and still be looked down upon because they haven't posted up a "referral link" and there are folks here that discount them about not knowing anything about the industry.
That's funny....ridiculous....but funny.
-
Why do I have to know someone to evaluate his argument? I usually don`t change my opinion with the person I talk to ;-)
Even more: I think objectivity is even stronger if you DONT know to whom you are listening or talking....
-
Why do I have to know someone to evaluate his argument? I usually don`t change my opinion with the person I talk to ;-)
Even more: I think objectivity is even stronger if you DONT know to whom you are listening or talking....
Lets see, you find an anonymous person, with no credentials or identity, on the Internet, to be objective material? ;D
-
Thanks for replying, Mat. I do appreciate it.
I'm not sure how you get to the "I'm right and you're wrong" conclusion straight after admitting that you were wrong to claim anonymous posters were ripping into the artistic merit of other people.
As for your "oh brother" line - well, after you firmly asserted that people were anonymously attacking other artists' work when, in fact, the anonymous attacks are on agencies, then the only rational interpretations are either that you are making completely unfounded statements or that you confuse agencies with artists. So, you see, false statements lead people to make false deductions. It rather seems that you think I am being biased against you and irrationally nasty, when the reality is that I just went where you took me (so it's all your fault ;) .... err, just to avoid confusion, please take that comment in the lighthearted way that is intended).
You apparently failed to understand that my Libya reference was allegorical. The point was that if you stand up, come out in the open and speak freely and honestly about things concerning Fotolia, you are very likely to be severely punished. Yet you want people to stand up and come out into the open. Given your close association with Fotolia, don't you think it is inevitable that people are going to suspect this is an effort to flush dissidents out of the undergrowth? (And I'm quite rude enough to say that face to face, too).
This is all the more so because as I understand it your unpaid role at Fotolia - a role you must relish or you wouldn't do it for nothing - appears to involve crushing dissent in the forums by gagging dissenters. I really don't understand why someone would want to do that without it being a job assigned to him by his employer but I fully accept your explanation that you are doing it because you want to, not to benefit from it.
Now, let us look at where you don't "want to go". You don't want to make any comment about Fotolia issuing threats against contributors for making honest comments in an independent forum. I notice that this is not a case of you denying it, you just don't want to talk about it, so I assume you know it is true. You apparently "don't want to go" as far as promising to act in solidarity with me if I reveal my name and Fotolia boots me out as a result. It also seems that you "don't want to go" to any condemnation of Fotolia for cutting commissions or for its deceitful behaviour over distorting the "percentages" it pays through currency-related sleight of hand.
Mat, I assume you are an ordinary, decent, guy who hates to see your colleagues having their earnings slashed so that a corporation can get richer, objects to companies using financial tricks to trick money out of people, and is disgusted when corporations use their financial clout to bully and silence the little guy.
So why don't you ever say that? Well, you can't, can you, because your friends might punish you if you did? So the price you pay for writing under your own name is that you can't be honest with us.
Perhaps I am wrong, though. Perhaps you think it is clever for agencies to squeeze, bully and trick contributing artists. Maybe you "don't want to go there" because you know you would be shredded by all the artists here who have seen their earnings cut. If you do like corporate bullies for some strange reason, then maybe you are trying to flush out anonymous dissenters for punishment. Who knows?
You see how it is, Mat? Because you have given your name, I can't know what you really think. Because I am anonymous, I can tell you precisely what I think. Which do you think is more honest and reliable?
You think I am a coward for not giving my name. I think you are a coward for giving your name but not telling us what you think. Come on, Mat - be brave! Go there! Go to all those thoughts and feelings that you bottle up because you've been too scared to have people associate them with your name. Tell us what you really think about these issues. Because if you daren't then you completely destroy your own case against anonymity.
-
People are way more cruel when using the keyboard rather than their voice, but it's even worse when they are allowed to flame other people and remain anonymous for the sake of free speech. One of the worst case scenarios or extreme examples are London's masked hoodies still rioting and looting the city under the false claim of protesting.
Here is a good reading as to why anonymous posts are bad:
How the internet created an age of rage - http://bit.ly/nl3dJV (http://bit.ly/nl3dJV)
-
Why do I have to know someone to evaluate his argument? I usually don`t change my opinion with the person I talk to ;-)
Even more: I think objectivity is even stronger if you DONT know to whom you are listening or talking....
Lets see, you find an anonymous person, with no credentials or identity, on the Internet, to be objective material? ;D
That's an interesting question. I would float the idea that the quality of information will be inversely proportional to the benefit the poster may gain from readers acting on it. The identity of the person providing it is far less relevant (and probably harder to determine) than the reason for them giving it. Internet identities are very unreliable and usually impossible to check. I would guess that information from an anonymous source is likely to be far more reliable than information from a source with a carefully constructed, apparently perfect, fake identity.
-
Well said. Jsnover's experience at Fotolia where she was banned from its forum and is not allowed to go back as a contributor had proven BT's points.
Thanks for replying, Mat. I do appreciate it.
I'm not sure how you get to the "I'm right and you're wrong" conclusion straight after admitting that you were wrong to claim anonymous posters were ripping into the artistic merit of other people.
As for your "oh brother" line - well, after you firmly asserted that people were anonymously attacking other artists' work when, in fact, the anonymous attacks are on agencies, then the only rational interpretations are either that you are making completely unfounded statements or that you confuse agencies with artists. So, you see, false statements lead people to make false deductions. It rather seems that you think I am being biased against you and irrationally nasty, when the reality is that I just went where you took me (so it's all your fault ;) .... err, just to avoid confusion, please take that comment in the lighthearted way that is intended).
You apparently failed to understand that my Libya reference was allegorical. The point was that if you stand up, come out in the open and speak freely and honestly about things concerning Fotolia, you are very likely to be severely punished. Yet you want people to stand up and come out into the open. Given your close association with Fotolia, don't you think it is inevitable that people are going to suspect this is an effort to flush dissidents out of the undergrowth? (And I'm quite rude enough to say that face to face, too).
This is all the more so because as I understand it your unpaid role at Fotolia - a role you must relish or you wouldn't do it for nothing - appears to involve crushing dissent in the forums by gagging dissenters. I really don't understand why someone would want to do that without it being a job assigned to him by his employer but I fully accept your explanation that you are doing it because you want to, not to benefit from it.
Now, let us look at where you don't "want to go". You don't want to make any comment about Fotolia issuing threats against contributors for making honest comments in an independent forum. I notice that this is not a case of you denying it, you just don't want to talk about it, so I assume you know it is true. You apparently "don't want to go" as far as promising to act in solidarity with me if I reveal my name and Fotolia boots me out as a result. It also seems that you "don't want to go" to any condemnation of Fotolia for cutting commissions or for its deceitful behaviour over distorting the "percentages" it pays through currency-related sleight of hand.
Mat, I assume you are an ordinary, decent, guy who hates to see your colleagues having their earnings slashed so that a corporation can get richer, objects to companies using financial tricks to trick money out of people, and is disgusted when corporations use their financial clout to bully and silence the little guy.
So why don't you ever say that? Well, you can't, can you, because your friends might punish you if you did? So the price you pay for writing under your own name is that you can't be honest with us.
Perhaps I am wrong, though. Perhaps you think it is clever for agencies to squeeze, bully and trick contributing artists. Maybe you "don't want to go there" because you know you would be shredded by all the artists here who have seen their earnings cut. If you do like corporate bullies for some strange reason, then maybe you are trying to flush out anonymous dissenters for punishment. Who knows?
You see how it is, Mat? Because you have given your name, I can't know what you really think. Because I am anonymous, I can tell you precisely what I think. Which do you think is more honest and reliable?
You think I am a coward for not giving my name. I think you are a coward for giving your name but not telling us what you think. Come on, Mat - be brave! Go there! Go to all those thoughts and feelings that you bottle up because you've been too scared to have people associate them with your name. Tell us what you really think about these issues. Because if you daren't then you completely destroy your own case against anonymity.
-
People are way more cruel when using the keyboard rather than their voice, but it's even worse when they are allowed to flame other people and remain anonymous for the sake of free speech. One of the worst case scenarios or extreme examples are London's masked hoodies still rioting and looting the city under the false claim of protesting.
Here is a good reading as to why anonymous posts are bad:
How the internet created an age of rage - [url]http://bit.ly/nl3dJV[/url] ([url]http://bit.ly/nl3dJV[/url])
Interesting article, Achilles. Of course, the exact opposite view to that of Wikileaks.
Schopenhauer's case rests on the assumption that a truthful writer will gain acclaim and a false one will suffer. But what about cases where truthfulness is punished and lies are rewarded? In that case, accountability (i.e. being named) encourages dishonesty and protects the guilty.
There is no "right answer" to this but it's worth noting that Fotolia's actions against people who spoke honestly under their own names have been directly responsible for some others here choosing to be anonymous.
-
I don't know the reasons behind their decision. The penalty might have been applied for something else than just words posted on the forum. Also, being public shouldn't be an excuse for a derogatory language. Extremely rude or messages full of vitriol trying to undermine one agency's reputation should be penalized. You can't use someone's efforts while spiting on his name and expecting him to not react.
Our policy has always been to be transparent and to work together with our contributors. If we have a bad approach in some case I expect us to be penalized, no matter if the users are anonymous or not. If you ban someone without a strong reason, you will be penalized.
There is no perfect solution, that's for sure. My point is that anonymous posts have way more disadvantages for the overall community. There may be an individual advantage but they don't work for the industry. I realize I'm a drop in the ocean, but I will continue not to visit this forum until this problem is taken care of.
-
I understand the wish to stay anonymous in order to avoid retribution for critical opinions... but for me it's more important to be able to stand by the things I say and have the courage to accept the consequences of them.
-
There is no perfect solution, that's for sure. My point is that anonymous posts have way more disadvantages for the overall community. There may be an individual advantage but they don't work for the industry. I realize I'm a drop in the ocean, but I will continue not to visit this forum until this problem is taken care of.
So, you're punishing your community members who are active here and who identify themselves by not interacting with them, for uncontrollable actions by others who wish to remain anonymous for whatever the reason?
-
.
-
Actually, I think the point about using your real name makes your posts Googlable by others is important. E.g. a future employer. You might like to think that doesn't happen, but I know directly and anecdotally that it does. So it's not that I'm looking for a future employer (at the moment!), but who knows who might Google you? It's not that I don't stand behind what I said, but of course, snippets on Google are all out of context, and the person probably doesn't read the whole forum to see the argument you were contributing to.
Of course, probably others with your name also post on the Internet. You'd think that therefore would be a poor way to judge people. But there has been at least one case where someone was refused exclusivity on iStock because someone else with the same name had pics on another site (accepted when checked properly).
-
@Pseudonymus: I explained you the reasons behind the SR-EL thing. Our forums are moderated because we are a business. That's why MSG has certain advantages over an agency's own forum. It's very unlikely buyers would come here to look for images. But if they visit our forums and find a contributor saying that the agency is irresponsible and unethical for selling a certain type of license that is bad business.
It is your own opinion, it's true but it all depends on how you put it. I have no issues with tons of posts criticizing one thing or the other as long as the tone stays in common sense language (and that means not affecting the business, your words were certainly not rude). Nobody is forcing you to participate in that license. It's not like we launched it yesterday, it's a 4-5 years old license and no customer criticized it. Just as contributors, they either choose it or not.
I sure threatened you to revoke your forum privileges if you continue to use that manner to express your feelings (it wasn't the first warning afair). It was my decision, good or bad, one can hold me responsible for that. I'll stand by it. You didn't get an anonymous email from CS with a warning, right?
@Slocke: It's my own decision where to go and post. I don't feel comfortable in a place where people wearing hoodies throw rocks at me. It's not something I signed up for. I came here because another member sent me a PM. I've always been and will remain responsive whatever the demands are. I can't monitor these forums anymore because it's simply too time consuming to separate the blunt or the veiled attacks from the honest people.
-
I don't feel comfortable in a place where people wearing hoodies throw rocks at me. It's not something I signed up for.
It seems that this quote from Achilles says it all about dealing with anonymous people on the internet. In the previous post attacking Matt, this pretty much describes the way I saw the conversation unfolding.
-
.
-
Achilles showing up here makes a pretty good argument for being anonymous. Too late for me; I'm already banned in the Dreamstime Forum. LOL
-
I think that the issue of intention is the critical one.
Certainly if someone's purpose in being anonymous is to simply cause damage then the intention behind their anonymity is clear enough, but I don't think all anonymous posters should be put in that box. To refer to Serbans analogy, precisely as all young people - even all young people in hoodies - shouldn't be assumed to be anarchists and out to destroy their communities. It's a case of the few spoiling things for everyone else.
Some of us just want to participate in the debate and protect our ports from plagiarism. That's my main reason for anonymity here.
-
@pseudonymus CS I meant Customer Support
@Warrenprice - you've been banned for attacking a user after reporting an image for bad keywords, prior to a previous warning for advertising competitor sites. Discouraging users to report spam is obviously not something we agree. Or should we also cope with users threatening people flagging an irrelevant image?
I don't want to hijack this thread, feel free to email me if you need any other clarifications.
-
@pseudonymus CS I meant Customer Support
@Warrenprice - you've been banned for attacking a user after reporting an image for bad keywords, prior to a previous warning for advertising competitor sites. Discouraging users to report spam is obviously not something we agree. Or should we also cope with users threatening people flagging an irrelevant image?
I don't want to hijack this thread, feel free to email me if you need any other clarifications.
Threatening? Just a minute there ... I came in to the conversation late and only posted when the person reporting keywords was outed for having spam in her own folder. Her excuse was ... "I have more than 5000 images. I don't have time to go thru all of them."
Then and only then did I jump in ... saying, " You found time to examine another person's portfolio but can't take care of your own? People in glass houses should not throw rocks."
You suggested an apology was needed.
I don't agree. And if you are offering an apology, I accept. ;D ;D ;D
I had already decided that posting in the forum only led to an increase in my blood pressure. I graciously accept the ban.
The point here is ... anonymity might be a good idea.
PS: A warning for advertising competitor sites???? I don't know anything about that. I think you are thinking of someone else???
-
WOW.
This discussion is making me not want to post at all anymore. Whether it would be anonymously or not.
Just because someone has a "real" identity doesn't mean that it prevents them from flinging nasty remarks around.
So whoever the poster may be (anonymous or not) they either treat their fellow forum buddies with respect or not - regardless of status.
It's the job of the moderators or forum owners to keep their sandbox clean if members are stepping over the line.
It has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity.
-
<snip> This is all the more so because as I understand it your unpaid role at Fotolia - a role you must relish or you wouldn't do it for nothing - appears to involve crushing dissent in the forums by gagging dissenters. I really don't understand why someone would want to do that without it being a job assigned to him by his employer but I fully accept your explanation that you are doing it because you want to, not to benefit from it.
Now, let us look at where you don't "want to go". You don't want to make any comment about Fotolia issuing threats against contributors for making honest comments in an independent forum. I notice that this is not a case of you denying it, you just don't want to talk about it, so I assume you know it is true. You apparently "don't want to go" as far as promising to act in solidarity with me if I reveal my name and Fotolia boots me out as a result. It also seems that you "don't want to go" to any condemnation of Fotolia for cutting commissions or for its deceitful behaviour over distorting the "percentages" it pays through currency-related sleight of hand.
Mat, I assume you are an ordinary, decent, guy who hates to see your colleagues having their earnings slashed so that a corporation can get richer, objects to companies using financial tricks to trick money out of people, and is disgusted when corporations use their financial clout to bully and silence the little guy.
So why don't you ever say that? Well, you can't, can you, because your friends might punish you if you did? So the price you pay for writing under your own name is that you can't be honest with us.
Perhaps I am wrong, though. Perhaps you think it is clever for agencies to squeeze, bully and trick contributing artists. Maybe you "don't want to go there" because you know you would be shredded by all the artists here who have seen their earnings cut. If you do like corporate bullies for some strange reason, then maybe you are trying to flush out anonymous dissenters for punishment. Who knows?
You see how it is, Mat? Because you have given your name, I can't know what you really think. Because I am anonymous, I can tell you precisely what I think. Which do you think is more honest and reliable?
You think I am a coward for not giving my name. I think you are a coward for giving your name but not telling us what you think. Come on, Mat - be brave! Go there! Go to all those thoughts and feelings that you bottle up because you've been too scared to have people associate them with your name. Tell us what you really think about these issues. Because if you daren't then you completely destroy your own case against anonymity.
Outstanding and well-constructed post BT.
-
.
-
I keep my identity unknown here because I was harassed by another member under a previous username where I was not anonymous.
Two questions:
1. If you care to share, why do you (if you do) keep your identity unknown?
2. Do you think less of the posts of people who are anonymous?
thanks
Nice load of excuses and fabrications why people are hiding their identity. Come on, there are forums all over that REQUIRE people to be real. Maybe not use their real name, but if you want to email or contact them, you can, and you can see who's really posting the messages.
There's a whole anonymous escape hatch for people posting anything they want, without risking their standing up for what they write. There's a whole big problem of spam and just what you pointed out, attacks, bullying, trolls and other issues that are solved by people being required to be real.
Is everyone so in fear of the terrible FT that they won't post the truth here? That's a sad situation, that artists are living in fear of the agencies that are supposed to represent us? That Sucks! No other way around it.
Now if someone was following you and bullying you, why not report them to the person running the site and if we were all real, then that person might think twice before being a PITA and harassing someone else? Right? But as anonymous people can post anything they want without any accountability. There's no reason to be anonymous on a friendly forum like thus, unless someone is being evasive, fabricating, hiding something or wants to avoid standing behind their words. That Simple.
There's the other side. And no I don't find people who are anonymous of any value, I discount what they say to a certain amount. Some are coming here from a site, trying to do some gentile spamming of the forums. "Oh I just found a wonderful site and I'm making money there." Yeah right and everyone else finds the site to be a dud and unresponsive. How's that? ;D
-
^^^Is RacePhoto your real name? ;D
-
^^^Is RacePhoto your real name? ;D
Of course not, but I have links and email and anyone who looks at the profile can contact me. That's the whole point. Yes, I'm a real person. ;D But you knew that, you've emailed me. LOL
Better yet, I started my Microstock accounts with my real name. I should have known better. I think Prancing Daffodil or Lilly of the Valley would be more mysterious and "mod". No I used my full real name. Oh well, so much for anonymous and hiding.
So tell me, why don't people want to stand behind what they write on forums? I don't get that? Yeah, I know, some days I'm an idiot and some days I'm a little too blunt, but at least people here know I'm just a grumpy old man, (someone once said, salty curmudgeon) and not some punk in Mom's garage, writing nastygrams? :o Oh yes, and I have a real name and real email if you want to write and tell me off.
Here's one for you... Tommy Hayden
(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg810/scaled.php?server=810&filename=tommyhayden.jpg&res=medium)
-
<snip>
Outstanding and well-constructed post BT.
Thanks, Gostwyck. Though "Reckless" seems to have considered it to be "an attack" on Mat and "throwing rocks" at him. Or perhaps he didn't like my reference to "cheerleaders" in the previous post, though a careful reading would show that was a general point, not one intended to target Mat in particular.
I suppose what one person sees as a detailed rebuttal of a position looks to another like a personal attack. I have no personal issues with Mat whatsoever. I don't recall ever having had anything to do with him in the past.
-
WOW.
This discussion is making me not want to post at all anymore. Whether it would be anonymously or not.
Just because someone has a "real" identity doesn't mean that it prevents them from flinging nasty remarks around.
So whoever the poster may be (anonymous or not) they either treat their fellow forum buddies with respect or not - regardless of status.
It's the job of the moderators or forum owners to keep their sandbox clean if members are stepping over the line.
It has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity.
at the risk of sounding like a power-hungry admin troll....
I think you are quite right in this post. Anonymous or not, there is no reason (although apparently it is more tempting) to get nasty. We should be able to post intelligently and respectfully. In retrospect I think I have let the language get out of hand in many cases and hope to do a better job at moderating in the future. I'm not talking about limiting conversation or limiting the debate of an idea or a change in a site - simply the use of the language used to express ones opinion. I don't think it adds to the conversation to use harsh or vulgar language. such posts can be expected to be removed and the user eventually banned (at least temporarily) if they continue.
-
.
-
I like a lot this forum but overall what do we "earn" in showing who we are? perhaps one or two persons we may talk and some respect from other
overall it is just screwing us.. I regret two major things since I started stock (just 2 years ago), every time I have asked a reviewer about a rejection and showing my identity here
-
Pseudonymous, I think it is quite simple: this is a place we use to monitor the changes that are going on that the sites often don't want us to talk about on their forums. Since all the "woo-yay" chat it welcome on the site forums, it is the other stuff that tends to come here. We are probably quite different from how we seem here if you were to meet us in person - or even on Facebook.
-
I've just made an interesting observation...
I've just realised that pretty much everyone in here is aggrevated about one thing or another. I come in here to give or receive advice and end up complaining or arguing about this policy, or that price, or this low commission or some other issue. Everyone here seems so uptight! Then I flip over to my Facebook peeps who are mostly artists and designers and everyone's relaxed, we joke, we enjoy sharing our work and promoting each other. We come across the odd problem and we discuss them like rational human beings. We swap witty banter and everyone's pretty chummy... not in the sucky DT forum sort of way but we've become real genuine online pals. Then I come back here and it's on for young and old again. The contrast is incredible. Why are microstockers so agro? Is this industry making us this way? I'm glad I have my Zazzle folks to balance things out for me. Sometimes I wonder what we look like to outsiders.... raging depressed lunatics!
I think I might have to turn anonymous... I mean really anonymous. It's getting to the point where I'm going to be embarrassed to be associated with you all but on the other side, your wisdom is valuable to me. It's a really dilemma!
Is there any chance we can lighten the f up?
I don't see what you are talking about. People here are discussing genuine issues concerning their business and/or livelihoods. Of course they are sometimes passionate about it. What you describe of your Facebook experience makes me even less likely to waste my time there. You can stick that on your little 'wall' with hugs and smileys if you want. I think I probably grew out of Facebook when I was about 12, several decades before it was invented.
-
.
-
I don't see what you are talking about. People here are discussing genuine issues concerning their business and/or livelihoods. Of course they are sometimes passionate about it. What you describe of your Facebook experience makes me even less likely to waste my time there. You can stick that on your little 'wall' with hugs and smileys if you want. I think I probably grew out of Facebook when I was about 12, several decades before it was invented.
+1
I'd rather have some passionate (and even rough) exchange of opinions here than the average Flickr post mentality:
"WOW. Love this image. The colors are so great. I wish I could be you."
BTW, we're having laughs here as well but also a bunch of people who take this very seriously because they make a living off of it. If business goes south you can expect some less entertaining discussions here.
-
.
-
.
-
It just makes me wonder.. if things are really that bad, why do we do it? But I know why. It's because we're slaves to our whim. We just don't want to be slaves to the agents.
I think this is it exactly. Most of us got into this because we love photography (or illustration, or both), and were just happy to make some extra cash doing it. But then it turned out to be really good money and some of us started relying on it. Now, when the sites lower our commissions or bury us in the back end of the searches, it hurts - both in the ego and in the wallet. Sure, we could always do something else, but I don't think I would find anything else as suited to my abilities or inclinations as stock.
-
There have also been times when the frustration here has turned into action that actually did change decisions one site or another was making. So it's not all hot air.
In addition, discussions here often clarify what is actually going on.
-
.
-
There have also been times when the frustration here has turned into action that actually did change decisions one site or another was making. So it's not all hot air.
That was in the past and I very seriously doubt it will happen again. The agencies seem to treat us increasingly worse as time goes by and as a consequence don't give a cr@p anymore about us. Remember all the hot air regarding FT's latest little trick cutting royalties - all the fuss and rage here and anywhere didn't change a thing. It's not going to happen anymore.
-
comparing a rioting mob with anonymity in a forum, I'm shaking my head in circles over this ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
There have also been times when the frustration here has turned into action that actually did change decisions one site or another was making. So it's not all hot air.
That was in the past and I very seriously doubt it will happen again. The agencies seem to treat us increasingly worse as time goes by and as a consequence don't give a cr@p anymore about us. Remember all the hot air regarding FT's latest little trick cutting royalties - all the fuss and rage here and anywhere didn't change a thing. It's not going to happen anymore.
Didn't Achilles just say today that he was going to allow someone to keep one account open because he didn't want to make DT a target by appearing to be harsh - even though nobody had actually argued for that?
-
There have also been times when the frustration here has turned into action that actually did change decisions one site or another was making. So it's not all hot air.
That was in the past and I very seriously doubt it will happen again. The agencies seem to treat us increasingly worse as time goes by and as a consequence don't give a cr@p anymore about us. Remember all the hot air regarding FT's latest little trick cutting royalties - all the fuss and rage here and anywhere didn't change a thing. It's not going to happen anymore.
Didn't Achilles just say today that he was going to allow someone to keep one account open because he didn't want to make DT a target by appearing to be harsh - even though nobody had actually argued for that?
This is a very particular case, involving only one contributor and it happened by the grace of Achilles the Mighty :). Also, is the case with Dreamstime, which showed to be one of the most contributor friendly agency. However, on a global basis, I am quite confident that none of our complains or actions will have any effect (anymore) over a decision of an agency that affect all contributors. Like royalties cut, for instance.
At this point, I only see Shutterstock and Dreamstime to be fair agencies, among all.
-
Photodune seems pretty open to conversation and critique
http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/)
-
Photodune seems pretty open to conversation and critique
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/[/url])
Sorry Tyler, I haven't included low/non - earners.
And as we know, there are a lot of the lower tiers agencies which show a certain degree of respect for contributors. Because they haven't got big, like FT or IS.
-
No I'm not talking about the personal side of Facebook... that's crap. I don't have one REAL friend on Facebook. I kicked them all out when I let business people in. It's not about smiley faces and hugs, it's about a group of people sharing the same interests supporting each other... promoting each other... actively doing stuff that leads to increased sales. Here it seems to be just whinging without achieving anything and therefore it's just a waste of time... for the most part. Sure there are some useful threads around where people offer good advice and together come up with solutions to help themselves, but these are rare.
I don't mind the whinging against agents if it means they'll listen and change their polices... but how often has that happened? Have you ever complained about an agent here and had a policy change that you disagree with reversed? If not, it's just a waste of time and you'll feel better hitting a punching bag than each other.
I still don't understand why you would want this place to be 'just like Facebook'. What would be the point of that when you already have FB? I presume you venture here precisely because FB does not fulfill all your needs. Anyway there's always been plenty of help and good advice for people here and, as others have pointed out, several changes have been made in the past as a result of discussions here. Can you provide any examples of what changes you and your chums at FB have generated?
-
I am so tired of FB, unless you are just with real friends, having a lot of photographers? I am so close to delete all of them, tired of sold 10 files on ss, sold 1 at ft and all that crap, I donīt understand why they keep on posting that, what a smart strategy to ruin their business.. not to mention the referral crap all over their posts just spamming and filling my view there.. maybe they think that us photographers/contributors will buy their stuff, cannot understand them really
-
Photodune seems pretty open to conversation and critique
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/[/url])
thatīs true but in the end will they hear us and perhaps raise the royalties? you guys, top contributors should really push them so they give a better deal
-
People are way more cruel when using the keyboard rather than their voice, but it's even worse when they are allowed to flame other people and remain anonymous for the sake of free speech. One of the worst case scenarios or extreme examples are London's masked hoodies still rioting and looting the city under the false claim of protesting.
If you really think that the rioters are in any way equivalent to posters being anonymous, you need to get some perspective. I like DT, the little swirly colors that give you more money are a great idea. I don't like that you try to get me to put 3 images into one shot, as though the buyers deserve an even better deal. And i detest the "keyword police" who are clueless. Do those opinions hold any more or any less validity based on who i am? Do those opinions constitute a "flame"? Am i only allowed to woo-yay in your world? As for saying "I will continue not to visit this forum until this problem is taken care of" , does that mean you demand that all posters have their real identity linked to their screen name or you won't come back? How arrogant. Don't let the door hit you on the way out....
-
Interesting discussion.
I used to take an active part in the iStock forums, partly because I thought the agency was actually listening to contributors. In the light of recent developments, I've come to doubt that's still so. In any case, an agency's forums are useless for getting a picture of the whole industry, so I've been lurking here at MSG for a while to see which way the wind's blowing.
But it never occurred to me to sign up anonymously. iStock, where I'm exclusive and earn 98% of my livelihood, seems to have no history of penalising contributors for their opinions (other than forum bans) but, since reading here about the Fotolia unpleasantness, it's dawned on me that any agency could turn that way at any time.
Other good points made here: it's true that writing under your own name imposes a degree of self-censorship, and not just because it discourages Tourette-style raving; and putting yourself out in public probably increases plagiarism of your stuff.
So I'll be thinking about this and may well choose to go anonymous. If I do ... bye. :)
-
Photodune seems pretty open to conversation and critique
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/[/url])
thatīs true but in the end will they hear us and perhaps raise the royalties? you guys, top contributors should really push them so they give a better deal
If you and other people hadn't submitted their content there, they would eventually offer a better deal.
Doesn't make sense to offer a better deal if people are happy to supply them. Rather prepare for cuts elsewhere.
If the top contributors could negotiate better terms, it doesn't mean that everybody else would get the same.
-
Photodune seems pretty open to conversation and critique
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/[/url])
Well, these guys can hardly ban anyone or retaliate in any way, because many people who have been critical simply don't want to do business with them.
-
.
-
Photodune seems pretty open to conversation and critique
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/photodune/photodune-in-open-beta/[/url])
Well, these guys can hardly ban anyone or retaliate in any way, because many people who have been critical simply don't want to do business with them.
I wasn't referring to banning, I was referring to being open to listening to contributors opinion.
-
Why remain anonymous?
For one, everything you write is broadcast for the world to see, permanently. This isn't a closed forum or a direct email to someone. It's reply-all to millions of people. It doesn't take much for your employer, school, or whoever to Google your name and get a glimpse into your life. And whoever happens to have leverage over you may not agree with your opinion could take offense to your thoughts. I was actually almost fired from a job because of my personal website. It was a misunderstanding and I kept my job but it was a pretty grueling experience and big lesson learned. Everything you write is broadcast to the world.
If you're independent you may have less to worry about. A lot of us are better off not giving fuel to someone who's looking to burn us.
-
so true PW, one of these days will be ano too, not that I have much to lose (loose for lagereek) but I wanna say bad things about agencies :)
-
I cant STAND anonymity!!!!!
-
Why remain anonymous?
For one, everything you write is broadcast for the world to see, permanently. This isn't a closed forum or a direct email to someone. It's reply-all to millions of people. It doesn't take much for your employer, school, or whoever to Google your name and get a glimpse into your life. And whoever happens to have leverage over you may not agree with your opinion could take offense to your thoughts. I was actually almost fired from a job because of my personal website. It was a misunderstanding and I kept my job but it was a pretty grueling experience and big lesson learned. Everything you write is broadcast to the world.
If you're independent you may have less to worry about. A lot of us are better off not giving fuel to someone who's looking to burn us.
You mean you aren't the REAL Paulie Walnuts! I am so disappointed!
;D
-
@pseudonymus CS I meant Customer Support
@Warrenprice - you've been banned for attacking a user after reporting an image for bad keywords, prior to a previous warning for advertising competitor sites. Discouraging users to report spam is obviously not something we agree. Or should we also cope with users threatening people flagging an irrelevant image?
I don't want to hijack this thread, feel free to email me if you need any other clarifications.
I wonder if this will have a negative effect on my chances of being the "Featured Contributor?"
::) 8)
-
Why remain anonymous?
For one, everything you write is broadcast for the world to see, permanently. This isn't a closed forum or a direct email to someone. It's reply-all to millions of people. It doesn't take much for your employer, school, or whoever to Google your name and get a glimpse into your life. And whoever happens to have leverage over you may not agree with your opinion could take offense to your thoughts. I was actually almost fired from a job because of my personal website. It was a misunderstanding and I kept my job but it was a pretty grueling experience and big lesson learned. Everything you write is broadcast to the world.
If you're independent you may have less to worry about. A lot of us are better off not giving fuel to someone who's looking to burn us.
You mean you aren't the REAL Paulie Walnuts! I am so disappointed!
;D
*, I blew my cover. ;D
-
I cant STAND anonymity!!!!!
Fear of competition? :)
-
Normally a person's login name is not their actual name anyway. A photographer may use a different login name here than on their microstock site for privacy, and it does not really diminish what they have to say. Actually it may let you avoid listening the "company line". I think it is best to judge their message by its contents, rather than what kind of pictures they take, or what they want their stock sites admins to hear. The posturing is really irritating.
-
It's funny.. I've been accused of hiding behind a screen name on another forum, even though I open post my website URL in all of my profiles where anyone can find my full name, location, email, and phone number.
I don't really worry about my shared opinions here having any negative impact on me with regard to the agencies. I'm often openly critical of a few, but I try to be respectful in how I voice my criticisms of agencies and so far it's worked for me.
-
Normally a person's login name is not their actual name anyway. A photographer may use a different login name here than on their microstock site for privacy, and it does not really diminish what they have to say. Actually it may let you avoid listening the "company line". I think it is best to judge their message by its contents, rather than what kind of pictures they take, or what they want their stock sites admins to hear. The posturing is really irritating.
If they are anonymous we can't see their photos, they may have none? You would take the word of someone about a subject, where you are trying to earn money, without any credentials? We don't know if they are a shill for an agency or someone who just wants to make one agency look bad because they had a bad personal experience. How's that for why people shouldn't hide and should stand behind their messages. I don't mind pseudonyms or catchy names, it's when people are anonymous so they can badger and troll that it gets a little irritating.
All six of me agree with this... ;)