|
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 - gbalex
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 ... 64
1351
« on: November 20, 2011, 12:55 »
This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls one salability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.m just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard.
This could not be more opposite my own experience. In nearly 5000 submissions I don't recall ever having had a LCV rejection. Very occasionally I get a rejection because they don't like where the focus is (if it is off-centre) but then I just shrink the image down a bit and it always passes next time around. The submission process at SS is also the easiest and most reliable of any agency I submit to. I find it utterly bizarre that anyone would describe them as 'most shameful'.
Gostwyck, if you judge based on your own experience you will miss a great deal. I can not stress enough that a segment of the SS population has very different review experience than your own and some of them produce very high end work far above the norm. Count your blessings that the SS reviewers for your port seem to be very lenient, others are not so fortunate!
1352
« on: November 17, 2011, 22:58 »
SS has in-house masseuses and free breakfasts.
No way... Really?
Well if that's true, I'd hope that SS would cut the perks if things got to the point where they needed to slow spending. Before they cut contributor rates. The real kick in the teeth of the istock cuts was they they made no internal cuts to save money and relied solely on contributors to absorb the cut-backs.
Yes Really http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml?nl=1&jvi=o46KVfwz,Job&jvs=Indeed&jvk=Job"Among other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401k, company equity, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships" http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml?nl=1&jvi=oIjWVfwC,Job&jvs=Indeed&jvk=Job"Search Engineer We have a lot of challenging problems ahead of us, including: Helping customers find the images theyre looking for as fast as possible. Providing recommendations based on a customers searches, social graph, and other factors. Developing a framework to support rapid development of dynamic ranking algorithms. Creating a massively parallelized and real-time indexing process. Tracking search analytics and automatically acting on the results.Our search engine is built on Perl and Solr. Ideally you will have previous experience working with Solr and programming in Java. Being a JVM or Perl guru is an added bonus. All candidates should have experience working on search engines and solving problems with large datasets."
1353
« on: November 17, 2011, 14:29 »
SS has been on a different trajectory from istock for a long time now, so I'd think they will remain so. When istock was wasting money on silly perks, swag, and an in-house masseuse, SS kept things simple and just offered simple services with no unnecessary junk. istock spent tons on "improvements" to the site that only caused more problems, while SS hasn't changed the site much at all over the years and everyone still loves it because it just works. SS adapts to changing standards (they were one of the first to accept EPS10 vector files) while istock remains the lone hold-out on EPS10. They just finished a big office renovation in their NYC headquarters, so that suggests the bank accounts are fairly healthy.
They're very different companies, on very different paths. That's not to say that someday SS might be in a very different position and change course, but right now it's hard to imagine them screwing themselves by screwing us. Right now, they're better than that.
SS has in-house masseuses and free breakfasts.
1354
« on: November 17, 2011, 12:44 »
Don't believe the hype! Every business has a botton line and that is to keep themselves sustainable once they are established. They will do what it takes to keep themselves sustainable. That's just business!
Who says that they are not already as "evil"? 
SS did a good job of spreading the subscription model to all the other sites. Also, they supposedly only pay about 30%. Those aren't necessarily things to brag about. There's things to like about SS (mostly money), but I don't really hold them as a shining model of what a micro site should be.
I agree with both of you on the points above. It does not make SS saints because they have the lucky opportunity of benefiting from IS's greed. If you are fortunate to be on one of SS's healthy servers sales are good. I think SS has a long way to go. To start they need to have consistent fair reviews and they need to do something about their mangled server and search engine problems. And I think most sites participate in their own version of best match disease to increase sales including SS. It looks to me like they are about to implode. SS continues with the patchworked and inadequate repairs; as the database, mangled search engine, best match disease and display problems grow . Does any of the previous show respect for the submitters? I think this post in a bug thread says it all, they are happy with a site that is running on 3 pistons and they are not too concerned with the previous problems if they are not affecting their own bottom line. As long as the income generated from our images is good for them, they are not upset if these bugs affect some but not all of its submitters. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114196&start=150Thanks for the updates.
We are looking into the duplicate images but this tends to be an issue that corrects itself. As far as we can see, it is not having any effect on the search experience but if you notice otherwise, please alert us and let us know which search term you're concerned about so that we can investigate further.
As for images missing from search, please continue to provide updates on this thread. Having a few extra eyes on the situation would be a great help.
That being said, we believe the fix we've put in place is beginning to show results. It appears that many files have returned to search.
Thanks! SS's coffers continue to grow and Jon and his staff are enjoying the $$$, yet when was the last time they gave submitters a raise?
1355
« on: November 04, 2011, 17:20 »
...Istock by allowing too many indies at the top of their best match seems to have to taken short term gain and now is experiencing long term pain....
I very much doubt that's the reason why buyers have left. I think buyers have left because there's too many different prices. They find what they want and its too expensive. The search changes all the time, nothing seems to be stable. They can filter by price now but it took too long to get that and they end up with just independents images that they can see much more of on the other sites. The upload limits and low commissions mean that the other sites have a lot more to offer from independents than istock.
"I think buyers have left because there's too many different prices." Especially when the quality for the different price points is non detectable, minor or even lower quality for higher priced images. "The search changes all the time, nothing seems to be stable." Absolutely and add to that the search breaking down constantly (to be fair would not know what it is like lately)"The upload limits and low commissions mean that the other sites have a lot more to offer from independents than istock." There is a flip side to this at sites like SS. With years of keyword spamming and thousands of low quality images to slog through; it takes too much time to wade through the volumes of images to secure the images that we need.
1356
« on: November 04, 2011, 17:13 »
re: iStock's search: iStock's search capabilities are amazing these days. despite the odd technical hiccups, which occur everywhere, iStock's search allows you just about any combination of parameters to find images you're searching for quickly at various price points. say what you will, but iStock's search is probably the best search in the business right now, the CV notwithstanding.
It might be 'amazing' but not every buyer has the time to take evening classes to work out to to use it or learn Istock's 'special language'.
IMHO, SS's search engine is vastly superior to IS's. It is much faster in producing results, adding filters, choosing orientation, etc. Most importantly it is totally intuitive, even for novice buyers. The buyer doesn't need to learn all about price sliders because all images cost the same.
Want to find images of a small obscure place or particular flora or fauna? You can do that on SS whilst IS will often either find zero results or automatically choose a more mainstream choice for you. How frustrating for both buyers and contributors alike.
If you sold through SS or DT, where you can see the keywords actually used by the buyer, you be 'amazed' just how many times an image is found using keywords that IS would simply not allow or cater for despite the word being appropriate. The CV is simply not flexible enough to allow buyers to quickly find what they want.
Anyway, it seems to me that the buyers are making it pretty clear where they prefer to do business. So far this month my earnings at SS are almost double those at IS. The gap is widening on a monthly basis.
"The CV is simply not flexible enough to allow buyers to quickly find what they want need." "Want to find images of a small obscure needed place or particular flora or fauna? You can do that on SS whilst IS will often either find zero results or automatically choose a more mainstream choice for you. How frustrating for both buyers and contributors alike." Bingo and to be honest SS needs to improve their search results.
1357
« on: November 04, 2011, 15:33 »
Thanks very much for posting this. Really summarizes the situation perfectly.
We contributors can hypothesize until we are blue in the face, but nothing makes the point as succinctly as an actual volume buyer willing to share their experience.
Really, I would jump through hoops and deal with all sorts of inconveniences if it meant saving a lot of money of for the exact same image form the exact same artist. I am sure I would get used to dealing with a little "less than optimal supplier" if the image is the same. Who cares about which discounter I have to go to. I have no advantage to buying at a higher price.
A good number of our buyers are are paid an hourly or monthly salary and have bosses who watch their productivity closely. The last thing those department heads or owners want to see is employees who spend unnecessary time searching for images. In regard to bottom line spending a bit more for an image is more cost effective for the company than paying hourly wages to employees who spend unproductive billable time online using cobbled up searches that return poor results for the project.
1358
« on: November 04, 2011, 11:53 »
...Istock by allowing too many indies at the top of their best match seems to have to taken short term gain and now is experiencing long term pain....
I very much doubt that's the reason why buyers have left. I think buyers have left because there's too many different prices. They find what they want and its too expensive. The search changes all the time, nothing seems to be stable. They can filter by price now but it took too long to get that and they end up with just independents images that they can see much more of on the other sites. The upload limits and low commissions mean that the other sites have a lot more to offer from independents than istock.
So the other sites compete on what exactly.... price... what else is there to compete on. If in the end the same image appears on my computer, then what does it matter on how many clicks it takes or what the portal looks like. It seems to me independents are competing against themselves solely on price and unless I am an new to earth that will have to be lower in the future.
Yes, that's the answer: price. While IS increased prices, all the others went to the subs formula, that's to say, lowered prices to almost nothing. I've never seen any micro agency daring to compete with istock with similar prices. There must be a reason for that. And, that said, I don't uderstand those who talk as if IS had loosed almost all their customers. While is true that earning are lower than last year, it's not so much lower (at least for me, it doesn't reach 15%), and another reason, invasion of exclusive studios (the YA kind) with hundreds of quality uploads a month play also a part in it.
We shop for images at sites that make it easy to find the product we need in the least amount of time. The money we make is very time dependent so wading through the mess at IS is counter productive and time consuming. We need what we need and NOT the images that will make them the most money.Most of our clients have room in their advertising budgets for a few less or more dollars. Search time is a deal killer, we decided to stop purchasing images at IS because of the business time squandered finding the images we needed for our projects as well as its abysmal lack of ethics and absence of concern for its customers and suppliers.
1359
« on: November 03, 2011, 10:13 »
You're winking .... but we're all coming. Soon.
I believe it. But you know what, as much as I hate the idea of more competition, I think this would be good for the industry. I've been saying for a while now that it would be good for the stock business if istock became a less significant player or went away completely, and that could happen quickly if they lose their exclusive advantage. My earnings may suffer a little due to an influx of images from former exclusives, but in the long run I think it's better for everyone if istock suffers.
Right now there's this mentality in the microstock world that if you follow istock's example you can jack up prices, grab more money from artists, and rake in more profits. It would send a powerful message to companies like Fotolia who seem keen on following istock's example if the istock strategy starts to cause the company to implode. These companies might change their philosophies if they see that the greedy practices of istock resulted in serious damage to the company.
I agree, Istock found out the hard way, how many of its contributors were linked to the buyer communities or were buyers themselves. It did not take long for sentiment on the buyer and submitter side to change and word to spread. It is a good wake up call for our communities as well, we are not so helpless as we believe ourselves to be. I do think there is room for higher pricing on premium product, however it has to be a win win for everyone involved.
1360
« on: November 02, 2011, 17:32 »
... I think they have the technology to manipulate this data easily with just a few senior people and an IT tech or two. It really is a question of trust, which I have very little of. Are they actually doing it? I've no idea.
I think the conspiracy theorists are granting Istock's development team with way too much credit. If they were trying to manipulate the search results for their own benefit we would know about it because the entire search facility would have been broken for weeks.
Sales have tanked because buyers are choosing to do their shopping elsewhere. Pretty much all the internet traffic indicators prove that to be the case. Considering how Istock have treated both their customers and their contributors over the last couple of years it would only be surprising if sales were not tanking. Istock miscalculated that their growth would carry on forever. Expensive mistake. Greed, impatience and lies have done for them. That's all there is to it and there is no probably route back to the 'good times'. The only question now is at what level will sales at Istock stabilise.
LOL Kinda like SS's Thanks for the laugh, you do have a point!
1361
« on: October 29, 2011, 18:07 »
sorry folks....but what happened tonight (european night) on istock ? my sales overnight are tanked ! about 80% less than a regular night
Not quite sure but I had a lot more sales for a Friday than normal. I think there is probably some localised best match testing going on - I had a similar experience on Monday night where sales just stopped for 8 hours durring part of the US daytime, but I couldn't see any change in the best match here.
I agree with you, I am sure IS is not only site using search algorithms fine tuned to localized markets based on ROI database datamining and I would not be at all surprised to see them manipulate search algorithms based on payout scales. The visible analytic's the sites use on the buyer side are getting fatter and more sophisticated every year!
1362
« on: October 22, 2011, 14:54 »
I am starting to abominate some folks, I am getting quite pissed about photographers telling that stock is this and that, come on, whats the difficult of getting some pictures online?? isolations, people?? zero, zero, zero! the hard part is to continue the supply while agencies they keep on screwing us, the problem aint producing the pictures, they dont have to be insanely good to get approved (just need to be average), tons of crap approved, isolations not done properly, backgrounds not cleaned, tons of white space, flat lighting, etc etc (and I am not talking about making big bucks, you can say that some upload a lot to earn just a few bucks etc but in the hand thats not even your business, what the heck do you guys know about others life, etc etc, you guys are just a bunch of bullys that wont go anywhere beside in your own head)
one day some say stock is art, other say stock aint art, stock is nothing, etc etc I really dont get some people in this industry but for sure they have something behind that ridiculous speech
this comment aint intended to you stockastic, you are just getting into a phase, it will go away, if you say you dont need help I do believe in that, I understand perfectly what you are saying, you, myself dont need workshops/books from the stock shooters that pretend to be in the top of the world, I love humble people maybe that why I get upset with some attitudes
We should be concerned about some of the changes the stock sites have been making. Ask yourself how your high earning graphics are doing at the top three. Has there been a drop for those of late. We should also be worried about what they are accepting and not accepting and why. We should be asking ourselves why the likes of Sandra and crowd are getting rejections for focus and LCV; while images are accepted every day at the much lower quality you so aptly described! By the way, I appreciate your ethical stance, enthusiasm and work ethic.
1363
« on: October 22, 2011, 08:43 »
Yes I noticed it also.
1364
« on: October 21, 2011, 11:53 »
This was posted by SS forumguru (admin) this morning:
"Hi all,
Thanks for the feedback. We're working on two different issues:
1. Images disappearing from search and affecting popular search results
2. Images disappearing from portfolios only
The first issue is nearly corrected and we should see the results of that very soon.
The second issue is more of an on-going bug that we are working on but it will take a bit more time to reverse that. But keep in mind that the second bug will not have any affect on search results, downloads or images appearing on any other part of the site other than your own portfolio."
Cross your fingers...
Nothing so nebulous as nearly. When will this programming change be fixed? When it has nearly killed all of the best sellers?
1365
« on: October 19, 2011, 09:32 »
Yes the saying is "don't bite the hand that feeds you" which doesn't apply since contributors actually feed the hand in this case. Sales are not going well at IS and the top 20 exclusives are noticing and reporting concerns which is my point. Which further puts the comment at odds with a normal response.
How ironic when you also consider how they treated contributors that were also buyers!
1366
« on: October 18, 2011, 18:34 »
Errr ... I think the sales banner you see are related to your browsing history. I mean, I never see these stock site adverts, just stuff about member enlargement and ladies in my area  
LOL
1367
« on: October 18, 2011, 17:29 »
signs do point to buyer migration as the cause.
I agree this may be some of the cause but I also see many lower category contributor reporting good sales, and it has been suggested they are favoured in the current best match. It would make sense, if sales are down, for istock and Getty to maximise profits by favoring people who are paid a lower commission, thus more money for IS.
Thanks for that info. I haven't been on the IS forums lately. Didn't know anyone (other than Aeonf just now) was doing well.
Makes sense that IS would be shuffling what sales there are to lower canisters. They've already proven they will do anything, including sabotaging their business, to save a few bucks in the short term.
I would not be at all surprised if many of the sites shuffled sales to newer contributors in the lower pay scales. We consistently see the recruitment banners everywhere; nytimes ,huffington post, the list goes on and on and must cost a fortune. You can not do a search for the micros these days without running into micro focused websites with training material sponsored by the various micro sites. Some of these site sponsored training web sites are becoming very focused with vids etc. The sites do everything they can to help us help the fresh unjaded new recruits along, just look at the SS critique area.
1368
« on: October 17, 2011, 17:48 »
I think the days of frank discussion on the net are numbered.
I agree.
know at least four people in micro who have their sites hacked recently and on one of them member information was compromised.
orvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/why-shoot-in-raw-format/[/url]
Hacking isn't necessary; you can just sue the operator of the forum. And if the forum operator openly declares that he records the identities of the posters - well that just makes it so much easier.
Here's what the American Bar Association says:
http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/blt9-eisenhofer.html
All you have to do to invite a lawsuit is post something that damages someone else's "reputation or good name".
As far as hacking goes I was thinking more in line with the use of email info and passwords etc. But yes you see more and more sites protecting themselves per your link and conversely you see more and more ISP's and large business sites which have been hit with legal actions against them for disseminating or even hosting deceptive advertising statements which are considered false advertising in violation of sections 17200 and 17500 of the Business & Professions Codes.
1369
« on: October 17, 2011, 15:01 »
One potential downside of giving Tyler people's real identities is if the site gets hacked - unlikely someone would hack the site to get that, but it is a possibility.
So you think some agency is going to hack the site to find out who's writing things about them?
Come on this isn't National Security, people who claim they are afraid of agency retaliation I understand, an anonymous section for posts like that, might be an option. But then we get stalkers and hackers and things that can happen anywhere, including FB and Twitter and anywhere else.
What makes keeping an ID secret and not letting anyone know what your sellers name so important. If it's only about writing nasty messages about some agency, that's kind of weak. I mean, does every anonymous person here have some kind of cause and string of critical messages about agencies, that would cause them to be banned or punished? I don't think so. I enjoy the small number of people who think someone will steal their ideas. Kind of like taking a photo of you will steal your soul. I don't think anyone does anything so unique and special that it's at risk. We can see what sell, we can see best sellers, we can see top keywords, there are no Microstock Secrets.
So what's a real reason?
I'm with Rimglow, for some reason the anonymous people tend to be the trolls and rude, they hide behind their pseudo accounts. People who have a name or email connection, even if it's not real, something like a sellers name is fine. Known people tend to be a little calmer and know that their reputation is associated with their real identity. The anonymous factor just invites abuse.
No I don't think people need to send in drivers license or passports that's a bit over the top. Just that they have an email account or are actually identifiable Microstock sellers account with an agency.
I think the days of frank discussion on the net are numbered. Those of us who have been around the internet for years and have worked on sites tend to limit our exposure by not sharing information online that could be used in any number of ways by any number of people. A few years ago I would have felt more comfortable sharing more info, these days sites have more and more people outside the industry visiting and you see more and more site hacking's. In fact I know at least four people in micro who have their sites hacked recently and on one of them member information was compromised. In my opinion demonizing, labeling or blaming anonymous msg participants for these problems is off base, advertising practices like pulling in members by sponsoring sites and banner advertising brings more site traffic, but it also brings trolls, gurus looking to make a buck off inexperienced new members and hackers. Site Sponsors http://www.tutorvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/why-shoot-in-raw-format/
1371
« on: October 16, 2011, 19:11 »
1372
« on: October 15, 2011, 19:55 »
And it should be so indicated to the rest of the forum that they are NOT confirmed.
This is a great idea! Just as we have the "premium member" designation under our names, we could also have "confirmed" or "unconfirmed". I don't know that people should have to pay to be unconfirmed. The designation would probably do the trick all by itself.
LOL...And this from the some of the friendliest members on the boards. Tongue in cheek- Why stop there, if we fail to expose ourselves for scrutiny you could brand our foreheads with U's and ban us from the forums. ;P Yep that free google plus circle seems friendlier and more productive all the time.
1373
« on: October 14, 2011, 23:07 »
It's all over their forum, it's all over here, people from around the world have been writing to support day after day. Time to sit back and let them work on it without hopping up and down shouting about the problem, or writing to support over and over. Complaining on the forums isn't going to make anything happen faster = They Already Know it's screwed up, and they are trying to fix it!
I disagree. If people were not to voice out or tell them they wouldn't know how severe the problem was. They kept saying the photos were visible under the relevant search which turned out to be not true (proven by the people who did not sit back). Also, I just received an email reply today from the support claiming the problem was resolved and my photos were online. It turned out to be another false statement. I will have to write to them. It's not "complaining", it actually helps them to debug the system.
My 25 cents.
Let me be a little more polite. They already know. SS doesn't read here or have any obligation to monitor here for issues. They do read their own reports and their own forum and have answered for over a week, that They Know and they are working on it.
So what purpose does writing here, the same thing over and over, serve? None!
If you can't find your files, send a support ticket or write on the SS forums. That's what I was trying to say.
Lucky me, I did nothing, wrote nothing and after three days all my new approved files are now in my folder. They were up for sale from day one. So it appears that some people are having varying problems. But writing about it here doesn't fix anything!
LOL you are absolutely correct, they have known about the various missing image bugs for years, so it is a brilliant idea to give them a bit more time to resolve the matter! No sweat off our backs just lost sales. If you do a search in the bug forum there are a few very astute and determined submitters that have documented the issues sufficiently to help the IT resolve the very real problems that cause us to lose revenue. As always actions speak louder than words. Though to be fair to SS they are hiring a few new programers and their benefit package does not look too shabby. http://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=Shutterstock&start=10Lets hope they spend a few of those new resources taking care of their submitters.
1374
« on: October 14, 2011, 13:46 »
There's definitely a very fine line to tread.
It gets to be a real problem when there are those who aim to use any forum they contribute to as a marketing tool for their business or to set themselves up as gurus.
There are those who want complete control over any interaction they have on a forum so they can present themselves in the best light possible regardless of where the truth lies. I know that this has led some on other forums (SS for example) to build up relationships with moderators to effectively shut down any questioning of their position and to have posts outing untruths deleted. As well as building up small gangs like in a school playground that get PMed to post on queue and bully other forum members.
What this ultimately means is that you end up with a forum no one in the know would ever contemplate reading, let alone contributing to.
You made some great points here, while these individuals and the site may benefit monetarily by increased exposure; ultimately censorship destroys healthy and honest interaction within the community!
1375
« on: October 14, 2011, 13:27 »
What's the point of proving one's identity, I could put my real name but that isn't what my portfolio is under and it's the same for the vast majority of contributors.
We've seen instances where an agency has taken direct action over what's been said here, again a good reason for anonymity.
The biggest problem you have here is your own censorship, you allow people to make statements on MSG and then when they're challenged or asked to provide some form of evidence you delete the posts and lock the thread,I appreciate this is a good revenue source for you and of course there should be a balance of politeness but to allow fraudulent statements to go unchallenged undermines the whole idea of an independent forum.
So on one hand your asking people to prove their identity but not to provide any proof of what they say. Pointless really.
Well said, I originally joined MSG because it offered a frank place to discuss aspects of the business without ramifications from the various micros. I also appreciated that fact that there are strong individuals here with significant business experience in the industry who were able to frankly speak their mind and discuss the various elephants in the microstock room. That environment has been lost if the room fosters censored see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil communication. Are you really doing your visitors a favor if you leave them vulnerable by fostering censorship to honest discussion and frank debate?
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
