I believe that 2mp is the smallest accepted size. I don't think that 1.5mp size would be accepted at any of the relevant sites. Do you have any that are above 2mp?

Actually, Stockexpert's minimum requirements page says they accept 800 X 600 (less than .5mp!)  I have not tried and wonder who would buy the stuff but apparently that is all they require.

c h e e rs
fred

That is what I missed - I was only considering cross-site cannibalization.  If I am missing any significant amount of  PPD sales on StockXpert due to subs across all the players there I haven't noticed it. 

My sub sales only represent about  16 to 17% of total earnings but that is with a very small port (175 images) and only two months of data.  Probably not very meaningful.  Also, no high commission sales.

PPDs on StockXpert much better than my SS On Demand numbers. Subs ratios elsewhere (FT, 123RF, DT) indicate even less cannibalization - again on very small portfolio.

fred

I assume you knew ebay's and paypal's rules going in and if you looked up the negative feedback before you sold to her you should have known the risk you were taking.  That is what risk is all about - sometimes you lose.  (Don't feel bad Lehman brothers and a whole lot of other financial institutions don't seem to understand risk or protecting against it any better than you do.) 

You pays your money - or ships your ipod - you takes your chances.

fred

It seems to me that to answer the question about whether to opt in or out of subs at StockXpert you need to know if the bonus of the high commission on the occasional photos.com/Jupitor sales offsets the low $0.30 subscription commission.

For me it is easy.  I still only get $0.25 per sub at SS so why would I not sell the same pictures at the StockXpert $0.30 sub rate and the possibility (haven't seen any yet) of a few very high commission sales to boost the average.  Currently about 80% of my earnings on StockXpert are from StockXpert PPDs and it is my best site (IS,SS,FT,BigStock,123 are the others) for average earnings per download.

For others you might look at it like this.  If you are selling subs at other sites at a higher rate than StockXpert, then figure what you would make on 1000 sub downloads and see what you need from StockXpert/photos.com/JI subs on StockXpert to get the same per image return.  For instance, if you are getting $0.38 per sub dl on SS then you need to make $80.00 in high commission photos.com/JI sales for ever 1000 downloads to get the same return from StockXpert as you get from SS.

SS      1000 dl @ $0.38 = $380
StockXpert    1000 dl @ $0.30 = $300
                 Difference   = $ 80
If StockXpert high commission sales are greater than the  $80.00  difference then opting in for subs allows a better return than the highest commission at SS. (Disregarding SS On Demand Sales.)

I'm just a newby in this business so maybe I am missing something but it seems clear to me that opting in for subs at StockXpert is nearly always the best course of action.

c  h e e r s
fred
     

Please add me to the group - lorenffile on IS (also in my profile here.)

Thanks.

fred

Quote from: Fred on December 05, 2008, 05:33

Quote from: kgtoh

...
Where Bobby says this:
"Yes Chad it is true I called you Greedy *insult removed* and that was / is
the truth. I did not call you fuckers and rapists even though the
truth is you are raping your contributors. And Chad you NEVER GAVE ME...

I thought that english was your native language perhaps I was mistaken.  The quote you site is what I meant and it seems perfectly clear to me.

He says he did not call them "...rapists" and then does exactly that in the rest of the sentence.  - i.e. "the truth is you are raping your contributors..." that is unambiguously calling them rapists.

The degree of offense taken by someone due to being called a "greedy *insult removed*" is not up to you or me or bobby to determine it is up to the person offended as with any other epithet.

And as far as my providing evidence I make no claims that require any more than what is in the threads (but you do have to read them - sometimes carefully.)  You all seem to accept whatever bobby says as gospel but in fact we have only his word as to how offensive he was or what else transpired in the telephone conversations mentioned.

This seems to me to be somewhat analagoous to a business manager/owner stopping into a bar where one of his employees is mouthing off about how his greedy so-and-so boss(es) are cheating him.  How that would be handled is completly up to the manager and has nothing to do with free speech.

fred

Regarding "Rapists":

Let me break down my argument into bite-sized numbered chunks:
in chronological order:
1. Chad / Fotolia claims Bobby called him/Fotolia a) F*kers b) *insult removed* c) Rapists publicly
2. This is an accusation of Libel
3. Based on this alleged Libel, Fotolia terminates its relationship with Bobby
4. Therefore, in my mind, as the termination is based on an alleged act of libel, Fotolia should satisfactorily prove this act of Libel before the action they took
5. As a reaction to Fotolia's accusation, and under provocation, Bobby then called them rapists. This was not a smart thing to do (please refer to my previous post re: children's tactics)
6. This does not, in my mind, remove the need to see evidence of Bobby calling them F*kers and Rapists before the accusation was made (you cannot make an accusation of misdeed, then provoke said misdeed)

All I am asking is for you to show evidence of Bobby's statements from before the accusation.

You say I am taking what Bobby says as gospel. I could accuse you of the same. What I'm looking for is logical evidence, based on what is publicly available.
You could say that this is unnecessary, but I like to think "Innocent until proven guilty".

Regarding offensiveness of "Greedy *insult removed*"

Yes, Fotolia took offense to Bobby, and they reacted in a certain manner. Does this reaction improve their standing in my eyes, or does it reinforce any negative perceptions that I had?

I could, as a terrorist, blow up a car bomb and kill people because a particular author spoke badly about my religion.
I am severely offended. Nobody can argue against that ("no, you are not offended"). It's perfectly in my right to be offended, and many like-minded people will feel similarly offended and that I am fully justified in any actions I do.  There will be others who feel my actions were not fully justified.

Also, extending your boss - employee anology. If an employee mouthed off about me, and I fired him, it's within my rights. (let's just ignore any existing discrimination / employee rights issues for the moment).  The issue here is how do the other employees feel. In this situation, some of the "employees" side with the guy who got fired. Some of the employees are siding with the employer, quite vocally so.

By the way, No, English is not my native language.. so you are correct on that point.

"It also seem perverse that the lower rankings are being riled up against a policy that mostly effects the upper rankings that can't be bothered to do it for themselves."

I am in complete agreement with you on this one. As I mentioned before, I think fulltimers who are in the upper rankings actually have the most to lose in the longterm by not acting.

Oh, I agree the quote does not provide any direct evidence of bobby having called FT management  rapists before they removed his account.  The whole thing is just a matter of his word against theirs - I know of no other direct evidence.  However, the careless (devious?) way in which bobby used the language in his reply to call them rapists, indirectly indicates to me that he may have done so in the past.

The matter of Libel is clearly up to some court somewhere to decide - do not think it would work in the U.S. - not really my concern.

FT certainly needs to be concerned about how this affects their relationship with contributors but I really think that only a small percentage of their contributors are even aware of this case.  My understanding is - I am possibly mistaken - that a very small percentage participate in this or any other forum.  So I would hope they would concentrate their energies on improving the business, especially given current world economic conditions.

FT's reaction to the offense was up to FT and I don't think any of us really know the nature or frequency of the offense or if a warning was given - just their word vice bobby's word.  It would have been much better if this were all in writing that FT could produce - and should have been ( a big strike against FT management if there is no written record.)  But telephone conversations can get heated and perhaps this is the reason for their action.   

I don't think FT is too worried about the reaction of the contributors to bobby's removal - most won't even be aware as I stated above - but they probably do have legal concerns and probably have everything documented.  However, they are unlikely to publish it unless it is beneficial to any legal action that may result.

I must say your english seems as good as mine (not necessarily a compliment I guess) and certainly much better than I would do in any other language.

fred

...
Where Bobby says this:
"Yes Chad it is true I called you Greedy *insult removed* and that was / is
the truth. I did not call you fuckers and rapists even though the
truth is you are raping your contributors. And Chad you NEVER GAVE ME...

I thought that english was your native language perhaps I was mistaken.  The quote you site is what I meant and it seems perfectly clear to me.

He says he did not call them "...rapists" and then does exactly that in the rest of the sentence.  - i.e. "the truth is you are raping your contributors..." that is unambiguously calling them rapists.

The degree of offense taken by someone due to being called a "greedy *insult removed*" is not up to you or me or bobby to determine it is up to the person offended as with any other epithet.

And as far as my providing evidence I make no claims that require any more than what is in the threads (but you do have to read them - sometimes carefully.)  You all seem to accept whatever bobby says as gospel but in fact we have only his word as to how offensive he was or what else transpired in the telephone conversations mentioned.

This seems to me to be somewhat analagoous to a business manager/owner stopping into a bar where one of his employees is mouthing off about how his greedy so-and-so boss(es) are cheating him.  How that would be handled is completly up to the manager and has nothing to do with free speech.

fred

Very slow for me.  Only 100 images (33% acceptance rate!) online and this month about half the sales of last month.  StockXpert running triple that rate with 150 images. fred

I do not really understand the reasoning behind the "overabundance" rejection. If it is to control the size of the database it would seem to me that the worst approach is to start rejecting images based on "full" subject areas. This virtually guarantees that quality will lag the rest of the market. Some newly submitted images are definitely going to be of higher quality than similar images already in the database. Considering the technology factor alone over time image quality will improve because technology improves.  One sites rejects will just end up in some other site with more enlightened management and the quality of that site's database will improve with time rather than stagnate.

If "overabundance" rejections are supposed to help the buyer by providing fewer results to select from as search results then over time this approach will just provide fewer results of lower quality - a better approach would be to clamp down on keyword spamming. 

fred

Usually my app. rate on SS is about 90 %...

But last batch of 13 images, they rejected me all 13...

Similar experience these days...?

This was rejected for "lighting or WB?"  I know it is trite but lighting and white balance look fine to me - only place I could add light is to the stems and leaves and that would only detract from the shot!)

http://eu.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/lffile/lffile0811/lffile081100011/3852319.jpg

fred

Well, I certainly have no complaints.  This is only my second month with them and they are already my number one producer!  SS lookout!!

c h e e r s
fred

Appreciate the helpful comments from everyone.  Will have to pay more attention to keywording - thanks Pixart - and try to build my portfolio faster.

c h e e r s
fred