OK, much research later, I think I have got to the bottom of this. I was an early Lightroom user in version 1. In those days I added many of the basic keywords that we all start with - tree, flower, cat, washington, virginia, cloud, arizona etc. As Lightroom was enhanced through the versions, I upgraded and the database was converted as new functions were added. Somewhere along the way (I suspect between V1 and V2) Adobe must have enhanced the keyword tables to allow you to choose which keywords are exported. The initial ones in the database were set to "No." All new keywords appear to have the default of being exported. End result for me is that 3000 files are online with some of the most obvious keywords missing  :'(

Luckily, some sites pick up the words in the description and I probably put the obvious keywords there as well, but it is a bit of a bummer.

I've found a way to look at the underlying database in the Lightroom catalog and find which keywords are in this state. I've written a detailed post about how to do this if anyone thinks they have a similar issue:

http://www.backyardsilver.com/2012/02/strange-behavior-with-capitalized-keywords/

If you were a user of Lightroom 1, it may be worth checking this out.

Steve

Hi David

I did my test with one image. It appears that almost all issues are fixed. Graphic Leftovers failed because their FTP is down, same with Clipdealer.

The only one that appears to be set up correctly, but didn't distribute is Veer.

Steve

Wow - I've found the problem, but have no idea what the underlying cause was. If you double click on a keyword in the Keyword list in Lightroom there is a check box called "Include on Export." If this is not checked, then the particular keyword does not get exported when you save to metadata or export to a JPEG. Amazing thing is that the two I have found so far - Kauai and Washington make up a big set of my images...

I think I have a lot of work to do...

Steve

David

The working ones are:

SS, DT, BS, Canstock, Yay, Panther, Cutcaster, iSign, Zoonar, Most, Photodune

The ones that don't work are:

Crestock, Veer, Clipdealer, Fotolia, Scanstock, Deposit, 123, Stockfresh

Some of these I set up as FTP, but appear to be connecting fine in the Channels section, except for 123 that never seems to connect at all.

Graphic Leftovers didn't work but I think their FTP is down.

Steve

Steve

Yes, it looks fine - the main four sites have been distributed now.

Is there an upper limit on the number of channels I can have? I still have a range of sites (including Veer, Deposit Photos, StockFresh) that have never distributed even though they are apparently properly registered with those sites for FTP.

Steve

Good point - this reminded me to fill in the poll, and I realized that Alamy wasn't in the list of options, even though Panther and Zoonar (that sell at somewhat higher prices) are there. BTW - I know we have talked about Zoonar in the past, it did manage some sales last month. All of $31! Better than many of the smaller sites.

I'd vote to include Alamy in the list of sites.

Steve

I tried an experiment tonight with one image - it got uploaded to 12 sites (not 123RF, nor Fotolia, Veer and a host of other sites). I have asked this of support in the past - is there a limit to the number of channels you can upload to?

As I said before, I would really pay for this service, but we need to know what its limits are.

Steve

Hi David

Hope the trouble shooting is going well! Can you let us all know when you think this will be fixed. I have a large stack of images that I am holding back until it is clear which sites they will be distributed to.

Lightburner is one of the few services in microstock that I would definitely pay for. I upload to about 22 sites and having the ability to just send my files to one location and see them all distributed to all sites is a great service. If you could extend that to some video sites, it would be awesome. Have you thought about starting to charge for anything above the main 4 sites, perhaps and building up the support team? I, for one, would pay monthly for this service.

Steve

"which microstock site/sites is/are best to start for a beginner and WHY ?"

Interesting question. I've always recommended CanStock as the first site. Why? Because their reviews are very fast, they are pretty fair in terms of standards - they reject poor images, but they don't have the "too many images" problem that Dreamstime has. So you can get a good feel for whether you are putting forward the right sort of images pretty quickly on that site.

I've recommended that to all the buyers of my eBook (and a few friends as well) without any negative views so far.

Steve

Very good for me, although I am still in the growth phase. I've just written about it on my blog: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2012/01/annual-review-of-microstock-activities-in-2011/, but here are the overall numbers for the year:


I've focused on adding images during the year, and hopefully improving their quality and saleability, and have now passed the 2000 image point on Shutterstock. iStock still lags way behind because of restrictions on uploads. What is interesting is that my earnings per image per month has increased during the year - I like to think it is because I am taking better images, but it will be interesting to see if it continues:


New and smaller sites are still a bit of a gamble. Photodune has been good, Stockfresh not so good. Allyoucanstock shows promise. iSignstock (new to me) is pretty consistent. Crestock, Cutcaster, Zoonar are dead as far as I'm concerned.

Steve

You can change all your portfolio at once from 50%. Here are the instructions I got:

"You can change your settings for your pictures at: Contributor Portal -> Image Management -> Policy Management -> Edit existing images -> set all of my ... COMMISSION image to = 30%


The settings for the future will be posted here.
Contributor Portal -> Image Management -> Policy Management -> Default settings -> Newly uploaded images shall have following default settings -> commission (If you offer this image via PantherMedia
(or equally / more expensive) stockagencies, you will receive commission 50% If you commission also offer cheaper via stockagencies this image, please enter 30%) -..> 30% or 50%."

I had mine at 50% for a long time, but hardly seemed to sell anything. I always thought it was very strange that the commission we receive should depend on whether we sell elsewhere - so Panther sells them at whatever price they set, but pay us less if we have them selling on Shutterstock? I also get occasional small subscription sales from this site - what does that mean in terms of "expensive sites."

Anyway, I have changed all mine to 30% to see if that improves sales any.

Steve

I publish my earnings and the number of images I have online each month, but I've never really analyzed what was happening below the surface, and so I spent an hour or two going through the earnings for the top 10 sites (for me) and working out the earnings per image per month from those sites, and tracked how it changed through 2011. What is really interesting is that at both Shutterstock and iStock, the earnings per image have increased in Q3 and Q4 (two months in Q4). I can explain the iStock results - Photo+ seems to have made a big difference to me on that site. Shutterstock is more of a guess - perhaps the quality of my images has gone up, maybe I am uploading more saleable images - who knows! iSignStock has grown nicely as well in terms of earnings per image. Here is the graph - there are more details on the original blog post: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2011/12/earnings-per-image-what-can-you-make-from-each-photo/


At present, my total earnings are $0.75 per image per month. Of course I have no idea if that is good or bad, but I'll continue to track as the months roll by!

Steve