|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - flywing
101
« on: March 05, 2018, 12:52 »
Where are "a couple of photos" they referred to? I feel my time is wasted. Dpreview is now click bait?
DPreview aren't click bait they usually provide reasonable reviews
So you didn't know I was just being sarcastic? I thought everyone knew that they are the single most valuable source of info in the universe. They said the problem could be seen in a couple of photos and provided two links for each of them. I wanted to see what it looked like so I clicked but it led to the same whole gallery with a whole bunch of images.
102
« on: March 04, 2018, 12:06 »
Where are "a couple of photos" they referred to? I feel my time is wasted. Dpreview is now click bait?
103
« on: November 30, 2017, 13:24 »
I'm on a mac. The current version of Chrome (62.0.3202.94) takes quite a long time to load some web pages and has stutter scrolling problem in Google's image search. Very annoying.
No, I don't report the problem to them. It's a waste of time. I don't think they don't acknowledge the problems. It's likely that small to medium bugs like these will not be fixed.
Switched to Firefox Quantum (57.0). Problem solved.
104
« on: September 03, 2017, 12:03 »
Interesting to see that SS is still top dog.
Or uninteresting 
105
« on: July 19, 2017, 09:34 »
I agree with this article. https://www.microstockguru.com/editorial-or-commercial-license/"Editorial licenses are a legal loophole for the Agencies to sell a wider variety of content." "Stock footage and stock images sold with this license are rarely used by the news." just submit it as editorial if they won't accept it for commercial and let the customers decide.
106
« on: June 13, 2017, 10:56 »
It seems my sales are back to normal after the second BME last month. I think it's more because of customer's side than the algorithm. New month, new situation.
I don't believe in the capping. Last month I saw a guy reaching $10000 milestone in less time than reaching his $3000.
107
« on: June 02, 2017, 06:16 »
BME in downloads, 2nd BME in earnings.
108
« on: June 01, 2017, 18:44 »
On the esp page: My Account > Update personal information > Portfolio. 
109
« on: May 14, 2017, 11:37 »
The link still works for me.
110
« on: May 10, 2017, 12:01 »
111
« on: May 07, 2017, 11:14 »
It's about right for me. I mean the ratios of my earnings from SS, FT, iS. SS rating used to be as high as 100-120.
112
« on: April 28, 2017, 12:45 »
I like the photo but of course wouldn't buy it at that price. I don't get envious though. Obviously he is a very good photographer and, more importantly, very good at marketing, which is the more difficult part. Not many people are good at that. Don't tell me marketing yourself is easy.
113
« on: April 27, 2017, 10:00 »
At SS, my old good sellers are still on front pages. New files get a bit of boost. Old files with not so good sales get buried . Sometime I stopped uploading for a few months (creative block) but it did not affect the sales there at all.
114
« on: March 23, 2017, 17:57 »
The information here on MSG forum is very confusing: recommendations, not only in this thread, are very clear: stay away from iStock! Yet I see at the right hand side of my screen that they are still firmly ranked as no. 2 of the "big four". Apparently people are still making good money despite the low royalties. Note that the rating, whatever the number means, increased from 31.9 yesterday to 35 today which at least means that the list is active and kept up to date. As a newbie, why would one not want to contribute to the second best in the list? Unless the list is completely meaningless, I would know where to go....
That's a good question but for a different reason. I doubt the truthfulness of the poll, especially iStock. Everyone knows iStock had stopped releasing sale info between Dec 2015-Jan 2016. But in those two months, their rating climbed to about 40-ish, 42 perhaps. How could that be? Fotolia/Adobe is number 2 for me, after SS.
115
« on: February 26, 2017, 09:56 »
Hello,
longtime lurker here but I finally decided to post so I can share an idea. I actually emailed Shutterstock these ideas but I don't know if it will do any good. Here they are:
1. Prioritize placement for "serious" microstock photographers against "hobbyists" so that we can sustain income to run our businesses.
2. Prioritize files from local photographers to match with search queries from local regions. This way, images results may look more authentic, and keywords match the context of language in the region. (This may also keep the waves of images from Europe from dominating the American market)
what do you guys think?
For 2, nowadays, web sites are not done locally.
116
« on: February 23, 2017, 13:00 »
I have never been with them.
But there is something I don't understand: everyone says they are evil and nobody should work with them.
But then 8 threads out of 10 here (and the more popular ones) regard istock, suggesting that almost everyone uploads there
Or USED to upload there. I have an account there, just have stopped uploading for months now.
117
« on: February 23, 2017, 09:55 »
There are people making fun here. Apart from some well-known members here, we don't know if they are real and their intentions. Remember someone named gyllens  ?
118
« on: February 11, 2017, 20:27 »
Yes, SS is still #1 for me. I'm more curious about IS being #2. Since most people have been unable to check earnings since Dec last year. 
119
« on: February 06, 2017, 12:59 »
Yes, I've received it on Feb 3.
120
« on: January 14, 2017, 07:09 »
Well they don't appear right away, takes some time, a day or two. Sometimes they appear right away, then disappear and after some time they finally settle down on being visible.
That's probably the image has not yet been well distributed to all of the SS's storage system. Sometime you see it, sometime you don't.
121
« on: January 14, 2017, 06:57 »
Doesn't the similar section just look at similarity in terms of compositions and colors? That's why buyers must be getting a white-haired guy portrait instead of an actual witch. Sometimes an algorithm does a half-assed guess. It happens, deal with it.
All in all, I don't think a buggy similars functionality really hurts sales that much. Where one contrubutor loses sales, another contributor gains. If buyer demand stays the same, it's a zero sum game.
I think you're right about the behavior of the "Similar images". It's like Google's "Search by image" and I'm personally OK with its function. But I think it's not quite a zero sum game here. If the "Same artist" works right (as before), the images in the same series or same idea with different executions from the same artist will be readily seen by the buyer. And SS will get more chance of sale than the current design because those images are more related to the image the buyer initially clicked.
122
« on: January 12, 2017, 21:24 »
I edited my earlier post to note that I now see the stupid, broken, new-and-improved image page....
It seems "See all" is functioning as "Same artist" and vice versa. Looks like a bug and definitely should be fixed.
I checked a few images and I think it's just blindly using the first keyword alphabetically from the image shown when you click on "Same Artist". As that is most of the time not the keyword you searched in the first place, you get seemingly ridiculous results.
This bad behavior is made worse when you have one of the images where our multi-word keywords were split up by SS's ingestion process - some of my images have "bar" and "air" for the first word (it was towel bar and air duct before they mangled it)
This is just good for a giggle. There's an image that showed up as "similar" to one of mine - a photo illustration of a witch! I selected that image to see its supposed "Similars" and I'm not the only older white woman that Shutterstock considers to be a witch!! Don't suppose the guy or any of the other women think of themselves as witches either...
I meant the lower two buttons set: "Same artist" and "See all". I clicked the "See all" and I saw just my similar/same series images, nothing else. Clicking the "Same artist" and my most popular images showed up. It seems the "Same artist" and the "See all" buttons are switching each other's functions. Because if i remember it right, "Same artist" used to show similar/same series images and clicking the "See all" would jump to the artist's portfolio. Or maybe somehow they now think the "Same artist" should show the artist's most popular images and "See all" should show similar/same series images of the artist...
123
« on: January 12, 2017, 19:59 »
I edited my earlier post to note that I now see the stupid, broken, new-and-improved image page. I've done a screen grab of one of the images I included in this morning's example to show just how buyer-unfriendly this change in "Same artist" choices is.
For a sunny, summery picnic basket image you now get winter and remodeling thumbnails instead of things resembling the one you're looking at (click for full size)
It seems "See all" is functioning as "Same artist" and vice versa. Looks like a bug and definitely should be fixed.
124
« on: January 12, 2017, 17:10 »
Once I had a Photoshop-created business check image rejected by SS (Trademark or copyright infringement) although I designed all the layout myself. After removing the part containing the words "Security features included. Details on back." along with the accompanied pad lock icon and the registered trademark symbol (), I successfully resubmitted it to SS, FT, IS with the words "fictional bank" in the description.
125
« on: December 27, 2016, 18:54 »
Normal for newly-uploaded images and if you try refreshing the page enough times, you will likely see it loaded.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
