|
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 - ShadySue
14176
« on: February 13, 2011, 05:30 »
I've just done a google image search with interesting results
I put in 3 of my common keywords which I use at all sites. I got over 10 million results and the first 4 images were mine. Anyway the first 2 were from 123rf, the third from Bigstock and the 4th from Dreamstime.
I didn't get a fotolia, or istock image until the 2nd page after spiderpics whatever that is and SS didn't appear until page 8.
It makes me think that if 123 and bigstock get such good google results but such bad sales compared to the big 4 then very little buying traffic comes through google.
It has always been said in the past that 'very little buying traffic comes through Google'. in another thread here, someone suggested this was not the case, but they didn't quote a source. I would find it very difficult to believe that a significant number of would-be buyers (personally I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near 10%, but that's just my surmise) search through Google.
14177
« on: February 12, 2011, 14:40 »
One of my colleges tried to buy an image yesterday and the search was completely non functional. He gave up and bought 100 images for the project at DT!
Try to persuade them to post to the forum and to email someone, though I don't know who the 'someone' would be that would GAD.
14178
« on: February 12, 2011, 14:12 »
Still $0 royalties on all of my downloads in the last month. Anyone with the same experience?
What did Support say?
14179
« on: February 10, 2011, 18:43 »
Or if not Google - why couldn't we sell through Amazon? It's all possible.
Now you're talking!
14180
« on: February 10, 2011, 13:29 »
I think it's possible to develop a search system that works fairly well just by tracking customer behavior and connecting the customer behavior to keywords and images.
I have developed a system (just a simple diagram on paper) how a better search could be done, without disambiguation. I won't be sharing it here, I might use it someday 
I can only tell that it's a formula that calculates a "relevancy factor" for every keyword that an image has.
Scenario: 1000 people search for "flower". Image #1 gets shown 200 times but only 2 clicks. Image #2 gets also shown 200 times but gets 58 clicks and 12 purchases.
Result: Image #1 gets a low "relevancy factor" for keyword "flower", and gets pushed back in the search results in the future. The image #2s keyword gets a very high "relevancy factor" and gets positioned better in search results in the future.
BUT, this does not mean number image #1 will be in the back of the search results, it only gets pushed back when someone searches for "flower".
This ranking could also be used for keyword combinations.
To be fair, iStock's BM2 was moving towards being very good before F5 and then facetted search. I'm a bit concerned about how some bits of best match worked, and your system would be the same. I had a pic that was for several months on the first page of searches for 'elephant', but (at the same time) on the very back line on a best match search for "African elephant", and could never work that out. It was behind many non-exclusive wrongly-tagged pics of Asian elephants. :-(
14181
« on: February 10, 2011, 12:55 »
Show me a non-micro search engine that works better than SS and provides more choice.
Google?
Google images search is next to useless for most searches other than celebrities.
14182
« on: February 09, 2011, 17:30 »
I have thousands of images at IS, tens of thousands dl's... never had a single mail from a customer wanting to buy directly, except if they want somenthing special (i.e. Image exclusivity, same model doing another thing in a custom made shot etc). Never for license concerns or not wanting to buy small credit packages. So, a very different experiencie from what you happen to say.
And yes, tehy have a way to verify MRs, model's phones are in the MR.
Exactly the same for me. No IS customer has ever contacted me in an attempt to buy direct. I once had a query from someone on DT asking how to obtain one of my images but I think they were either confused (i.e. a bit stupid) or fishing for a freebie. Saying it happens 'every month' seems so unlikely that I don't actually believe the Getty rep bit either. Any Getty rep's making such statements regularly would soon be reported to IS whilst the customer attempted to clarify the situation.
I've had two, but a long time ago. One was asking if s/he could use one of my pics in a book, but something about the writing seemed like it wasn't just a simple question. I said it could, linked to the EL page, just in case, and referred them to support if they weren't clear about the EL. The other, very soon after I started, was suggesting they paid me for my image offsite so that I'd get more and they'd pay less. This was in early 2007, when images were mega cheap anyway. I ignored them.
14183
« on: February 09, 2011, 12:59 »
I'm actually one of the buyers mentioned in this thread. (Also a contributor) We have had Getty reps come to our company and tell us not to use istock. "They have no way of verifying if images have releases, and its just safer not to use them." Said the reps.
Just to clarify, these reps have said this recently? Since Getty owned Istock? If so, how utterly ridiculous!! Are they trying to pretend Istock isn't part of the Getty Family?! If Istock images didn't have the proper releases, surely this would reflect poorly on Getty - its owner?
I've seen exactly that attributed to iStock reps twice in the iStock forums: once a couple of years back and once pretty recently. I don't know if these and this mention today relate to the same incident or reps. I guess the reps are desperate to earn commission, and it wouldn't be the only industry in which commission-based reps lie to boost their own income.
14185
« on: February 09, 2011, 12:12 »
And yes, tehy have a way to verify MRs, model's phones are in the MR.
That's not something a customer should ever have access to.
14186
« on: February 09, 2011, 10:08 »
Day 4 of my ban from the iStock forums and sitemail...just sayin'
I think you're supposed to send a grovelling SM promising to be good in future.
I dont have SM so I cant grovel (not that i would) I did email contributor relations but did the exact opposite of grovel so I'm thinking I'm out for a while. Meanwhile the thread goes on with no response from the powers that be over there.
Responses from TPTB are sooooo 2009.
14187
« on: February 09, 2011, 08:26 »
Day 4 of my ban from the iStock forums and sitemail...just sayin'
I think you're supposed to send a grovelling SM promising to be good in future.
They've managed to separate forums and SM in the banning process?? Used to be an all or nothing gig like the "3rd party Marketing".
Shhhh. I don't want them to notice.
14188
« on: February 09, 2011, 08:07 »
Don't knock it. I want a camera I can hold at arm's length, press the screen and take a picture at the same time and the pic will sell on Getty. Seems Getty standards are way below different from iStock's.
Woot. Where's my $600 (Why's the Beeb quoting a price in dollars anyway?)
14189
« on: February 09, 2011, 07:36 »
Day 4 of my ban from the iStock forums and sitemail...just sayin'
I think you're supposed to send a grovelling SM promising to be good in future.
14190
« on: February 08, 2011, 19:09 »
If iStock was my business, I wouldn't let anyone publicly dump on it either to the extent that it was happening by the same people over and over.
If it were my business, I'd hope they didn't have so many legitimate grievances.
14191
« on: February 08, 2011, 18:45 »
In this case it looks like he just paraphrasing Funwithfood.
So the point of paraphrasing FWF was ... ?
14192
« on: February 08, 2011, 18:03 »
When I got my 5D, I submitted just a few more images... low and behold, I grabbed an EL sale... and have had a couple more since. I have now started slowly uploading my HD shots. Getting an EL sale there is light-years and $$ from an EL on DT or elsewhere.
Wishing you success Anita.  =Tom
What's an EL sale on Alamy - is that just for RF? Otherwise I've never heard of it!
All RF sales on Alamy are EL, I think... There is no another type of RF licenses...
Oh, right, I'd heard that the Alamy RF general license grants wider usage than e.g. iStock's. I didn't know they were called ELs. Tx.
14193
« on: February 08, 2011, 18:01 »
It wasn't that long ago that the administrators on Istock used to try and HELP buyers and contributors, rather than berating them. 
That was Uncle Rob. The Good Cop, Bad Cop duo.
14194
« on: February 08, 2011, 17:21 »
When I got my 5D, I submitted just a few more images... low and behold, I grabbed an EL sale... and have had a couple more since. I have now started slowly uploading my HD shots. Getting an EL sale there is light-years and $$ from an EL on DT or elsewhere.
Wishing you success Anita. =Tom
What's an EL sale on Alamy - is that just for RF? Otherwise I've never heard of it!
14195
« on: February 08, 2011, 17:07 »
@ShadySue; is it bad enough to consider registering under a different name?
Depends what you said in the past. There are plenty of people there who also submit to micros, and say so. But there are some real anti-micro rabids. And help/information on the forums is strangely patchy. After I'd been there for about six months with no sales, I asked for a review of my port and got no responses. Other people have had quite a lot of suggestions on the same question. And all I said was, "I'm getting sales elsewhere...", didn't even mention the M-word! Also some over there pontificate greatly but aren't necessarily as authoritative as they seem. You'll soon sniff them out. One of them almost had me 'outing' myself in my new username (I changed it for purely technical reasons) because he was saying such ridiculous things about iStock. I'm not exactly an iStock evangelist, but what he was saying was just wrong. So I very briefly stated the facts, but no more. It didn't stop him the last time I did it more expansively in my previous incarnation, and I guess he won't stop now.
14196
« on: February 08, 2011, 13:04 »
I sent emails to every one I know over there (no sitemails, still banned) over the weekend and havent heard a peep from anyone. No responses. I also had a chat with who ever does the iStock twitter account and they said this in regards to people getting banned:
"But it's happened before when things get heated. Not a ban, just a cool down period."
I replied: "...it seems more like censorship where I'm sitting"
Haven't heard back since
It's really not that unusual. I was a teacher until recently. A teacher in the same council authority (not school) as me posted some remarks about the authority's policy on an education discussion group and was suspended (from his teaching post). What he said was neither untrue, heated nor libellous. It was true, and it was a controversial topic, worthy of discussion. Don't know what happened to him next, as I'm now 'out of the loop'.
14197
« on: February 08, 2011, 12:30 »
This really is a noob question, I'm already selling at MS agencies, but now I'm thinking about joining Alamy. I was leaning towards RM, so that I could become exclusive at IS later on (the way things are now, exclusivity doesn't look very appealing). So what's really the difference, what types of shots are more suitable for RM and what for RF? From what I could read on this forums, RM licensed photos are usually more creative. What type of licence brings more earnings? I guess it all depends on the type of shots and wether you're just a good or an excellent photographer. I'm sure not the latter, but I'm still better than most selling photos at MS agencies.
I'd really appreciate any helpful info.
There really is no answer to this question. On each model, "you never can tell what will sell". I'm both exclusive on iStock and sell RM/editorial on Alamy. From what I know, which isn't much re RF, the more 'creative' stuff is usually on Alamy as RF. As you'll see elsewhere, some RF sales on Alamy are for tiny $$, as they can be on Getty. The market is in such flux, and there are so many contributors. You just have to make your own judgements and adjust as you go on. Alamy is definitely a long game. iStock is now too: I'd hate to be a noob there nowadays. One thing I will say: if you want to ask anything on the Alamy forums, don't even think of mentioning micro, or you risk not only a flaming, but also getting no, or misleading, answers - and they'll remember you in future.
14198
« on: February 08, 2011, 08:39 »
Also, at Getty we are allowed 5 conceptual keywords, why not here?
Keywording at Getty is often totally appalling.
Do we really want to deteriorate into this sort of Getty titling, captioning and keywording crap morass?
Allegedly, according to the title, drug-induced caption and keywords, this studio shot is supposed to be dancing lemurs in Madagascar.
http://www.lizworld.com/ExhibitA.jpg
I've got a description for the caption: fetid dingoes kidneys.
And note that the animated film Madagascar is a Dreamworks film not Disney.
Yeah I agree, their keywording is no good but conceptual keywords are VERY effective and is used by 50% of buyers.
The actual word 'concept'?
14199
« on: February 08, 2011, 08:32 »
Also, at Getty we are allowed 5 conceptual keywords, why not here?
Keywording at Getty is often totally appalling. Do we really want to deteriorate into this sort of Getty titling, captioning and keywording crap morass? Allegedly, according to the title, drug-induced caption and keywords, this studio shot is supposed to be dancing lemurs in Madagascar. http://www.lizworld.com/ExhibitA.jpgI've got a description for the caption: fetid dingoes kidneys. And note that the animated film Madagascar is a Dreamworks film not Disney.
14200
« on: February 08, 2011, 08:27 »
Nah, jokes apart, but any studio shot with an arrangement by the photographer himself ( exept product), is ofcourse a bona-fide concept, idea. I would have thought thats bloody obvious?
you'd have to say what the concept was. Just 'concept' isn't very useful as a keyword. You could say in the description that you were aiming at a concept of ... Is a buyer really going to search on the word 'concept'? As above, I don't think 'concept' and 'idea' should have been deleted far less the image rejected, but as we can't see either the image or the full list of rejected words, I'm not going to comment any further. However, it's just another area of iStock inspector inconsistency. I've never quite got over having 'growth' removed from a photo of plants growing in a plantation, but every day I can wiki recently accepted images with over ten totally unrelated keywords. I never wiki subjective terms (your 'adorable', 'cute', 'gorgeous' child or girlfriend might be my 'unfortunate ugly mug', but only really wrong keywords of the apple/orange variety.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
