|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 58
201
« on: September 29, 2014, 08:52 »
I had 2 sales with just over 40 images and decided to upload everything that meets the size restrictions so just over 100 now. I would never expect anything particularly regular but netting $85 for a single crap isolation every now and again is a nice bonus. I actually think the strange ranking system might suit a small diverse port where very few sales and "zooms" have a big effect.
202
« on: September 20, 2014, 15:45 »
Seriously, this may be one variable that can influence search placement (it's not rocket science to see that, given 2 similar images, the one with 3 times the number of keywords is likely to contain spam and, therefore be less relevant). But only variable one of many that can include dumb luck in terms of placement. In any case, 300 images over a few months is statistically insignificant given the volumes in MS.
203
« on: September 20, 2014, 12:27 »
I'm inclined to think number of keywords is less relevant than the keywords themselves and the image in question 
204
« on: September 15, 2014, 16:01 »
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Still, $9 - $15 is a lot less than $15 - 45, if these are the US$ figures.
Exclusive files don't have to compete as much on price as nonexclusive files you can't go to SS and get my photos.
Can one go to SS and get something as close as makes no real difference?
205
« on: September 13, 2014, 11:21 »
Quivering with excitement...
206
« on: September 03, 2014, 15:34 »
More than likely won't go to the effort of pulling out but, even as it stands, hard to motivate myself to upload. RPI is 10% of what it was but actually still better than most apart from SS - lack of visibility is a big problem when the earnings are mostly in the PP/ Subs once a month bucket.
I haven't looked at the latest initiative in any detail but, based purely on the success of the last 4 or 5 bits of rocket science they've come up with I predict another massive drop.
207
« on: September 01, 2014, 14:35 »
Mistake? Assumed it was done on purpose in exchange for a nice wad of change?
208
« on: August 31, 2014, 05:59 »
I believe this is true for DT and I think it's a good approach but how may are aiming their keywords solely at DT?
Way too much spam out there and there should be a lot more rejections for irrelevant keywords and they people would learn.
209
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:57 »
[Maybe agencies should to pay us better first? Or should we keep raising our standards, but agencies can keep the earnings on 2005 levels?
Their ball, their standards - we can choose not to meet the standard for the money being paid...
210
« on: August 24, 2014, 05:42 »
Very useful seeing as I contend with copyright issues over my animal selfies on a daily basis 
211
« on: August 22, 2014, 16:29 »
At the end of the day it's supply and demand and there is no shortage of supply. This affects everything in the internet age from music to movies to stock photos to porn. Anyone who submits to stock agencies who thinks that artistic merit has the slightest relevance is kidding himself. Is there a solution? - probably not.
213
« on: August 20, 2014, 14:02 »
How does one define premium? My own experience is that what I would consider premium doesn't sell that well in comparison to what I consider generic crap (all within my own port).
214
« on: August 16, 2014, 16:26 »
SS, CS, BS accepted them all.
SS accepted them all 
Hmmmm, so ss finally fired atilla the 100% rejection warlord n dreamstime is now where the slaughter is, huh?  my condolences Nikovsk
Haven't had a reject there since Feb '13 so no slaughter I think
215
« on: August 16, 2014, 06:59 »
This is certainly NOT just like Istock. With Istock, they only discover the problem after all contributors make a lot of forum-noise. 123rf sent me/us this e-mail BEFORE payment, so they found out about it themselves and are already working on correcting it.
Agree. Nobody like to see mistakes but they do happen - 'fessing up and acting on them immediately is the professional approach.
216
« on: August 15, 2014, 13:20 »
My RPI is down slightly but less so than FT, SS and (especially IS) so holding up fairly well all things considered
217
« on: August 14, 2014, 13:58 »
218
« on: August 13, 2014, 17:40 »
219
« on: August 09, 2014, 06:51 »
In response to the thread title, all I can say is "DUH!"
I preferred them when they had the same attitude to my stuff as FT has to landscapes...
That recently changed, Fotolia accepts pretty much everything now.
They always did as far as Im concerned (dont do landscapes) but interesting to see that a blind spot is taken away.
i think they finally looked at the numbers and cold data and reached the conclusion they were too hard in the selection process and that buyers are more than happy with "good enough" images.
and probably it was too expensive to hire and maintain all those inspectors, lowering the bar means lower costs and a few less employees to feed.
I have never seen any evidence of analysing cold data there, decisions over the last few seem to have been taken on the basis that it seemed like a good idea at the time. They probably were a little hard but only on technical aspects and you could train monkeys to look for technical flaws @ 200%. Setting a different bar is one thing, throwing all standards out the window is another thing altogether.
220
« on: August 08, 2014, 16:49 »
So I had some quiet time at work with no tools except MSOffice available and wrote a bunch of VBA scripts to pull port and sales data from the various sites and update an access database. This avoids the capcha problem by just ensuring you're logged in using IE.
221
« on: August 08, 2014, 16:43 »
In response to the thread title, all I can say is "DUH!"
I preferred them when they had the same attitude to my stuff as FT has to landscapes...
222
« on: August 08, 2014, 16:37 »
Yeah, walk around with your camera and point it at stuff and keep clicking, upload 10s of thousands of whatever comes out and some of it will probably find buyers.
223
« on: August 03, 2014, 18:35 »
Don't use that view so don't know if they changed the URL, but if you use the menu, it points to this one, which works.
http://www.123rf.com/submit/listmyuploaded.php
yeah, that bit works fine but when you try to look at the meta data of the images (e.g. click the link on the number of approved photos) and that fails - can probably get the same data from the photo page a buyer sees but that means a rewrite..
224
« on: August 03, 2014, 18:13 »
Does this work for anyone? http://submit.123rf.com/submit/listmyuploaded.phpI have some scripts that pull port and sales data from various sites (including this page) - thought it was a bug my side but seems not..
225
« on: August 03, 2014, 17:44 »
Are you one of the guys that would do the same tomato from a hundred angles - do you think that a buyer on a site that would accept them all would buy all 100?
no, not tomato; maybe golden people doing every which way, or cigarettes stacked in a hundred positions 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
I do however remember being in the the midst of the change when I was accepted as a contributor. 
