ja, you should tell us instead of being cryptic. Come up with the info!

Good find.
Its pretty precise.
LOL.

Plus look at the length of the known bugs thread compared to the tiny number of fixed bugs.
33 reported bugs, some very serious. 1 fixed bug.

I imagine, when they had their layoff round. They fired some of the essential IT people, those who were born there, down in the basement.
I also imagine that the whole IT base is made by chaotically growing seeds over many years on an insufficient framework.
My guess is it is impossible to fix, because its so interweaved.

Even in Asia $2.8 won't go far in paying for equipment and buying props. And what use will a site be for the main western markets if it has nothing but smiling Asian girls with headsets and the only fish that jump are koi carp?

There is always a guy who invests 1000 dollars in koi carps and wiggs, and thinks he wil lbe a millionaire next week.
It is us, the contributors, who do all the work, and bear all the expenses. We take the risk, which normally is an argument for grabbing the profit.

They even refund credit card fraud onto us, how lousy can it be?

I like the thought of giving them away for free. That would kill the microstock business.

And as for the RPI. There are people in the world who can thrive happily on 2,8 dollars a day. That is what we are up against.

The most interesting part of that equation is the prices on houses in China.

Very interesting numbers and graphs. Fine analysis also. One of the clearest messages i have seen in a long time.

So now we have all tried the "work harder and upload more" approach, and it didnt work for us only for the agencies.

And now the market is oversupplied.
In the old film days, the contributors would have demanded that the agency closed the door for new photographers.

Everyone has a limit to how much he can work more, better and more intelligently. That normally puts an end to the rat race, but not in microstock, since new photographers are crowdsourced globally and the competition is endless.
It will all end when enough contributors do not get a payout.

And what then?

I advice everybody to, when the pay gets too small and not worth the trouble.. To NOT let the pictures hang online with the agencies,- but to take them down and eventually give them away for free (why not?).  I have begun to do that on low earning agencies, and as things decline with each agency, I will take them completely off the market.

HMMPPPP.....
I see the flaw on photo 1,

On the ohter picture is it combinations of bad photos and bad PP skill or the photos are okay if processed differently
I m still loss on how is the light on the pgymy sea horse (fav macro object for UW btw) is bad, is it because to flat/dull?

Low light conditions caused the image to be unresolved and out of DOF, the main area of interest, the sea horse, is partually hidden behind undetailled coral. Ther is a lot of noise in the out of dof areas. Major parts of the image is out of dof. The coral is loosing its colours and fades into brown spots.

what is LCV?

Correct me if i m wrong, Stock photo required as minimum enhancement on the color(no saturation of vibarance bump) and as little as noise as possible, and accurate WB....

That is what they say. Reality is that we are all competing and try to have our pictures stand out as a thumbnail. That means tweaking it to the limit, where the agencies do not reject it. Different agencies have different policies and they are not all consistant.

Shoot 3 different shots like these:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13024061-beech-wood.php?st=4e6cfb9
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8167146-sharpening-a-knife.php?st=4e6cfb9
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5801679-skateboarder.php?st=4e6cfb9

I deleted my profile there.

The economy is not in a bad state. Take a look at the stock indexes.

which is why I always tell my students to persue their interests.
"You can do well in any topic when you want to".
Its all about what you want to.

With online microstock you should not panic when the machines are flawed for a couple of hours. Thats business as usual.

Take it easy....

13%
and we hear of 7-9 cents.

We are clowns in a circus.

We are only there because else the agency had nothing to sell. They sell our copyrights in form of licences, but not only that, they restribute our copyrights to all kinds of obscure affiliates. There is a whole subbusiness going on there, with agencies selling collections to eachother. Partent sites, sister sites and clean pirate sites.

We think they sell images, but they do not. The images rest on servers in basements, whereas copies are sold, by our permission.

What I try to say, is that the middleman part of the circus is soon being able to do without us, we are only a necessary evil.

When you look at iStock, its obvious that they would rather be without us.

I have taken my port down from dp for 3 reasons:
1.. RPI too low
2.. Affiliates are obscure
3.. I dont want to compete with myself on other sites.