|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 58
1026
« on: July 13, 2012, 04:02 »
IS has now moved into third position, behind DT, for me. That's a first.
Completely different order of magnitude from you but DT with 420 images is in 5th place so far this month, IS with 28 images is 2nd behind SS
Sorry, I'm not trying to be offensive, but if you only have 28 images on Istock, your stats are pretty much meaningless in any discussion of sales trends on that site. However, they do say a lot about your portfolio on DT, if DT is your 5th place earner with 420 images and IStock still comes in second with only 28.
Like I said, not trying to be offensive, when I had only 28 images on Istock, I don't think I even had any monthly earnings. Of course, I was way past 28 by my second month there. You really can't see any trends until you have at least 300-500 images, IMO.
When someone says Im not trying to be offensive it usually means look, I can be offensive without even trying :-D Im sure that my humble efforts are totally insignificant compared to your (invisible) but, undoubtedly, huge port, replete with wonderfully creative and highly commercial images. Having said that, your conclusion is utter nonsense logically. Comparing MY performance at IS against MY performance at DT says nothing good, bad or indifferent about MY work only about relative performance on the sites.
1027
« on: July 12, 2012, 15:41 »
IS has now moved into third position, behind DT, for me. That's a first.
Completely different order of magnitude from you but DT with 420 images is in 5th place so far this month, IS with 28 images is 2nd behind SS
1028
« on: July 12, 2012, 15:34 »
1029
« on: July 12, 2012, 13:08 »
I see the word "first" I don't see "only" - whether there was a 2nd could be inferred either way..
1030
« on: July 12, 2012, 11:55 »
Obviously can't speak from experience so let's layer some assumptions on top of each other:
Assume relative earnings on the top right are accurate, then that as exclusive you double the number for IS and then that you get roughly the same number of images on the top 4, in the LONG term you should replace $120 with $100 + $60 + $40 + $30.
After that, there is a the extra work but also some safety net in case the basket holding all your eggs gets dropped.
1031
« on: July 09, 2012, 17:38 »
After months and months of zero rejections FT seems to randomly reject something. I couldn't complain about the amount of rejections but what is rejected is often much better than what has been accepted. IS will sometimes randomly accept something having previously rejected much better stuff. DT is a bit like FT except they do it more often. So far, SS appears most consistent in that, when they reject, it's the weaker ones get rejected.
1032
« on: July 09, 2012, 10:20 »
You buy an oufit for an interview but you don't get the job - what do you reckon the chances are that the store would give you a refund on that basis ? 
1033
« on: July 09, 2012, 09:34 »
From where I sit, using an image in a bid is commercial use - how could a refund be justified?
1034
« on: July 09, 2012, 08:10 »
This is a really irritating feature of IS and DT. On SS and even FT, the commissions are transparent and consistent so, for a certain size with a certain licence, you always get the same commission.
1035
« on: July 09, 2012, 08:03 »
Wanna know another weird one?
I have images waiting and yesterday morning the ETR was 21 hours last night it went to 20 hours and this morning it is down to 19!
What the hail type of clock are they using?
It's not a countdown but a (generally inaccurate) estimate at a point in time based on the length of the queue and when you submitted.
1036
« on: July 08, 2012, 05:26 »
There's a filter on the FT search - it does bring back plain backgrounds as well as true isolations and the odd "mistake". Still, it seems to work based on the image rather than keywords or categories and does a reasonably good job.
1037
« on: July 06, 2012, 17:52 »
I'm sure you'd worry if you had reason to think you weren't getting the correct royalty, though?
Again, therein lies the benefit - if you're on the lowest possible royalty, underpayment is very unlikely  . Of course, if sites were to just pay commission on every 2nd or 3rd DL that would be a different story.
1038
« on: July 06, 2012, 11:07 »
What worries me is if they cannot pay the correct royalties from back in January, how can we expect them to pay back royalties for contributors that have moved up a level?
They don't care. I queried a royalty adjustment, got the standard 'these were old credits' email from CR which was totally irrelevant; replied to point that out a couple of months ago, and never got a reply and my ticket has disappeared.
One of the benefits (may should say one of the benefit) of being bottom of the heap is I don't have to worry about that RC crap
1039
« on: July 04, 2012, 14:28 »
With Pete & a few others on this. People don't get fat because of the type of food they eat, they get fat because of the amount they eat. Quite partial to the occasional McD
1040
« on: June 27, 2012, 06:55 »
Unlike iStock, there's nothing to be learned from Fotolia rejections re. improving and re-submitting. Far too general and sometimes seeming quite illogical. Better to fugeddabout 'em and move on.
After a few months in the game is there anything that can be learned from rejections from anyone?
1041
« on: June 26, 2012, 10:55 »
The best way to avoid rejections is to stop submitting.
With you on that I don't get many rejections on SS, FT, DT, 123 because I just don't get many rejections there. I don't get many on IS because (and only because) I hardly ever submit.
1042
« on: June 25, 2012, 12:23 »
I had big plans for that 5c 
1043
« on: June 25, 2012, 04:35 »
Have to go back to March 2010 for fewer DLs at DT (only started late 2009) 
1044
« on: June 24, 2012, 18:05 »
You can see a summary of PP sales for each image by clicking on "partner program" under "my uploads" on the left of your profile page
1045
« on: June 23, 2012, 18:37 »
Witch hunt is a good analogy although I dont for a moment believe the OP intended for an entire port to be removed. Someone posted in another thread about how agencies don't care about affecting the livelihoods of contributors the way the mess around with best match this is manifestly true and they are so risk averse that they delete entire portfolios and accounts on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing so, like Salem, an accusation is enough. If the outcome of this type of post was removal of the images in question, possibly followed by a rigorous examination to see if anything else was amiss this would be proportionate. As it is, we should find more circumspect ways to make a point because outing someone could lead to removing a livelihood with no hint of due process.
Im not blind to the legal aspects of all this but does nobody else think is just a little ridiculous that a photo where someone happens to be wearing branded shoes is unacceptable but scans of public domain material are ok? Or folks getting all precious if someone else copies their idea of having a tomato isolated on white? I see a big future for nude photography because its getting to the point that any clothes will have copyright implications
1046
« on: June 22, 2012, 11:44 »
Got the below from IS. While, naturally, I'm over the moon about the $0.05 it looks like we have some bugs in the bug fix: They dropped my royalty rate - I'm at the absolute bottom of the royalty heap, nowhere to drop  in what universe is 5% of $1.06 = $0.02? Image ID 0018524378 ain't one of mine - some poor sod is seriously out of pocket Hello, Between January 1-4 a bug occurred which incorrectly dropped your royalty rate by one level, meaning you were paid 5% less on downloads during that period. We have run a script to identify downloads that should have been paid at the higher rate between Jan 1 and Jan 4, 2012. Your account has now been credited with the outstanding amounts. Below is a summary of affected downloads. FileID Amount Paid Correct Amount Difference Date ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0018524378 $01.04 $01.06 $00.02 1/30/2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0014920627 $00.66 $00.69 $00.03 1/2/2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Amount Paid: $0.05 If you have any further questions please contact Contributor Relations. Best Regards,
1047
« on: June 21, 2012, 16:48 »
You'll get the same answer click click gave - huge difference in the value of a credit depending on what was paid for it
1048
« on: June 21, 2012, 09:32 »
I would add that the original post is criticising IS for accepting the content - site's mistake not the contributors. No first hand experience but, from threads on this site, it seems that agencies shoot first and ask questions later (actually probably just a case of putting the contributor up against the wall without any questions). For that reason, highlighting possible copyright infringements in a public forum is something I personally wouldn't do.
1049
« on: June 21, 2012, 07:12 »
If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.
One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.
Prejudice. Think before you judge.
Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement
+1
1050
« on: June 19, 2012, 08:59 »
Seriously though! it just goes to show, any old crap and I mean crap, is accepted as long as its technically sound, isnt it? no wonder the micro is getting a reputation from bad to worse.
Blow up the image to 200% and hold up the yardstick and you could train monkeys to make a technical evaluation. Making a call on the marketability of the subject matter would require a degree of actual critical judgement
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
