symbiostock is a Wordpress theme. It is up to the individual person to generate their own money. Symbiostock does NOTHING but provide the software. 

Absolutely true. And I think (among many other reasons) this is why many people are disappointed by it. If Symbiostock had been sold here simply as a WordPress theme that allows you to process, watermark and sell your own images, and sales and marketing are up to you, much angst could have been avoided. But the developers, and now there are several, keep pitching this as something much more.

I appreciate all the effort everyone's put into it, but it's time to be honest and say this is a theme. When it comes to sales you're on your own.

I'm sure this cartoon from Thursday night's The Daily Show must belong to someone here:

Quote from: klsbear on April 25, 2015, 20:08

Mine has the math question on the log-in page too.  I'm wondering if that is something new with recent WP upgrades rather than a Symbiostock "feature."

I haven't updated my Symbio sites for a few versions now.

I have another WP installation (no Symbiostock) for a blog and I now see the math question on that site's admin login too, so I think it has to be WordPress

My captcha is gone this morning and it's back to the old login, which leads me to believe it's NOT Wordpress.

Also checked my other, non sym site and the login also has no captcha.

Why am I now being forced to do a math captcha to log in to my own Symbiostock site?

You guys are out of control. Why can't you just leave the "legacy" site alone?

Expletive deleted.

Omg, I had to stop after about a minute.  'Customers loved Vetta imagery, but it was out of their reach".

Tough!  Suck it up!  Boo hoo.  Mercedes didn't price down because it was 'out of my reach'. 

What a terribly scripted piece.

This is a perfect example of something that needs to be tested before being rolled out. Sometimes a lower price will result in so many more sales that you'll make more money. Sometimes a higher price results in fewer sales but still, at the end of the day, makes more money. Sometimes a higher price makes something seem more valuable and results in more sales AND more money. But I get the distinct impression iStock flies by the seat of their pants and test nothing. They just think lowering prices or any of the other things they've tried will mean more money, and go with it. And we've seen how well THAT works out.

I'm a vegetarian and was briefly assigned to the KFC account. Everyone was required to eat KFC in client meetings, so I ate the mashed potatoes and corn. Got off the account as quickly as I could. Refuse cigarette accounts and try my very best to avoid working on pharma. It restricts my freelancing income a bit, but I feel better about it.

Nothing you can do about image usage, unfortunately. I've found some of my illustrations being used for political causes I'm opposed to. All you can do is grin and bear it.

I am really getting tired of this. There's no rhyme nor reason to their rejections and acceptance. I am not going to post examples.  I just wish SOMEONE FROM SHUTTERSTOCK WOULD TELL US SOMETHING. PLEASE?

Thanks.

My best guess is that inspectors are aware that there has historically been about a 40%-ish rejection rate, so they just go through everything as quickly as possible and reject 40% of everything. The easiest way to do that is to reject 40% of submitted batches in one fell swoop, rather than studying each image individually. That would account for a batch being rejected once and then accepted the second time.

If you make money based on volume/speed, there's little incentive to spend time actually looking at things. And as long as acceptance/rejection ratios remain steady, there's little incentive for SS management to look into things further�their library is still growing at the same rate.

My scenario is creating images that hopefully will appeal to a broad international audience. Like everyone else, I try to find niches that aren't saturated. It has never occurred to me to take a detailed shot of someone's artwork so someone else could "study" it.

I don't think anybody understands what you're asking, exactly. Or why you're asking.

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 24, 2015, 07:12

I would think stock agencies would have a much clearer picture of our customers, since you/they have access to data we don't. Maybe we should ask you?

The idea is we have a clear picture, but it is very curious to know what contributors think about their customers. I have data, but can't read your mind and predict your personal view.

Well, based on your OP, "customers in the microstock and photographers have very different views on provided and purchased content." Why don't you tell us what those different views are? Then perhaps we can tell you what we think.

I would think stock agencies would have a much clearer picture of our customers, since you/they have access to data we don't. Maybe we should ask you?

They need a tourniquet, so they apply a band-aid.

iStock is leading the race to the bottom between top competitors. For indies they have lower prices than SS and lower royalties.