MicrostockGroup

26

iStockPhoto.com / Re: So who's going to miss their RC targets?

« on: November 29, 2012, 02:10 »

Last year I was easily 25k over my target, this year my RCs have halved and I'll be almost 25k under my target... absolutely abysmal....

27

General Photography Discussion / Re: Using the AF-ON button to focus

« on: June 24, 2012, 19:59 »

I just focus it using the AF then turn the AF switch on the lens off.

Stays focus at the same focal length all day as well.. and no menu fiddling...

28

Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia sells 50% stake in business

« on: May 17, 2012, 17:54 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 16, 2012, 10:48

Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.

Ditto for istock - let them take 85% of nothing...

29

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift

« on: January 08, 2012, 15:45 »

I don't think the inspector initial rating system is new news. It's been around for years, years ago you used to received ratings from 1-5 - but now it seems it's only used for 5s.

Surely you're not suggesting they have initial ratings and then another internal invisible rating system, that would be rather redundant and superfluous.

Boy oh boy - I am much too slow... Go JSnover!

30

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift

« on: January 03, 2012, 21:35 »

Quote from: Micro1 on January 03, 2012, 18:04

Dear iStockphoto,

Can you please change your search engine to favor DLs/Month. This way buyers get to see a fair representation of good images. Frankly, not all of your "exclusive" images are very good at all. Your future actually depends on keeping buyers happy, not looking after "exclusives" interests.

Downloads a month favors images that have already been favored by Best Match.

Two identical images one on page 1 and one 10 pages back - after a year I can tell you which one would have more downloads a month unequivocally - however I almost guarantee over a year downloads/view ratio of those two images would be near identical - and a much fairer judge of a files worth. x amount of buyers who viewed this file bought it - vs. x amounts of buyers who had this file pushed in front of them months on end bought it each month

31

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Revised targets

« on: December 22, 2011, 18:55 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 22, 2011, 18:16

Congrats to those who will benefit!

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.

Dude if you think they've listened you are dillusional.

A lot of people are experiencing 40% drops since last year and istock reduce some levels 12.5% - do the maths and tell me who's winning in this scenario.

32

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Revised targets

« on: December 22, 2011, 18:52 »

=

33

iStockPhoto.com / Re: iPhone/iPad app with images prohibitted by iStock

« on: November 18, 2011, 14:54 »

That is ludicrous. They have no control over your images - they are yours.

Good move I say, of course now they're getting a bigger slice of your royalties, which makes them more profitable - but I guess that's the catch 22...

34

iStockPhoto.com / Re: iPhone/iPad app with images prohibitted by iStock

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:01 »

I think you'll find quite often Contributor Relations are woefully ill informed.
Many a time I have heard of them giving out contradictory information.

You're allowed to sell prints if you're exclusive, you're allowed to sell Rights Managed if you're exclusive.
What your considering sounds like a multiseat extended license for software, which if someone bought your images they could do, there should be no reason you couldn't...

35

General Stock Discussion / Re: Modeling Career in the Making

« on: November 13, 2011, 19:32 »

Mankini!

36

General Stock Discussion / Re: Amazon disrupts traditional publishing - sounds like microstock to me

« on: November 12, 2011, 16:23 »

Well 50% of $2 IS more than 15% of $6......