|
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 - StockManiac
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12
151
« on: April 11, 2007, 07:20 »
That is what I thought it was, but I wanted to make sure.
152
« on: April 11, 2007, 06:55 »
Before the new upload limit (of 40 images/day) was put into place, what was the upload limit?
153
« on: April 10, 2007, 08:14 »
What's your agenda?
My agenda is to expose the truth. Plain and simple. I hope to make microstock a better industry. At this time, there are lots of issues all around on almost every site. But this thread is about DT. I can't stand when an agency side-steps issues or makes lame excuses. And I can't tolerate when they lock posts or mistreat their artists. DT does all of this. You stated "I can assure you from Serban's response that the agency is very transparent with relation to what they do." I have shown that is not true. They are not transparent. They give certain members special treatment, while limiting other members. You seemed to think (from your posts above) that DT applied the same rules to everyone, but that is not the true. DT has stated that they have set upload limits for everyone equally. I have shown that is not true. Upload limits only apply to us "regular" members. Finally, top-paid photographers that lambasted this industry from the beginning, are now trying to get into this industry and getting special treatment from agencies. That's just not right. There are many members here that have been with microstock agencies from the beginning and have made them the million-dollar companies that they are today, but they aren't given any special preference. But now here come some prima donna photographers that haven't done one thing for microstocks and they are given special preference above everyone else.
154
« on: April 10, 2007, 07:34 »
Some Facts:
- Larger portfolio owners get their reviews done a lot quicker. I have been keeping a log of them.
Larger portfolio owners have stacks of non selling images
Larger portfolio owners get preference over the types of images they submit, you submit them and get stupid rejection reasons only to find someone else get virtually the same type of image accepted after your rejection
DT NEEDS TO EMPLOY A LOT MORE REVIEWERS ... not just ONE.
Shutterstock review times for me average 12 hours - DT 3 weeks!
DT needs to learn about professionalism in business, and consistency
DT needs to answer their emails and they would not get criticised in open forums
DT needs to employ someone with better English speaking skills to monitor the forum instead of their current stack of rude idiots
I think you need to get your facts straight. I too had the very same concerns you have and I addressed them directly to Serban a few months ago (he did answer the email). I can assure you from Serban's response that the agency is very transparent with relation to what they do.
The reason you suspect that the larger contributors get faster reviews is because they upload via FTP, then go back and enter keywords, categories, etc. at a later date. When a file gets uploaded, it gets assigned an image number. Reviews are then sorted by image number. Say you upload 500 images tonight, then come back a month later to keyword them. Your images will be at the top of the list a month from now - and will get reviewed within hours of hitting the pile. That's how the system works - it's been addressed in their forums.
eendicott: Don't you care that Serban (aka Achilles) lied to you?
155
« on: April 10, 2007, 07:18 »
And since I last posted (less than 20 minutes ago), Iofoto's portfolio has gone from 3,385 images to 3,409 images. An increase of another 24 images. This is getting quite interesting...
Iofoto now has 3,511 images online (and it seems to grow by the hour). That is an increase of 102 images since my last post, which was less than 12 hours ago. So this confirms what litifeta was saying (that some contributors are getting special treatment). This also explains partially why the queue has grown so large: Certain members are allowed to bypass the normal rules (of 40 uploads a day). My bet is that these "special" members are also bypassing the normal inspection queue and getting their images reviewed as a priority. If the reviewers then have time after reviewing their images, they then work on our photos (which are at the bottom of the stack). So it seems that DT implemented the new 40 image/day upload limit (for the rest of us) so that they could make way for some of their "special" members. Gives me a real warm & cozy feeling all around. eendicott: Thanks for pointing out Iofoto's portfolio. It has been a real eye-opener into how DT treats the rest of us.
156
« on: April 09, 2007, 20:27 »
And since I last posted (less than 20 minutes ago), Iofoto's portfolio has gone from 3,385 images to 3,409 images. An increase of another 24 images. This is getting quite interesting...
158
« on: April 09, 2007, 19:55 »
Have you seen the busiest photographer list lately? Most of the folks that are on that list have a lot of images online and are high volume producers. Have you seen that Iofoto is on that list? Clicked on his portfolio? That's over 3,300 images uploaded in the past month.
This brings up a very interesting question: As you stated, Iofoto ( http://www.dreamstime.com/Iofoto_info) (aka Ron Chapple) has 3,385 images online. According to his portfolio, he joined on 02/04/2007 (which was 64 days ago). DT has a daily upload limit of 40 images. If he uploaded the maximum of 40 images a day since he joined AND 100% OF THEM WERE ACCEPTED, that would total 2,560 images. So how did he get 3,385 images online?According to my calculations, he would have needed another 21 days (or 3 weeks) to do that. Remember that this assumes that he had 100% of his images accepted (which I highly doubt could ever happen on DT). If he had 80% of is images accepted, then that would only bring the total number of images allowed online to 2,336. This seems to back up what litifeta is stating in his post above (that large portfolio owners get reviews done a lot quicker). So, are some submitters getting better treatment than others?
159
« on: April 09, 2007, 16:48 »
Stockmaniac, take a deep breath and look through the DT site. One thing I like to do is read between the lines and see what's going on.
1) Have you seen the thread announcing the new reviewer?
2) Have you seen the thread THANKING the reviewer that resigned in the off topic section?
3) Have you seen the busiest photographer list lately? Most of the folks that are on that list have a lot of images online and are high volume producers. Have you seen that Iofoto is on that list? Clicked on his portfolio? That's over 3,300 images uploaded in the past month. There are others that are moving there portfolio there as well and the rate of images going up is unprecedented since the time I've been on the site.
Review time is a dynamic thing. I've had iStock take 2 weeks in the past (when I contributed there) and I've had DT review in a matter of a day or two. If it makes you feel any better, I've had Canstock review in a matter of minutes. It's all an elastic process.
I hate to say this but if your images are getting stale over the course of 2 weeks, then your submitting the wrong types of images to sell as stock.
eendicott: No, I haven't seen those threads. I don't hang out there as much as you  Thanks for the heads-up. I will go and check them now. One of the first threads that appeared on the DT forums about this very topic ( http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_7106) had the same basic reply from Achilles: "Do you realize that editors sleep at night, right? " Achilles later in the thread responds to a submitter with the following statement (meant to ridicule him): "We receive hundreds of thousands of submissions monthly, how many do you have there?" It would have been nice if Ellen or DT admin would have stated the facts that you are presenting in a nice way. But instead of saying that they lost a reviewer and are hiring a new reviewer, they come up with lame excuses and try to ridicule submitters.
160
« on: April 09, 2007, 16:44 »
StockManiac: The Director of Content and Business Development asks to look at your portfolio. Your response: Question her motives and insult her. Way to go. Smooth move. Real smooth.
She writes a blog that many users access on a daily basis (who wouldn't?). You may have received free publicity. You may have been able to bend her ear so that she could influence the DT powers that be to address your concerns. She may have been a valuable resource to this forum. Furthermore, she's very new to this site, and this was only her second post here - I'm sure she feels very welcome now.
Yes, she might have been able to do all of those illustrious things, but instead here is how she responded to this thread (which was about the large inspection queue at DT): - She first stated that reviewers have to sleep and take the Easter holidays off. A useless statement as I said before, especially since the queue has been this large for a long time before Easter weekend. - She compares microstock to macrostock. - She asked to look at my portfolio. Once again, something that has nothing to do with this thread. If you don't understand her tactics, it is to take your eyes off of the original issue and try to focus it elsewhere. From your comments, it seems like it is working. If she really wanted to do something about the issue, she would have asked for more comments and stated that she would bring it up with management.
161
« on: April 09, 2007, 16:08 »
I wanted to take a look at your images but I can't find them on Dreamstime. Do you have a different user name than you are using here? Thanks!
Why? Are you looking to mark my images for rejection?
You must be kidding. You aren't serious are you? Then you would have something to complain about. I'm a visual person. Just like some people like to connect a face with a name, I like to connect images to a name. But if your work isn't on Dreamstime, it may not be fair for you to complain. But no problem. Bye
Kidding? Hardly! How would looking at my images have anything to do with the issues in this thread??? It seems rather odd that someone that works for Dreamstime would want to see my images rather than address the concerns in this thread. And if you bothered to actually read this thread (and many others on this board), you might have noticed that there are many others "complaining" about your site as well. As usual, Dreamstime considers our "complaints" to be a complete waste of their time. You didn't address any of the concerns that the artists (that actually allow your company to make money) have. Since you didn't take my posts seriously, don't expect me to take anything else that you say (here or elsewhere) seriously either. You (and your company) just lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.
162
« on: April 09, 2007, 14:49 »
I wanted to take a look at your images but I can't find them on Dreamstime. Do you have a different user name than you are using here? Thanks!
Why? Are you looking to mark my images for rejection?
163
« on: April 09, 2007, 14:44 »
Big question: Why is review time important?
1. The competition does it much faster. If you upload to all of the sites at once, your images will show up first on Shutterstock and Fotolia, followed by Istock and a slew of others, and then finally Dreamstime. So by the time Dreamstime gets your images online, they are already "stale". 2. The internet is all about speed. If Amazon can take an order, fill it, and ship it to you in less than a week, then Dreamstime should be able to review an image much quicker. After all, reviewers spend less than 30 seconds reviewing each image, and some only spend about 10 seconds per image. Ideally, we should have our seasonal images online months in advance, when designers are looking for them.
While true designers are a part of the overall customer base, most customers are not so savvy. Most customers are mom-and-pop shops, non-profits, web site designers, people creating a card for a loved one, etc. They don't plan months ahead. They do it on the fly, just like you and me.
164
« on: April 09, 2007, 12:33 »
This is so funny to me coming from the traditional stock business where three to four week review period is considered very short. But I'm certain that your issues will be addressed.
I'm sure that < $10 sales and 10,000 sales a day are "funny" to you as well. Let's face it. Microstock is not macrostock. It's a new paradigm. You better get with it or you will get left behind.
165
« on: April 09, 2007, 09:29 »
....how do we really know if we have got the credits for all photos sold?
phildate: My guess is that the buyer didn't understand that they needed an Extended License, and when confronted were too embarrassed to come forth with the truth. They probably just went back to the site and purchased the appropriate licenses. But if this is the case, then they should be penalized for their actions. Otherwise, what is to prevent other buyers from doing the same thing? I would like to ask that you pursue this matter further. Please get an explanation from the agency on exactly what happened in this instance. This is important not only to you, but to every artist that has images on these sites. If there is any misconduct, then we should all be made aware of it. Thanks for posting this.
166
« on: April 09, 2007, 09:25 »
There must be mistakes from time to time - with the things we CAN see, many people are catching mistakes, there is obviously going to be mistakes in the things we can't see either.
Leaf: The only mistakes that should be made are by buyers that don't understand which license they should be purchasing. Many buyers probably just purchase the standard license and use it for whatever they feel like. Mistakes should never be made by the agency. After all, they have applications run by lots of expensive computers. They aren't keeping track of sales by hand. And if there is a "bug" in the system, then more people should be affected by it. There probably needs to be some sort of auditing done on these sales, but who would enforce it and who would do it?
167
« on: April 09, 2007, 09:09 »
Ellen:
Saying that reviewers have to sleep is a totally useless statement.
We all have to sleep. That is a fact of human nature.
The problem with Dreamstime is that their review queue is getting larger and the review times are getting longer.
There are currently almost 41,000 images in the review queue and reviews currently take about 10 days.
There are currently less than 21,000 images in the IS queue, and reviews have been taking around 4-5 days.
SS reviews typically take a day or so, and can be reviewed within hours of submittal sometimes.
FT also typically review images within a day or so.
Funny thing is that all of those other sites get more images than DT, yet they seem to review them quicker. I would imagine that the reviewers at those sites also sleep.
So Dreamstime seems to be the only major site that can't review images in less than a week.
On top of that, their review process is one of the worst in the business. They seem to randomly reject images or give some sort of bogus reason for rejection ("not stockworthy", "we have too many of these", etc).
I would suggest that you (as a company) stop coming up with lame excuses and fix the issues that everyone has been complaining about.
168
« on: April 06, 2007, 06:11 »
What's really crazy is that they have someone working on their architecture that hasn't ever done this before. And from the following quote, it seems that he isn't the only one that doesn't know what he is doing:
"I've never really done anything like this before. But I guess here at LuckyOliver we're all learning how it's done."
Sort of like the blind leading the deaf.
169
« on: March 30, 2007, 09:56 »
IMO, it doesn't make much sense to have to go through the whole inspection process for an image that was already approved. All that should be done is make to sure that the image is basically still the same (and not a totally different image), which should take a reviewer a few seconds.
Most people seem to be ignoring the ability to update their photos om StockXpert for the reason that many have stated: people have tried to update a photo with a larger or better quality image and both images were rejected. This does not instill confidence in the process.
Why would I want to take the chance of having one of my images rejected that is already online and possibly selling?
StockXpert/Steve-Oh: This process is flawed. Nobody wants to use it because of the possible consequences. It needs to be fixed. You shouldn't be rejecting images when a submitter is trying to upload a better version. After all, we are submitters are just trying to help buyers out (by giving them better quality). Our images are already online. If you want to reject images, then do it through a "spring cleaning" process.
170
« on: March 28, 2007, 10:12 »
LO is not like every other stock photo site. It is very different and plans to stay that way.
And how is it different? Underneath the cute carnival skin, they seem to be the same as every other site out there. They don't offer higher royalties. They don't offer lower payouts. They don't specialize in any specific genre. In other words, they don't offer anything new. While it is refreshing that the CEO takes the time to communicate with others, it is also a marketing strategy on his part to win over people's hearts by his nice demeanor. I guarantee that if the site gets big, you will hardly hear from him at all (especially if you are a small contributor).
171
« on: March 15, 2007, 13:40 »
A diamond exclusive is allowed to submit 200 images a week. Why? Because they hardly need looking at.
In my opinion, that statement is totally off base for a number of reasons: 1. My understanding is that the difference between exclusives and non-exclusives is that exclusives are just non-exclusives that have over 500 sales and have decided to become exclusive. I have never heard of anyone being turned down for exclusivity. There is no other test that one needs to take to become exclusive. To me the biggest difference is the 500 uploads, because this might show that they know what sells. But even this can be argued, because someone that joined at the beginning would have enjoyed a few years of sales with little or no competition. So to say that exclusives are better than non-exclusives is a falacy. They are the same as non-exclusives with only minor differences. Personally, I am at the silver canister level and have thousands of downloads on iStock, but have decided not to go exclusive because IS only makes up ~ 50% of my microstock income. There is no way that the exclusivity would be able to provide the other 50%. 2. There are plenty of non-exclusives that are better than many of the exclusives. A few of them have been mentioned in this thread. 3. There are plenty of exclusives that are not that great. I won't mention them for obvious reasons. There have been many posts that show some of the horrible photos from exclusives that get accepted by IS every day. Finally, the reason that IS throws exclusives a few bonuses (extra uploads, higher royalties, etc) is because they have to give submitters something in order to make up for the loss that they get from going exclusive. If there were no extras for going exclusive, then why would anyone do it?  The goal of exclusives is to push out non-exclusives. The goal of non-exclusives is to fight for all of the extra bonuses that exclusives get. Hence the battle...
172
« on: March 13, 2007, 07:05 »
There is nothing "wrong" with the picture. It is a cute snapshot, but I'm not sure that it is the best shot for stock. You need to ask yourself: "Why would someone buy this photo?"
Here are some of my thoughts. Please don't take this personally:
1. The biggest issue that I see is that the boy is not smiling much. He kind of looks like the proverbial "deer caught in headlights". He even looks a little frightened.
2. Her hand on his chest makes it seem like she is holding him there against his will, which makes it seem that he would rather be somewhere else.
3. Her smile looks a bit fake.
4. His hair is a mess.
5. The clothing that they are wearing is a bit boring.
6. The white background is the first thing that I noticed and a bit overpowering.
173
« on: March 04, 2007, 08:48 »
Sure, the money's not too good right now - my current level is at about $1000 per month - but I'm building.
sharply_done: You have some fantastic work, but I have to call you out on your statement. On IS, you have been a member since 09/2006 and have sold a total of 512 images, which probably totals ~ $300. On DT, you have essentially been a member since 01/2007 and have sold 102 images, which totals < $100. On Fotolia, you have sold 90 images, which totals < $75. FT doesn't say when you joined, but from the lowest image numbers in your portfolio, I would guess it was also at the beginning of the year. So for those 3 sites, you have sold a total of < $500 over the past few months. Even if we just include the last two months, that is $250/month. SS doesn't give stats, but I doubt that you are making $750/month on that one site. That would mean that you would be selling 3000 images/month on a portfolio of less than 500 images.
174
« on: March 03, 2007, 20:41 »
This isn't the same Dreamstime I decided to go exclusive with last August - this is Dreamstime trying to be Shutterstock.
I've disabled all of my RAW files and opted out of all the extended licenses. You are the second person (that I have noticed) that has turned from a fanatic of DT to disappointed in DT. Seems to be turning into a pattern.
175
« on: March 01, 2007, 12:13 »
Some of you talk as if you can't see new images at all, but the fact of the matter is that a buyer just has to change the default sort order to newest to view new images.
The question you might want to ask is "Why the 30% increase in profits when changing the default sort oder?"
Previously, a buyer viewed the newest images by default, and purchased less images.
Now, a buyer views the most sold images by default, and purchases more images.
I'm sure that most of you are arguing to change it back because you have been affected in a negative way (which is a selfish motive).
You can argue all you want from a personal perspective, but if it were my business I would keep it the way it is for a while.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
