|
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 - Shelma1
2651
« on: January 30, 2014, 07:33 »
My month was just okay, which I figured would happen with the Christmas dropoff. However, I also have two exceptional days...18 and 19. I didn't make that many more sales those days, but my earnings were much higher.
And now I'm back to wondering if those two days are wrong or if the other 29 are purposely under-reported.
2652
« on: January 30, 2014, 07:23 »
Yes, please...I posted a screenshot for you at the Symbiostock community board.
2653
« on: January 29, 2014, 07:36 »
January and December are the worst months of the year for most people, so don't judge your overall performance by those two months.
2654
« on: January 29, 2014, 07:33 »
Nope.. Extra work for no purpose.
2655
« on: January 28, 2014, 10:08 »
Ah, dating one of the dancers....that explains it. So he's at the performances anyway, shooting his girlfriend. Still, cr@ppy of him to take a paying job from you. The other dancers might start to get annoyed when they see 90% of his shots are of one dancer in particular. 
2656
« on: January 28, 2014, 09:23 »
In all fairness, your posts were probably wiped accidentally when there was a spam issue with the boards and they were just trying to stem the tide of obnoxious spam posts. They had to delete a lot of users and we all had to re-register.
Right now I'm felling pretty neutral about Symbiostock. I've decided to stop being so active and "relax" instead, as Cidepix has suggested.
2657
« on: January 28, 2014, 07:41 »
What about those of us who've already helped?  ??
2658
« on: January 26, 2014, 13:36 »
Shutterstock's market share may be growing, but is the market itself growing? If not, then yeah, the slice of pie gets smaller for each of us...unless we can find a way to grow our own market share, which means an even smaller slice for others.
2659
« on: January 26, 2014, 13:30 »
Common sense tells me to quit when working on my illustrations no longer generates enough income to justify the hours I spend on it.
Last year I got a 2% raise at my "real" job and a 100% raise in microstock. This year I hope to get a 50% raise in microstock. My "raise" as a percentage of my microstock earnings will decrease each year, but it'll take several years before it slows to what I get in the "real world." That is, if things continue as they have been. But who knows? With the increased competition it may plummet.
2660
« on: January 25, 2014, 13:00 »
I'm having the same issue. Haven't been able to upload there since last night.
2661
« on: January 25, 2014, 07:15 »
Tell them you are being nice by contacting them directly and if they really want evidence you can instead serve them with a DMCA and notify their ISP. I am sure they dont like their site being taken down over one image.
Really. The image is stolen even if it's not yours. The watermark proves that.
2662
« on: January 21, 2014, 18:55 »
I hope there are a lot more of those in our future. I had a $70 one yesterday. 
2663
« on: January 21, 2014, 12:33 »
I don't think it was the .jpg addition ... I got the same rejection today : 12 out of 20 images rejected for the same "Title should be in English ...." reason. I don't have dots in my titles or the word JPG, just English words. Example : "Young pear trees in Belgium" and "Beagle puppy". And yes, these images were of pear trees and a Beagle puppy.
Rogue photo inspector on the loose!
2664
« on: January 20, 2014, 11:46 »
According to my graph, I had a one-week dip in December with no new image sales, but my December stats show I actually sold at least one new image that I uploaded in November, nearly every day that week, so it seems like it could be a reporting glitch.
Interestingly, I usually have my data set to 3 months, but when I set it to a year, considering images uploaded in the past year as new, it tells a far more encouraging story as to how well my new images are selling. Funny how your definition of "new" can seriously impact the facts that you base your insights on, isn't it?
Yes, I definitely sold a bunch of new content during that time period...in fact a batch of new files made up a large percentage of my sales. So I thought it was odd that the chart suddenly dropped down to zero for a bit.
2665
« on: January 20, 2014, 10:13 »
No, because this is the first time I've ever gotten this rejection reason. Usually it's for "noise" or "rough edges" that don't exist.
2666
« on: January 20, 2014, 10:08 »
I am sure the jpg part is unnecessary and shouldnt be in the title.
Yet thousands of my images have been accepted with jpg in the title.
2667
« on: January 20, 2014, 09:52 »
Got this rejection today for jpg versions of my vectors:
"Title--Titles must be in English, may not contain unnecessary information and must relate to the image."
The title in question: "Funny clown behind a whiteboard. Jpg"
It's a drawing of a funny clown behind a whiteboard. And it's a jpg.
2668
« on: January 19, 2014, 14:27 »
Something strange I noticed about that chart...I also had a steep plunge in earnings from new content with a couple of zero days in January, the same days as Rob. Anyone else? I hope it's just a reporting glitch.
2669
« on: January 19, 2014, 12:16 »
2. When the PP clawback is more than I usually make all month at iS.
2670
« on: January 18, 2014, 20:04 »
I have no doubt that contributors with a larger percentage of older images got hurt more by the search change. I had an image that I shot in 2010 when I first started that had 1,600+ downloads. It was on the top of the search for "child." For almost three years, it generated 5-10 sales a day all by itself. They changed the search and it disappeared into the middle somewhere. So I can imagine that if you had a lot of images that were best sellers in that age range or older, then they lost popularity, which would naturally affect your sales to a large degree. Meanwhile, about two-thirds of my port is less than two years old. While I lost out on a couple of good sellers, the rest are holding up better because they're newer.
Oh, for crying out loud. Why do people always blame 'search engine changes' when one of their images ceases to generate the same level of sales? You know it just might have something to do with the 10M new images that are currently being accepted each year.
When I'd been at SS for a month I think they only had about 60 images corresponding to the keywords 'new zealand' of which about 45 were mine. Back then they sold quite nicely. Nowadays ... not so much. I'm absolutely sure it must be due to a 'search engine change'. It cant possibly be anything to do with the additional 33,150 images of 'new zealand' that have arrived since. It has to be SS conspiring against me and the higher royalty rate they have to pay me.
I think it's a combination of both. Of course, the addition of huge masses of new files makes it harder to compete. But Shutterstock also adjusts their search algorithm to keep fresh content in front of buyers and increase sales. When they did their "site maintenance" in mid July sales of my entire portfolio took a steep plunge literally overnight...and they still haven't quite recovered (although my portfolio's larger).
2671
« on: January 18, 2014, 09:30 »
Well, his "cover" has pretty much been blown. It's now widely known/believed that he's a Getty employee pushing their agenda in the guise of an objective contributor.
You were also convinced at one point that I was part of this conspiracy. Anyhow: widely known/believed by who ? I doubt that more than 10 people in the whole world care.
I think that some people get annoyed and sometimes become quite unfriendly when others have a point of view which contradicts their own. Which is a pity because it discourages free speech.
So let's hope he comes back soon. The site needs posters representing a variety of different perspectives and experiences.
I don't believe that most peeps here discourage alternative opinions at all (what you call free speech), but most of his comments in Istock threads were OBVIOUS block and tackle, anything to mute the problems of Istock/Getty to the point where it became funny to some (me, at least) and annoying to others. Personally I welcome alternative opinions and an open discussion, but members like Tickstock hurt that tone openness for others.
That, and trying to change almost every conversation about what's wrong with iStock to what's wrong with their main competitor, Shutterstock, even though he doesn't submit there.
2672
« on: January 13, 2014, 19:53 »
Ask to see his wallet, take all the money out, hand the wallet back to him and ask him if he feels flattered.
2673
« on: January 12, 2014, 20:33 »
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?
Well, you can certainly do that at iStock.
You can on SS, but maybe only for footage (?) as it costs more.
I was making a comment on returning clothes and props after use, not intending a war on agency policy and practice.
I know. I was trying to be funny. Guess it went over like a lead balloon.
2674
« on: January 12, 2014, 19:17 »
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?
Well, you can certainly do that at iStock.
2675
« on: January 12, 2014, 11:15 »
As for the drinks cart Shelma mentioned, you just have to worry about how to get home if you're not on a bus/train route, so bizarre. Or go without, so it's a hollow perk (no treat for me anyway, I don't drink beer or spirits).
Yeah, new York, most people took the subway. But there was a sort of understanding that you took a 20-minute break to have a drink--Friday at 6 p.m., when you were still in the office, of course--and then you went back to work for a few more hours.
That job was the worst. I worked 12-13 hours per day, 7 days a week. Which is why everyone who worked at Kirshenbaum & Bond called it "Kirshenbaum & Bondage."
Hope they just paid accordingly...
Nope! Low pay, relatively speaking. But they were very creative, so you put in a year or two there, built your reel and portfolio, won a few awards, and got a different job. I lasted less than a year.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
