Quote from: lisafx on August 27, 2012, 23:53

Quote from: djpadavona on August 23, 2012, 03:21

That's absolutely weird. A search for "palm tree" on our site yields a reasonable result. We did some customization work last year...maybe that is the difference?

Must be.  I had my search customized, along with some other things, by the talented programmer who helped me set up my site.  My site yields only shots with palm trees for that search, no quotes necessary.

Nice site, I see you're on Photostore V3. Unfortunately the V4 version search, at least the up front search option, doesn't have the functionality V3 had. The new "advanced search" is good, but I sure wish we still had the options for matching terms up front.

Quote from: lisafx on August 28, 2012, 00:05

Quote from: ICP on August 23, 2012, 16:00
You're right it doesn't take a million dollars to have a good search. Unfortunately I'm not a high level developer so I can't fix it, I need to wait for them to fix it.

Come on.  I am not a developer.  I have a piddly little site just to sell my own stuff.  I paid a programmer to customize everything for me.  The improved search functionality cost me (if I remember correctly) $100 - 4 hours at $25 each - to get installed.  The whole site, including the software, all the custom changes, including a batch editing software, cost me right under $1,000.  You don't have to be a developer, but if you aren't willing to put in a few hundred dollars to get your site up and running properly, how on earth can you be serious??

Would you share your developer's name with me? I would love to have a reliable developer ... especially at $25 per hour. Rates I'm getting are triple that and more.

So there seems to be a lot of talk about why we shouldn't join a new stock site.

How about some reasons why we should join a new site?

Maybe a sub topic here could be be: Everything is new at some point. How did the current smaller sites out there start up?

Quote from: jsnover on August 23, 2012, 17:23

Quote from: ICP on August 23, 2012, 16:50
...The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.

At bare minimum this site will always be our portfolio site where we sell our stuff. We're not going to shut it down. Repeat... we're not going to shut it down.

Will it be successful? We think so. What we have is time. If it takes a year or five or ten it makes no difference to us. We are the turtle in the race, we're slow but we won't stop...

We already have a site that fits this bill and that many of us uploaded to because the guy who started it - no big debts but we'll let it grow over time - had started a successful site, StockXpert, that got sold twice (Jupiter which was then swallowed by Getty) before it was shut down. It's a lovely site with decent features and search and other than for a few vector contributors who seem to be doing well, Stockfresh isn't producing after several years. You can read threads about it here, the most recent of which is here.

I completely understand the upload and wait idea, but there has to be some chance of it producing a reasonable income to make it worth the time to upload (and for large portfolios, 30 minutes is unlikely). I am sorry to be negative, but you asked for feedback, and having been around the dance floor a few times, those reasons don't seem to me to be compelling enough to upload.

I completely understand where you (and others) are coming from. This isn't going to be for everyone. It may or may not be successful. But remember, for all the hours we spend uploading to other agencies they've never once guaranteed success of our portfolios. Yet here we are, countless hours into them, myself included.

Sharpshot, Leaf

The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.

At bare minimum this site will always be our portfolio site where we sell our stuff. We're not going to shut it down. Repeat... we're not going to shut it down.

Will it be successful? We think so. What we have is time. If it takes a year or five or ten it makes no difference to us. We are the turtle in the race, we're slow but we won't stop.

We all agree that the software is no shutterstock. But the software does the job. Can it be better? Yes. Will it be better? Yes.

What is being asked of potential contributors? (At least the initial group.)
1. Sign up (when it's ready). (2 minutes.)
2. We give you an FTP link to upload as many images (with IPTC data) as you wish. (10 to 30 minutes depending on your connection speed.)
3. We upload your images into your account.
4. You do nothing ever agin if you choose not to.
5. (Very probably) Collect a little money from us over time. Possibly more than a 'little'.

You've spent 32 minutes.

We continue to market the site (slow but sure) and we continue adding our content. If you have good photos and vector you'll make money. How much is unknown but, comparatively, it''ll be a lot more per sale than what you're getting now in the "big 4".

Quote from: 9lives on August 23, 2012, 05:25
Are you on version 3.x or 4.0.9?  Version 3 includes the option for match all terms, version four does not. There is literally no way to do an "AND" search. Actually one of the things I really liked about ktools which prompted me to switch was the drop down option in V3 that let people choose to match all terms, any terms etc.  I wrongly assumed that would be included in V4.

I'm on V4.0.8 (haven't installed 4.0.9 yet). One of my points of contention with them when V4 came out was: It's version 4 (coming from version 3) and a new version of software doesn't go backwards in features and functionality. If you're going to change the software and drop features/functionality call it something new.

To repeat from another reply I made:  I also think they may have most (if not all) of the missing V3 items are slated for inclusion into V4 at some point. I don't know for sure but some of their employee posts make me think this is the case.

Quote from: djpadavona on August 23, 2012, 03:21

Quote from: leaf on August 21, 2012, 12:50

Quote from: jsnover on August 21, 2012, 12:38
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords

I wonder if that's a problem with the ktools search.  I have results for palm tree on my site too and I don't have any palm trees in my port.  I think the search looks for the search terms like this *tree* and *palm*

so if you have the keyword street then yep... there is a tree in there sTREEt - simply put, ktools needs a bit better search.

That's absolutely weird. A search for "palm tree" on our site yields a reasonable result. We did some customization work last year...maybe that is the difference?

I would prefer for it to work by assuming if I type Palm Tree I'm looking for Palm Tree first. So give me the most relevant results first then give me everything with palm and tree. That's the way it's done now everywhere.

Quote from: cthoman on August 23, 2012, 01:02

Quote from: 9lives on August 23, 2012, 00:32
The truth is ktools version 4 search engine does not work as it is.  When a buyer can go to any site you consider competition, type in palm trees (no quotes) and get palm trees, but on your site gets every image tagged tree, trees, etc you are clearly at a disadvantage.

Also it does not take a million dollars worth of development to have a search that works.  I've been working with a competing script to ktools that costs slightly less and has a normal search function that give the buyer images with all of the tags they searched for as it should.

Unfortunately I seem to be talking to myself when asking about this on the ktools forum and facebook page and it doesn't seem like other users are aware of this or as concerned as they should be. 

Apologies for jumping in off topic but this is a giant frustration for me at the moment!

Yeah, it's definitely one of those things I want to get updated. Although, it's not really a deal breaker for sales, since a lot of traffic comes in directly from Google. It's disappointing that it isn't better though.

I believe if enough noise is made about it they'll fix it. I also think they may have most (if not all) of the missing V3 items slated for inclusion into V4 at some point. I don't know for sure but some of their employee posts make me think this is the case.

Quote from: 9lives on August 23, 2012, 00:32
The truth is ktools version 4 search engine does not work as it is.  When a buyer can go to any site you consider competition, type in palm trees (no quotes) and get palm trees, but on your site gets every image tagged tree, trees, etc you are clearly at a disadvantage.

Also it does not take a million dollars worth of development to have a search that works.  I've been working with a competing script to ktools that costs slightly less and has a normal search function that give the buyer images with all of the tags they searched for as it should.

Unfortunately I seem to be talking to myself when asking about this on the ktools forum and facebook page and it doesn't seem like other users are aware of this or as concerned as they should be. 

Apologies for jumping in off topic but this is a giant frustration for me at the moment!

Yeah, V4 came out of the gate short of features which is no secret. The one thing I was waiting for was vector upload capability which it does allow for now. They're responsive to issues though and know what needs to be added. You're right it doesn't take a million dollars to have a good search. Unfortunately I'm not a high level developer so I can't fix it, I need to wait for them to fix it.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 22, 2012, 15:18

Quote from: ICP on August 22, 2012, 01:56
Disallowing any sort of spamming or "not so relevant" keywords will help the buyer.

So you plan to have keyword reviewers?
How will you find and recruit people with the necessary knowledge of everything that might appear in a Stock image? How much will that expertise cost?

Quote
I also plan to educate the buyers on the proper syntax for focussing and using the search engine.

1. Amazon is the online company I spend most money in and most regularly.
2. They don't (need to) 'educate' their buyers on any hypothetical 'proper' syntax. It mostly just 'works'.
Facts one and two are not unrelated.

In business you need to remember two things: the customer is always right and 'customer service'. [1]

You need to make your site work for buyers, not mould buyers to the way you want to do things. If half of the world call a tap a 'faucet', you'd better make sure faucet is keyworded on your tap images. That's where a CV is useful. Same as 'fall'. If you don't have a CV, Amercans searching for autumn pictures might find people falling. How would you deal with stemming?

[1]That without shafting your suppliers, of course.

Eventually, if all goes well, we plan on hiring/contracting people help as needed, reviewer(s) being part one of them.
We work in the design industry and know many people that are willing to help. We might even search here for help when the time comes.

Customer is #1 goes without saying if you plan on any level of success.

We will make advances in technology as we can/need to. We're not trying to mould buyers necessarily. Just help them best utilize our limited search engine.

I'll address sherlock's (digital666) conspiracy revelation. My partner (wife) started this thread no one ever said "Hi, my name is Mark and I'll be answering all your questions". When she was asked "are you Mark?" she said no without feeling it was necessary to explain.

We work in the same office together and share the workload. She got the "hey, let's see if we can get a little insight from the nice people at microstockgroup" task and, yes, we collaborate a bit. It is our company so I don't think it matters whose name is on the registrar for the domain and who is typing (Mark is now for the record).

That's all it is. Nothing sinister. It's all ICP.

Quote from: jsnover on August 22, 2012, 14:39

Quote from: ICP on August 21, 2012, 16:21

Quote from: jsnover on August 21, 2012, 12:38
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords

Actually, it's a matter of knowing the proper way to use a search engine. Search any site for Palm Tree and you'll get every image that has palm and tree in it. Do a search (with quotes) "Palm Tree" and you'll only get "palm tree" results.

Check out this site, http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax, and start utilizing search engines correctly...it'll save you lots of time wading through irrelevant results.

You should search for palm tree - no quotes - at Shutterstock, iStock, Google (look at images) and you will see relevant results at all of them. Check all the other stock web sites and you'll find the same thing.

Being rude and wrong is not a great combination

Sorry if this came across as rude. You are correct, most of the large companies address this through their search engines. Assuming what the visitor is looking for is palm tree and not palm 'or' tree they place what they think is the more relevant results up front. The further down the results you go in shutterstock, the more broad the results become.

Small (not million dollar) sites like ICP do not have revenue for this advanced search function (yet). I think it would be helpful to let people know a few of the basics of searching on not-so-advanced search engines.

Quote from: Digital66 on August 22, 2012, 02:16

Quote from: ICP on August 22, 2012, 01:11

Quote from: Digital66 on August 22, 2012, 01:00
Is this yours http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html   ?

One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency.  So, they will probably close your account if your site www.incolorphotos.com starts working as an agency.   

No. That's not me.

Do you still insist this is not you?:

INCOLORPHOTOS.COM
Registrant:  Mark Bernard
1309 35th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
US

Mark Bernard's portfolios:
Shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html
iStock: http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548

You are not being honest here.  And you expect people to trust you?

Hi, Digital66, Mark here. What's your real name and address? And why does it matter that the person working on this thread is not the same person listed as the registrar? I'm doing other things or would you feel better if it we me you were talking to? Don't forget to search all the other stock sites and report  back...thanks.

By the way... I'm checking out Warmpicture and it's also built on Ktools Photostore. Hopefully this will get me a little softer response from some of you... regarding Ktools anyway.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 22, 2012, 01:48

Quote from: ICP on August 22, 2012, 01:45
Photostore will suffice for now...

I know nothing abut Photostore, but 'suffice for now' generally either means it never gets changed, or size makes a change imperatie, with inevitable nightmare scenarios during the switch to a new system, which is almost like starting from scratch, except you have many times more files to deal with.

The system is open to change and when it needs to be updated I'll be working with developers to do what needs to be done. I think we can stay in front of it and avoid  any major system switches in the future. Judging by the feedback here, I'm not too concerned about the site running away from us (that was a tounge-in-cheek comment.)

Quote from: ShadySue on August 22, 2012, 01:45

Quote from: ICP on August 22, 2012, 01:26
I realize there's a lot more to it, but for starters wouldn't you control spam by requiring a short, concise keyword lists? Like iStock now does.

I'm not sure 50 is 'short and concise', and I see that certain contributors seem to think that 'up to 50' means 'you must use 50 even if it's an apple isolated on white'. I think I've gone up to 50 an absolute maximum of 20 times, and I really doubt if it's even 10.
The trouble without a CV is that you can't second guess what a potential buyer might search on. Sometimes I'm astounded at what people search for (i.e. the search terms they use) and wonder what on earth they wanted, or expected. And these are the 'big buyers', not Nadia Newsearch. E.g. one search I got was for 'Margaret'. H*ll, what did they want from that? (Plus on Alamy that would turn up all images from contributors named Margaret ...) I guess 'senior leg' must mean something, but what? Mis-spellings too: I had one for man ringing hand. I bet they wanted a man wringing his hands. I've actually seen quite a lot of mis-spellings in Alamy search reports, leading to some odd results, no doubt.
Would you have variant spellings, e.g. British English vs US English? What about languages - would you encourage people to keyword at least their most important words in several languages (more keyword checking) to encourage a global market, or are you only targetting customers who can search in English? How will you work it so that someone searching e.g. 'Wheat' won't get hit with photos depicting Wheat Street? How will you encourage contributors to be less parochial, e.g. not just keywording Robin, but being specific about whether they mean European, American or any of the less well known ones? That probably matters to potential buyers, but a remarkable number of micro contributors haven't a clue about anything outwith their own locality. Or they know they haven't a clue and list a whole load of e.g. fish species hoping to hit the right one, and sometimes none of them are correct.
These are just trivial examples. You'll no doubt know tons more yourself.

The last few uploads I saw to iStock kicked back a request to thin out the keywords. Which I think is a good idea...clear and concise makes for better keywords and search results.

Disallowing any sort of spamming or "not so relevant" keywords will help the buyer. I also plan to educate the buyers on the proper syntax for focussing and using the search engine.

Quote from: halfshag on August 22, 2012, 01:14
Here are some of my findings which I hope might be useful – written in a patronising form for the sake of speed

You won't be able to take a holiday for the first two years at least - and you won't want to.
You will need to keep expectations low and keep under the radar after launch whilst you learn how to run an agency.
You will really notice and appreciate the contributors putting in the time to help your project.
You won't be able to get behind test portfolios and their owners will be your most vocal critics.
You must have the full support of your immediate family, even if not directly involved they will have to make sacrifices too.

Above all you will need to enjoy your new job and you will only enjoy it if you can shape and control it - Ktools might not be up to the job in the longer term, that's just my opinion though.

I was up last night until 6AM due to someone in the southern hemisphere having a credit card issue which I needed to look into in case it turned out to be a wider site problem (which it wasn't thankfully & the customer got his image) - it will be your baby and you might have to skip sleep sometimes.

If no one here can talk you out of it then just do it, but I would consider writing your own code so you can deviate from the norm if you want to and when the time is right.

Good luck!

Yes, I am very familiar with all your points. Except the second, but I've been in and around the stock world long enough to (hopefully) have a good go at it.

I've had and moved on from three developers. I can't seem to find someone reliable. Photostore will suffice for now...

Quote from: Digital66 on August 22, 2012, 01:20

Quote from: ICP on August 22, 2012, 01:11

Quote from: Digital66 on August 22, 2012, 01:00
Is this yours http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html   ?

One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency.  So, they will probably close your account if your site www.incolorphotos.com starts working as an agency.   

No. That's not me.

Are you sure?   Images in your new website can be also found in the portfolio of Mark Bernard at http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html

Right. There is more than one of us in this. Hopefully more soon.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 22, 2012, 01:19

Quote from: ICP on August 22, 2012, 01:10

Quote from: ShadySue on August 22, 2012, 00:50

Quote from: ICP on August 22, 2012, 00:38
I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?

Better search; weed out spam; better search.

What would make for a better search?
"Weed out spam."

Do you mean better than everyone else's or better implementation of the search on my site?
Better than every one else's.
In theory, iStock's is currently best, but in practice, spamming trumps the best match, though BM2 was supposed to thwart spam.
Controlled vocabulary is really the way to go IMO, but I believe they're very expensive to buy in.

I realize there's a lot more to it, but for starters wouldn't you control spam by requiring a short, concise keyword lists? Like iStock now does.

Quote from: cclapper on August 22, 2012, 01:13

Quote from: ICP on August 22, 2012, 00:38
I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?

It makes me nervous having you ask people to upload their high rez images to you, and then have you ask US to tell you how to run your business. If I knew the answers to your questions on how to make a site successful, get buyers, etc. , I'd be doing my own and not contributing to yours.

I wish you a lot of luck on your venture. I'm one of those "sit back and see what happens first" kind of people.

Why would you be nervous? I can't steal your work. I'm not asking people to tell me how to run my business, I'm simply trying determine if anyone has some feedback regarding the shortcomings of the microstock agency world (and there does appear to be some shortcomings). I would like to not repeat other's mistakes...if at all possible.

Quote from: Digital66 on August 22, 2012, 01:00
Is this yours http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html   ?

One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency.  So, they will probably close your account if your site www.incolorphotos.com starts working as an agency.   

No. That's not me.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 22, 2012, 00:50

Quote from: ICP on August 22, 2012, 00:38
I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?

Better search; weed out spam; better search.

What would make for a better search?

Do you mean better than everyone else's or better implementation of the search on my site?

Quote from: sharpshot on August 22, 2012, 00:19

Quote from: ICP on August 22, 2012, 00:11
...Smile a little. We have it good. Most of us are making a living off taking pictures and drawing.

I think you've vastly overestimated the amount of money "most of us" make.  There's very few people making a living from this and it's getting harder every year.

If you are genuine, I still can't see the point when we already have Warmpicture doing virtually the same thing.  Why not work with Dan on that site?  It looks like there's very little money to be made with these sites at the moment and they aren't going to attract many buyers.  Having two similar ones paying all the fees and for marketing seems like a waste of resources.  I'll stick with Warmpicture unless you come up with something that has more appeal to buyers.

I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?

Now, can we get back to the questions I asked at the top of page 2?

Quote from: Digital66 on August 22, 2012, 00:05

Quote from: ICP on August 21, 2012, 01:35

Quote from: Mantis on August 21, 2012, 00:59
Do you have lots of money for marketing, like a couple million bucks?

No, not a couple million. Frankly, if I had a couple million I probably wouldn't be looking into starting another business venture.

I realize marketing is important and expensive. Do you have any thoughts on the marketing subject?

Well, after having read your posts, it's evident you are not a business person and this project has no future.   You are just trying to make some easy money.

OK, OK. I tried to respond to what I thought was a tounge-in-cheek message with another bit of tounge-in-cheek. I apologize for not coming across seriously enough in my first post, I was trying to be casually conversational. Can we move on and assume I am serious?