|
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 - Fred
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15
226
« on: January 26, 2009, 09:54 »
I have about 500 images on BS and 20 of them are in the ok catagory. One of the images that is in the ok catagory has 350 dls on istock is my 11th best selling image there and another one has 250 and is my 15th best selling image. So they really don't get it anywhere near right at BS.
This is similar to my experience. My best sellers elsewhere do nothing on BS and some of my best sellers on BS can't even get accepted elsewhere!!
227
« on: January 26, 2009, 09:53 »
Fred,
Unless there is something wrong in the results that I haven't seen yet, I don't have a problem with the way rating is used. I would bother if before my images I saw irrelevant ones being picked only because of rating.
If rating is consistent, it makes sense to use it in the sorting criteria. Not rating only, but as one of the factors.
Regards,
Adelaide
Adelaide, I don't really see any consistency in the ratings. If someone can tell me how they are done - one reviewer, all reviewers, etc. - perhaps they could be done fairly. If they are done by reviewers on their own with no oversight they certainly aren't likely to be consistent and reviewers would have a real incentive to play games with them. Even if it is some kind of committee decision it is still a subjective measurement and really has no place in determining the order of results. IS seems to do this right they have a rating system but as far as I can tell the best match ignores it. c h e e r s fred
228
« on: January 26, 2009, 03:56 »
In a discussion in BigStock forum, I ended up doing some tests.
Searched for "heart illustration", because I have one image that is "ok". In the standard search, it returns in 5th position of about 14,163 results. In the popularity search, it returns in 10th position.
Searched for "dendrobium stardust", the three images are mine, and one is excellent (2dlds), one is good (0dlds) and another is ok (2dlds). In the standard sorting, they appear sorted by quality. In the popularity sorting, they appear by dlds, then by quality.
I agree that the quality is considered, but it is not the sole or even main criteria. My heart illustration image is one of my best-sellers in BigStock, so this somehow has a weight too. All images ahead of it in the popularity sorting are excellent (6) or good (4), but the excellent ones behind mine had less downloads (up to 67 dlds vs 48 of mine). Yet many of the good ones behind mine had more downloads (up to 67 dlds vs 48 of mine). The second most popular ok one appears in 48th position ahead of an excellent one (51st) with more downloads (17 vs 11).
Searched for "cork board", because I have one image that is "ok". In the standard search, it returns in 4th position of about 1,043 results. In the popularity search, it returns in 13th position. Still in popularity, of the 12 images ahead of mine, 4 are rated excellent, 7 are rated good and one (the 11th) is rated ok. The ok one had more downloads than mine (11 vs  . There are two excellents that had more downloads than mine (12 and 9 vs , yet they appear after mine.
So it seems to me that quality is just another part of the equation. So far, nothing to worry about. However, as I said before, I don't see consistency in these ratings.
Regards,
Adelaide
This is a very competitive industry. Any edge - and I think this one is significant - makes a big difference. Any edge just granted on the arbitrary tastes - or friendship or payback, etc, - of some reviewer is completely out of line. This stinks to high heavan. fred
229
« on: January 25, 2009, 02:24 »
Designers' side seems ok - can't check actual buying features though. Phtotographers section allows login but everything else - including logout - gives a page load error.
Everyone else have this problem?
fred
230
« on: January 22, 2009, 15:04 »
This is so open to abuse it is pitiful. I can just see reviewers giving their friends and other reviewers plenty of excellent ratings. Don't see how you could control it without some pretty close monitoring.
From the published numbers I can find the overall rating for the entire database is something like:
excellent 89,463 3%
good 2,314,937 85%
ok 336,552 13%
I've got 187 imagese with NO excellent ratings. If I were average I should have at least 5 on a port that size. Maybe this is why I have not sold a single image in over 2 months. Getting close to saying good-bye to these guys.
fred
231
« on: January 22, 2009, 07:05 »
to Fred:
do you think these two are similar? But they are from the same serie, same motiv and same fotografer
I'm not a judge and I don't work for any MS site. Suggest you consult your lawyer or site support. fred
232
« on: January 21, 2009, 14:03 »
...ha, i am looking at a hasselblad right now, but not the largest, looking at the older h3s, i think the 30 megapixel...just can timagine ever needing much more!
Just keep in mind. When the first IBM PC came out - 1980 or so - Bill Gates said he could not imagine anyone ever needing more then 640KB of memory (RAM)!  c h e e r s fred
233
« on: January 21, 2009, 10:25 »
If you upload the max or nearly the max do they review them all at once? I don't upload much - 2 or 3 a week at most - but it takes them a full week or more to get to them for review. They are by far my slowest reviewing site. Is it just that I don't uploade enough?
No. Last week I uploaded a batch of 10 every day. I still have 40 in the queue, and they get reviewed in the same batches as uploaded. Very slow indeed. I don't like to upload large batches. If you run into the wrong reviewer, you're out. Dreamstime has very consistent reviewers but in Shutterstock this is a real danger. There are some wild card reviewers there lately.
Thanks for the information. Certainly agree with the SS situation. I agree that DT is the most consistent in their reviews but I really hate the waits. c h e e r s fred
234
« on: January 21, 2009, 02:24 »
If you upload the max or nearly the max do they review them all at once? I don't upload much - 2 or 3 a week at most - but it takes them a full week or more to get to them for review. They are by far my slowest reviewing site. Is it just that I don't uploade enough?
fred
235
« on: January 20, 2009, 14:26 »
.... after all he makes a seven figure amount (in US$) from microstock annually.
Really? How do you know this? Everywhere that you can actually see his sales suggests he's making mid-five figure amounts at most. He'd have to be at Yuri's level to be doing 7 figures.
I heard it from Forgiss, and I trust him to tell the truth.
Maybe it is $12345.67.
236
« on: January 20, 2009, 07:02 »
If your images perform well at IS, you should definitely consider exclusivity. You could probably make a bit more money contributing to all of the Big 7 and staying independent, but at a major time cost too. Ultimately, you should do what makes you happiest.
Happiness!! What a concept!! c h e e r s fred
237
« on: January 20, 2009, 06:55 »
Thats right, but where is the border whats similar and whats different there are no guidlines. Of course I know this fact, so the pictures vary in lightning, perspektive, Backgrounds, etc., of course.
...and there is the next question about Exclusivity isnt it against the spirit of royalty free status?
Differentiation is easy. If photos are similar and from the same series they can only be exclusive on one site. What you have said seems to violate that principle. fred
238
« on: January 20, 2009, 06:30 »
Thats not the problem, because my very best picts are not for sale as microstock, only these which are not that high quality at all. Besides I shot series, so that I am able to deliver a similar pict (not the same) to other agencies.
I thought exclusivity restrictions applied to all images in a series. Kind of a useless policy if images only slightly different can be sold elsewhere. fred
239
« on: January 18, 2009, 02:00 »
I wouldn't think it would take much for an Artificial Intelligence (AI) programmer to develop and appliation that would categorize images by their keywords. I guess a lot would end up in the SPAM category though!
c h e e r s
fred
240
« on: January 18, 2009, 01:53 »
Not sure what is interesting about this, other than it seems to be an obvious combination of Shutterstock's and Snapvillage's names. That it has been around for a few years and nobody has heard of it is not a good sign either.
Yeah, just waiting for "Snapstock" to open next! fred
241
« on: January 18, 2009, 01:51 »
...
Isn't it better to sell 10 at $0.38 than 1 at $2.50? I do hate selling subs for $0.25 commission, so I no longer upload to those sites. I would like to see a minimum of $0.35 commission on all of the sites.
Like most things the answer is "it all depends". If you mean selling 10 different images for a total of $3.80 versus an image once at $2.50 that would be like asking if it wasn't better to work 10 hours for $3.80 than 1 hour for $2.50! The answer to that should be obvious. However, the problem is not that simple since you could be selling the same image 10 times and making $3.80 rather than once for $2.50 but this means that you must be selling every image 10 times as often on a sub site as a PPD site. If your experience is anything like mine earnings/costs are far from clear cut since other production issues also apply. For instance, if you are making an image for a PPD site anyway why not upload it to a subs site to get a little more money at very little extra cost. This is why MS is so much fun! c h e e r s fred (belabouring the obvious as usual!)
242
« on: January 16, 2009, 01:51 »
I would think they could manage the upload queue using some kind of reviewing rotation. They could review no more than a certain number (15?) from each contributor for some time period (day/week) or just rotate through contributors upload queues reviewing no more than a certain number (15?) at a time and let the reviewing resources available determine the limits. That should give variety to the newest image sort and be relatively fair to all contributors.
I have not idea how they do it now so maybe this is the current system.
Anyone else no the details of how they prioritize reviews?
fred
243
« on: January 07, 2009, 01:27 »
Ok. We identified a problem with how sales data is being reported from Photos.com and JIU to StockXpert. The data is being recorded and logged; it's just not flowing to StockXpert. Our dev and tech teams are working quickly to fix the problem and restore the data to your balance sheets.
Once again? Moan...  I had almost considered opting in again. Guess I wait a bit longer....
Have you had PPD sales as StockXpert this year? Just wondering if anything is working there. c h e e r s fred
244
« on: January 07, 2009, 00:54 »
Not on january the 6th that's for sure.
If you have had good sales and then they decline even though your portfolio grows still no reason to complain.
If your exclusive and want more sales make your files available to a different group of buyers. eh duh ( those that don't buy from istockphoto ) stupid.
In closing it's never OK to complain as no-one really cares from the sites you contribute too.
But it is ok to complain about complaining, I guess! fred
245
« on: January 06, 2009, 01:27 »
Well I have only about 180 images on StockXpert but I was getting very regular downloads through Dec. 29th and then nothing. Most of my downloads were StockXpert PPDs and my last two were StockXpert PPDs. Last JiU sub was Dec. 13th.
fred
246
« on: January 04, 2009, 07:32 »
My last JUI sub dl was on Dec. 13 and my last sale of anykind was an StockXpert PPD on the 29th.
Nothing yet this year -- anyone else doing well at StockXpert in 2009?
Happy New year and
c h e e r s
fred
247
« on: January 03, 2009, 08:25 »
SS only does subscriptions, so if you upload a reduced size image (those with 12 - 21MB images sometimes offer only a scaled down version at SS) you don't lose anything.
Selective quote. Downsize everything for SS to just above minimum. You don't lose anything, with the added benefit that more will pass QC. 
I treat SS as a subscription site and upload files to them based on that. It works! With my small Micro portfolio, selective uploading to sites, SS is still the best dollar volume.
I joked about this last year, but I'm really thinking of going "exclusive" on SS to save time and trouble with all the other sites. Exception being one full size site, Alamy, exclusive for my editorial shots. I'm only doing this because of time spent vs returns. It takes a lot of time to get things entered into Alamy with all those boxes and buttons. SS is very fast, uploading, fast reviews, fast editing to make them ready for sale.
I have heard that this at least has the potential of costing you EL sales from SS. I used to get over 20% of my income from ELs there - has dropped off in recent months, like everything else. Do you think downsizing has affected your EL sales there? fred
248
« on: January 02, 2009, 04:09 »
Well they are last among the 7 sites I submit to - and a long way from number 6. I just had my third 0 dl month in 18 months with them (only other site where that has happened for me is LuckyOliver) and have never had more than 3 dls in a month there. I am just waiting to reach payout so I can leave - don't like their 90 day lock in policy. (DT's six month policy is worse but at least I get a few bucks every month off of DT). fred
I do not see how anyone could have a zero DL month with BigStock unless they have a handfull of It images. You do not have a link to your BigStock port so there is no way I could take a look and possibly guess at the problem.
I had 2 dls my first few days on BigStock 2 1/2 years ago with 6 or 7 images.
The last two years I have 30-60 DLs a month with 2,000+ images.
-Larry
Sure - My port is here.
It is very small and I have only been doing MS for 18 months so I can certainly use any help I can find but the same images haven't done so badly elsewhere - i.e. SS, SX, DT, IS, FT - except for Lucky Oliver.
Thanks.
fred
Fred,
Your port is small but very nice.
Switzerland is a very beautiful country and the golf courses there are the most scenic in the world! Plus ski lodges and skiers! Take advantage of your natural bonuses and shoot them over and over. They WILL sell.
Sure wish I could come there and show you what your already looking at!
Don't give up on BigStock too quick as outdoor sports (any) sell well there and around the world.
I will trade you my house for yours. Interested?
-Larry
Larry, appreciate you looking at the port and the comments. I am just mystified about BigStock. My best sellers from elsewhere do nothing or very little at BigStock - some are rejected by BigStock reviewers - and some of the few sellers I have at BigStock have been rejected everywhere else I have submitted them! I can only assume that I haven't got the right type of stuff in my BigStock portfolio to be successful there. I plan to start doing more work with islolated objects and composites so perhaps they will do better. If not it will be adios to BigStock. c h e e r s fred
249
« on: January 01, 2009, 15:39 »
Well they are last among the 7 sites I submit to - and a long way from number 6. I just had my third 0 dl month in 18 months with them (only other site where that has happened for me is LuckyOliver) and have never had more than 3 dls in a month there. I am just waiting to reach payout so I can leave - don't like their 90 day lock in policy. (DT's six month policy is worse but at least I get a few bucks every month off of DT). fred
I do not see how anyone could have a zero DL month with BigStock unless they have a handfull of It images. You do not have a link to your BigStock port so there is no way I could take a look and possibly guess at the problem.
I had 2 dls my first few days on BigStock 2 1/2 years ago with 6 or 7 images.
The last two years I have 30-60 DLs a month with 2,000+ images.
-Larry
Sure - My port is here. It is very small and I have only been doing MS for 18 months so I can certainly use any help I can find but the same images haven't done so badly elsewhere - i.e. SS, SX, DT, IS, FT - except for Lucky Oliver. Thanks. fred
250
« on: January 01, 2009, 13:04 »
Well they are last among the 7 sites I submit to - and a long way from number 6. I just had my third 0 dl month in 18 months with them (only other site where that has happened for me is LuckyOliver) and have never had more than 3 dls in a month there. I am just waiting to reach payout so I can leave - don't like their 90 day lock in policy. (DT's six month policy is worse but at least I get a few bucks every month off of DT). fred
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
