|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 79
1026
« on: October 16, 2015, 22:10 »
Indeed. Slander is the penalty of leadership. He's got a very bright future. But so do we, as individuals, if we focus our energy on improving our skills and avoid other distractions.
yes for sure, the internet encourage slander becuase it's difficult to charge anyone. in fact, some civilized countries don't do anything about slander either. i think only USA is where you can charge someone for slander. back to your penalty for leadership. i remember someone once said, when you have ppl slandering you or angry at you, you are doing something very right; no one is ever envious of a loser. the more successful you are, the more ppl hate you because there are more losers than winners.
1027
« on: October 16, 2015, 22:03 »
Vincent, as long as you're here can you possible change the ridiculous captcha routine that makes us jump through repetitive photo-identifying hoops whenever we try to log into our own accounts? That's a fairly new wrinkle at SS, and it's not especially appealing. Thanks! [/quote] +10 . i hate those capcha the first time. now the pictures are even more ridiculous. yknow, even banks do not use capcha, so how necessary is this for stock agency. no one uses capcha because they are hopelessly illegible. not one financial site uses this capcha thing. if it is that safe, banks , financial business,etc would use them.
1028
« on: October 15, 2015, 12:25 »
I don't dislike Yuri. He's a bellwether for our industry. I found the comments (and his responses) in his article on his site more insightful than his article. The only thing I don't like is that he feels bitter toward the MSG forum. I think there are a lot of folk that hide behind their keyboards writing nasty things that they would NEVER say to the person's face. 
that's true too... i agree. then again, if i were Yuri Arcurs , or as big as he is in microstock, i would say everything i feel ... against everyone on msg,etc and not give a r@ts ar$e what they think ... why??? simply because i am Yuri Arcurs. and that's exactly why you have to admire him , like or hate him, he wiped us all with his sales in microstock... and many hate him for that. as for me, i don't like or hate him, i just like the idea that someone actually could make that much money in microstock... and it wasn't me 
1029
« on: October 13, 2015, 18:32 »
He breaks more than a year of blog silence to do a "review" on Adobe for no particular reason? I'm guessing the Getty/IS marketing guys poked him to do it.
is adobe looking for more ppl to poke??? i can do it for ahem what clint eastwood did with his gun (for a few dollars). as they say $$$ talks and B$h*t walks but seriously, with ss this shamefully could give an eff with contributors of old days, i would definitely like to see a new hopeful that can be something like the old IS and old SS. i would drop ss in a second and move there . ... but i won't hold my breath . would anyone 
1030
« on: October 11, 2015, 07:54 »
without looking at the 10 you submitted , as SLocke asked, it's hard to be objective to sh*t on ss and side you. but as already shown by old timers like from the other threads whining or justified complaining, i can only say one of many things. 1) when i entered micro , many ppl incl lisafx, sjlocke, stacy newman,etc said, "if i had to do it today, i would not be so confident as when i joined IS, a long time back" (or something like that). that was in the days when ss was in the upper 90s close to 100% on the poll results on this page and IS was top contender and the others were quite good . today, dt is a joke, as with BigStock, etc... and IS,.. well, you know.. and ss is like the remake of history of IS before they eff-up. there is no more transparency in ss, and the review system is totally anal. lots of conflict of interest, if u ask me. so lastly , my explanation of why you got rejected big time is that most likely you got a reviewer who sees you as a big threat to be part of ss
as u would be taking a big chunk out of his/her pie.
if u submitted a real 10 of lousy laughable snapshots ... like the kind of stuff
you see sign-up/log in home page ie. capcha or that really out of focus pix of the lady with the black and white striped shirt holding the camera ..
i would bet you would pass the test with flying colours
1031
« on: October 05, 2015, 18:58 »
i think the keyword here is "breath"... as in don't hold your breath.
as stockastic, microstockphot,etc mentioned, after going public... the only thing that is certain , other than death, is that the shareholders will want more money for themselves and less money for us..
and yes, the only viable solution, other than Oringer buying back all the shares and declaring ss non-public, is for us to go indie .
there is really no way we can trust anyone anymore... after istock and ss...
as the rest is just not worth backing.
1032
« on: September 30, 2015, 12:10 »
1033
« on: September 25, 2015, 14:03 »
Backbone? us the contributors? Oh dear, well maybe some eight or nine years back we could afford the luxury of that thought. Things have changed my friend.
Today we are numbers, just numbers among millions of other numbers and if a member quits today he or she is replaced within five seconds. 
u r the wisest of all the ppl here!!! most of us live in a dream world thinking we r still the backbone, when in fact we are just the necessary part of that body part which is useful to everyone of us because every morning we have to use it to get rid of things our body don't need . you know which body part i mean. it's like the reality with telemarketing employees, or politics. i was just walking home last night and i notice a grafitti on a political ad, it read..."same old sh*t, just a different a$$hole!". well, that's what microstock is like the telemarketer agents who walk in to work all fullofsh*t screaming to the boss, "we want you to listen to us, or else..." and without a moment's thought, the boss gave them the "or else" ... and fills the empty call centre in a day with another bunch of eager beavers looking for employment.
1034
« on: September 23, 2015, 05:41 »
if you look at the home page of ss these days, you see what sort of crap acceptable picture you're supposed to submit if you wish to be a contributor. forget about the higfh quality noiseless fully in focused stuff you submit a long time ago to become approved as a contributor when you and i were younger and first joined ss.
this the focus is not it should be... because i cannot figure out where your focus is pic of the striped blouse lady holding a camera submitted by no doubt one of the mass-reject reviewers is the focus where all should be.
imagine, out of xxx millions of pictures, you put this on your opening page. that must say something , no???
it's liike i own a custom-made tuxedo or smoking business and i put a torn or badly tailored suit on my front door to attract customers to show this is the sort of work i do and they should pay me money for this kind of work.
1035
« on: September 20, 2015, 10:59 »
i can't say for others, but i defintely believe suspect capping in ss. you know it is when you get a large $80 single or say handful of 28 bucks singles at the beginning of the month. then almost like a curse, zero days suddenly appear. otoh, when you get a 100 bucks single sale on the last days of the month , this is when i cheer and go out and get me a 6 pack because i know i will get my regular sales next month without many zero day... that is until i hit another jackpot and then the rest of the month would be that pot we usually visit first thing in the morning  finally, if they are encouraging us to give them new stuff, i don't see any evidence either as most of my new stuff have been getting almost no dls at all for months.
1036
« on: September 20, 2015, 07:44 »
It's obvious that SS now has a front door, and a back door. An ordinary contributor has to go to the front door and pass inspection. Some people, however, are allowed to bring wheelbarrow loads of junk in the back door.
I shouldn't even care, because I don't submit microstock anymore. But this really sucks. Surely there's been some discussion on the SS forum about it?
but are you even surprised??? esp after ss went public??? even before that, think back to your younger days when you go to apply for places that have employees with a dynasty (ie. 3 generations of ppl overpaid underworked like the public services or unionized places) , surely these ppl must grow old and become shareholders of ss. now they also expect their go-for-nothing children to get a free lunch with ss, no???
1037
« on: September 15, 2015, 16:26 »
and as you can see on Google Streets, the building doesn't have an 8th floor
lol, that's funny... and sick at the same time; depending on how your brain works. for the ppl who put their full size work on flickr are the same in that their brains don't work like us stock photographers. in the early days i remember how many ppl who put copyrights and their own water mark on flickr were either told that it is "tacky" to have your watermark , or that flickr does not allow copyright embedded on photos or something like that (can't remember exactly ...) then again there are lots of flickr ppl who don't mind giving away their photos for free, and when told about microstock they would say it is an insult to them to be paid 30 cts. sort of that same logic that some girls would be insulted to be paid to take you home, but would not mind getting drunk and going home with you...after a couple of pints  it never made sense to me, but then again, i am not a sensible person i know this is going to enrage some of those politically correct ppl here, but i am not one to be politically correct either
1038
« on: September 04, 2015, 15:15 »
if you're a dog person, as much as ss is down in the dumps since they went public,
ss was a st bernard before that,
now a mutt.
but compared to dt, which is more like a corgi...
no, correction, an ant (which is i know not a canine, but i can't find any canine
the size of an ant from google)
1039
« on: September 03, 2015, 10:26 »
Just started a related thread, this could have something to do with it!
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/image-spam/msg430414/?topicseen#new
"Do a search for "luck sadly wink" on SS (just to bring up examples). Does SS ever pull people up for spamming or is it just happy to be able to claim to have a massive collection even though a huge chunk is the same images spamming the search results?"
good point. the shareholders cheer for that hype on xxx million inventory and x million a month new images. and most of it are what dreamstime would consider similars. one site encourage million similars another site reject any more than 2. maybe if we all delete what has zero dl from our port and then wait a month to upload as "new" , we can play their dirty game of boosting their hype of more million new images per month, week, day,... and maybe even get sales as the existing ones are as good as buried skeletons or (gusanos) worms by now
1040
« on: September 01, 2015, 11:36 »
you end up with a photo club, that's it.
same problem with co-op of painters, musicians,etc ... as many recording artists admit, they are artists not accountants or financial experts.
the thing is you still need financial experts to run a business. not the greedy ppl who go public and pander to the even more greedy shareholders who are never interested in growth...just quick roadkill and move on to the next sucker bait.
the ideal setup is an illusion too, unless you get someone who is truly like a ... um, i don't know, maybe like what sonny rollins used to be. he had his wife run the business, and this made sonny rollins a great success while being also a great jazz artist while the rest fall along the sidewalk with bad management.
ss is now in that bad management sidewalk position. but who knows, tomorrow oringer might wake up with a brain and buy back all the shares and dump the public idea.
then we get the old ss back . (but don't hold your breath)...
1041
« on: August 31, 2015, 14:25 »
SS is not the company it was. After going public the nickel and dime squad moved in and they seem to be turning the place upside down in order to please the shareholders. The otherwise so stable SS we have come to know/work with is fading.
plain language, I don't trust it anymore, seems to wobble its way through the days.
wa, my thoughts exactly. don't trust ss anymore for long-term as they brown nose shareholders who is not interested in growth, only vulture mentality of quick profit and carcass kill. oringer can do something incredible by buying back all the shares shorting and not only push the price down to make a final glory killing by having to replace the shares shorted, and also to announce ss is no longer public. this will resurrect confidence with contributors and i am sure they will be back to the close 100% ER we used to see with ss. until that happens, no one will hold their breath for ss. looking at your monthly earnings this past month(s) is enough to make you spit blood.
1042
« on: August 28, 2015, 20:33 »
If I were Him I would buy the company back asap and go Private again.
my thoughts exactly. he just might, after all his tongue must be already getting tired of licking the other major shareholders' you know what??? his going back private would be to his own sweet revenge having learnt a harsh lesson leaving a real bad taste in his mouth ...literally.
1043
« on: August 28, 2015, 13:04 »
If you want Harvard University campus why don't you search Harvard University campus. https://prime.500px.com/search/keywords=Harvard+University+campus Buyers are smart enough to figure that out, why can't you? A one word search is not a good test of a search. Many word search is much better. The search fails the most on IS. If it's not an exact match to all the words it returns, no results.
How does 500px have 50 million images?
not a good question to ask Havard graduates. real story here next... 1995 or around that, my family visited Boston to see Cheers and then went in to visit Harvard. we asked several of the geniuses there where Cambridge , not the University but the part of Boston area (Cambridge Street) where they had brazilian restaurants , Brazilian record shops,etc.. We got a blank stare from each of the brains. We later ask the guy cleaning trash and he told us it's not far, ... and we found it, not very far from Harvard. now, that (asking for direction to a place not far ) is a lot simpler than expecting a Harvard grad to use "search"
1044
« on: August 28, 2015, 12:30 »
There is still lots of money to be made in the traditional markets but the photographers there keep quiet about it and for obvious reasons. There are a couple of non public forums housing many of these photographers. Reading what some of these people are earning! oh boy, makes us all look poor.
yes, i have to agree with this . i just came out of a old boys photo club, where this fella just sold several of his 8 by 10 framed picture of rusty door and derelict like you find in the Bronz . price paid $450 per frame image. and you should see the size of the noise... golfballs compared to what ss would reject for noise. no, correct that, watermelons in noise. i casually asked the wife of the fella who bought those pictures, she said, it goes well with the mantel piece , and colour of our other rooms. not one word re the picture itself i think we are missing a market for sure. oh, i asked several of the members if they knew of shutterstock. they said they tried but they think they're stupid because they failed in their approval many times. i too was ashamed to say i am one of those who got approved first time round LMAO
1045
« on: August 28, 2015, 09:29 »
does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value
i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.
Books, music and movies (digital downloads).
Used to be a record store and video rental in every shopping center. It would cost $5 to rent a video for one day ($15 in today's money), and then they'd really jack you up if you took it back late. If you lost the movie, it would cost you $80.
If you wanted that new song, you'd have to spend $15 on a whole album, which had maybe three good songs and 8 bad ones. Now you can just buy the song you want for a buck or stream it via a Spotify sub.
which all comes down to that today, anybody can make movies, write books, take photos... whereas before, not everyone can make a record without an audition or get a movie part without going for a test shoot, or even write a book without finding a publisher. you would think it's because there's more of it around the supply and demand that decides whether we get paid less ... but then again, there's just as many suppliers to coffee and nicotine and alcohol even illegal drugs are supposed to be easier to get, (ie you can smell stench of marijuana and cigarettes and beer ..everywhere you go these days, so of course i assume it's easier to get)... ... but those things are much more expensive today. so the problem has to be the marketer / pusher / seller /... our agencies are the ones who f****d it up.
1046
« on: August 28, 2015, 05:51 »
I don't think that the poll results here during the lowest selling part of the year mean a lot, especially when our earnings will get slowly diluted with the huge number of new images on SS every week. Still don't see any real competition for SS with microstock. If they do try and take on Getty for the higher priced market, things could get interesting.
now that would be interesting. i was thinking about ss takin on getty on the higher priced mkt, but if they do, it would for sure bring back a lot of the old contributors ... and or new ones too... with less of the same old same old over stocked stuff. and of course, a tougher curatorship for that, hopefully but i don't know if ss has the stuff to take on getty... it would be like a cheapmotel taking on exps ac hotel side of the mktplace
1047
« on: August 27, 2015, 22:01 »
6 million of good stuff would be much better option (for everyone in business), than 60 million with most of it being crap.
but things are as they are, and not as it would be good to be...
i think you are right. if for those months of bickering by mass-rejection complainers were due to a message sent as "thanks but this is same old same old and you already have too much in your port", supported by good new approved pictures, it would be justified that ss is looking for new and better ideas. but no, the new stuff that went through were even less impressive and mostly boring work by both new and old . which goes to show they are just stockpiling for the sake of trying to impress shareholders like , as i said before, something that the owner of a dump rental bldg would try to sell off his problem riddled apartments by filling every apt with full vacancy sign. and looking at the short selling + the 85% earning rating on the right of this page, ss sure looks like an apartment bldg waiting to be sold to some unsuspecting buyer who will be stuck with lots of hidden repairs like leaking pipes waiting for a ceiling to cave in, and old plumbing long overdue to be replaced. OTOH going over to getty or fotolia with adobe is even worse or no better respectively, so really there is no alternative in sight. sure, some are saying, good... stop giving ss your new stuff so i get the sales and bigger piece of the pie. the only problem is there is not much pie left. does anyone actually report a large increase in sales compared to the past years???
1048
« on: August 27, 2015, 12:16 »
very unethical ppl aiming to make a lot of money from an over valued stock already in a free fall.
What percentage of people that short stocks make money from it? I think its much less than people think. I was never very good at it Some people use spread bets to short rather than sell a stock when they would have a big capital gains liability. Then the spread betting companies have to short the stock to cover their liability. So it often isn't the case that people shorting a stock want the company to fail or go broke and many of thiose that do are little more than gamblers that usually lose their money.
all in all, looking at the 85 % to the right of this page, and shorting , it proves ss made their greatest mistake by licking the shareholders shoes, instead of thinking of the contributors who made them top close to 100% many times in the past on this page to the right. now they know ss made their worst investment move by going public and all for greed. it will take alot of guts now for Oringer to say no to the shareholders and pull everything for the contributors to come back to bring them back up to 95% ER a hard lesson to learn , as they say, why f*ck it up when there is nothing wrong with the machine. and with ss go down the tube microstock too
1049
« on: August 26, 2015, 20:48 »
SSTK hit the top ten most shorted stocks on the NYSE a few days ago.
I didn't know that - that is a distinction I assume most companies would want to avoid. Now I'm glad I didn't buy any.
the only ppl who would want a stock to be shorted are those aiming for the company to fall or go broke so they make a big profit when they have to buy back the shares they borrowed from the brokers. so really, it is not in any company's interest to be top of short selling list, more like they are signing their own death warrant as the ppl are aiming to make a killing like vultures waiting for the carcasses. very unethical ppl aiming to make a lot of money from an over valued stock already in a free fall.
1050
« on: August 25, 2015, 15:59 »
As what i know Photography is art . Microstock is business.
Hence for some easy mathematical rule Microstock is not Photography
Hence the crisis of Microstock is not the crisis of Photography
+100 after all the veering and political incorrectness OT, i am glad someone is smart enough to let us know this. yes, it has nothing to do with the myth of making "useful" pictures of pretty girl with headsets, or men in suits shaking hands. it is definitely not art, and definitely nothing to do with knowledge in photography. it has everything to do with being lucky enough to be found in the search while no doubt a million other better shots are buried in page 100, 1001, etc whatever, it definitely will not have a Time-Life chapter printed in 2200 under Photography. but it could be found in a museam in 2200 under Cat Litter and toilet paper
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
