i have found some of my images there under the paid content section and linked back to iStockphoto with a refnum. So seemingly has the potential to generate sales.

If that is allowed then we could all build refnum sites.

Linking to these things, especially in context (ie this forum), has the potential to improve their search ranking.

Im guessing ofcourse

I guessed that.

Saatchi Online is nothing to do with Saatchi & Saatchi. Nor are the Saatchis.

Saatchi Online was set up by Charles Saatchi of the Saatchi Gallery. He has not been involved with Saatchi & Saatchi since the 90s. After they left Saatchi & Saatchi, the Saatchis set up M&C Saatchi. According the web they may no longer be involved with that either.

People always quote Alexa graphs. I do not know and have never known anyone who has the Alexa toolbar installed. From which these viewing figures are extrapolated. Not one single person.

I don't believe in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet

Ken Rockwell's page here lists compatibility of all Nikon models with different Nikon lens types back into ancient history.

My sales over the last 3 days, since I bumped about 500 of my best-selling images to P+, have resulted in an RPD of $1.69. That's almost a 50% increase over my previous RPD which averaged $1.13. Very nice indeed.

That's excellent. Did it result in increased downloads of those images or any other obvious pattern shift ?

appx 19%. How does that compare with other sites ? Is slightly less than 20% becoming the norm ?

it was moved to the suggestions forum

As well as metadata, there is another issue to consider which relates to switching between agencies: color space. If you have got into the habit of preparing your images in Adobe RGB or even, lately, in ProPhoto then you are going to need to output new JPEGs for sites which use sRGB or which do not perform post inspection conversions.

And it may not be as simple as doing a straight conversion to sRGB since that may very well result in clipped shadows or highlights and images which would potentially fail inspection.

Of course Getty 'failed'. If I remember correctly the stock value went from about 90c to barely above 20c in little more than a year. That's the value the market placed on Getty not just their shareholders.

The 2008 privatization valued the stock at $34. It had been trading at appx $24  and went to over $31 as the deal was announced. That's dollar$ not cents ! The previous year (2007) Getty had announced profits of $33 million up 43%. Profits were increasing but the stock price was falling. I've done the Googling

The stock had been taking a hammering on the markets because the company was very much in the process of re structuring and because the business was changing yet again - the jobs losses etc. That affected profits growth expectations (unrealistic) and sentiment.

Sometimes markets over value a stock. Analysts had been saying that the stock was over valued based on the P/E ratio back to 2005 at least etc - also noting that the price of pictures was falling and that this threatened the business. Not many investors want to hold stock if the short term outlook is less than exciting. If you look at it like that then the slide in the stock price would have represented a re adjustment rather than a failure. But it is very difficult for a business to operate under that sort of intense stockholder scrutiny. Lots of businesses went private at about that time and not because they were failing. It was also a time when private equity was very much in the business of buying companies which seemed to be undervalued. Though the business of pictures was completely and dramatically changing. As it is again today.

I'm not shilling for Getty here. But I think it is a much more interesting and subtle picture than is sometimes represented. I don't think it serves anyone well if we trade in inaccurate or hazy recollections.