@Perseus: Yes, the limit could be lowered. In fact it was much lower in the last months. The system allows newcomers to join easily. Keeping a very low submission limit is not really the solution. New contributors will need many months to build their portfolio. Which is unfair to them, old members already have certain advantages (levels, knowledge, etc.). Happy New Year to you too!

yes, i agree that a lower limit is unfair to new contributors.
didn't DT once base limit on approval ratio?  ok., i know even that is a bit unfair for the newbie as they are not accustomed to what DT wants initially.
so, could it not be a grace period for newbies with a fixed limit , say, 90 days or 6 months, and then base the limit on approval rating.
this way, if my approval rating for these past month , which was close to 90%  slipped,
i would take that my editing on my own selective process has gone subjective.
and conversely, if my approval rate increases to 100%, i know i am doing well and can continue to give you the images you want.

what i mean is, there is a consistency in DT , for me at least, and lately i grasped the kind of work your reviewers want to approve. this tells me i am going in the right direction.

for the new contributors, i would say a leeway of 6months to a year would be fair for them,
as it took me close to a year before i really know what i should not give to DT.
although, even the time factor is a bit skewed, as i am only active with micro stock contribution during the winter months, so really that one year could well be something less .

not sure if i explain my question well enough for an answer, Achilles.  i have yet to get another pint , so my mind does not work well without a Guiness 

I've heard they'll make a movie about you this year

  gee, i should be more careful with my snail mail ; the movie contract offer could have been  among the ones i usually throw into the trash can without bothering to look 

Yuri, I'm surprised to see your post here considering my harsh email came after your team submitted images that were refused in the past and that you requested preferrential treatment. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the positive ending of your statement.
As for similarity, yes, rules are the same for everyone. Similars will lead to a lower RPD so submitting similars will always produce a decline in sales.

Dreamstime will never favor portfolios. I've always said that we favor great images, never portfolios. Any amateur can produce a best seller and any pro can submit less-than-good images. As the buyer buys the image, they should be compensated according to the image!

Achilles,
I mistakenly thought that ASSIGNMENTS (usa)... was a favoured portfolio.
but now that I have been told it is not...
I am glad to hear that my suspicions are unfounded.

I take it that you are not one to mince words, so, what you just mentioned to Yuri
is good enough for me. I am glad that in spite of my question on Assignment,
I had continue to increase uploading to DT, which as I said elsewhere , have given me
my highest approval rating ever ...in the past 3 months.

I take it that finally, I have found the types of images that DT wants to sell. Or maybe I have just got too good for you to resist ...

jokes aside, may 2010 be the performance year for me at DT.

Guys, do you understand that submitting similars will dillute dramatically your RPD? Others may accept them, as they don't have our pricing system. But if you submit two files you will see less revenue, as your RPD will fall down. Not due to search placement, but because 5 sales will be split between these 2 and the file will not reach level 2 so fast.
Also, subscriptions have a thirst for similars. You will receive more sub downloads, because buyers will download them "just in case". This is not bad, it's additional revenue but keep it in mind when comparing RPDs.
More here:
http://blog.dreamstime.com/2009/09/02/similar-images-how-to-upload-and-how-much-is-too-much_art30298

The alternative is to allow users to submit very few images. That will make them self-selective and will remove any similarity burden from our side. If this is preferred, we can definitely do it.
ortant role though.

Hello Achilles, Happy 2010.  good to hear your insight to this.
I've edited to quote two of your points for emphasis in agreement.
the first one, as I kept echoing SJLocke  who explicitly told me the same thing.
the second, which I think is a good idea. Same way that IS restricts our upload . At first, it may appear to be that IS does not want us indies to overwhelm their exclusives. But now that this matter of similarities and the need to be able to edit your own work objectively, I can clearly accept IS's limit , which in the long run also decreases the ratio of rejection.

Whatever the reason , mostly guesstimates here , that DT , FT, etc.. have now so viciously started to reject "similar" images, I think it is a good idea. This will definitely prevent a contributor from flooding the pages with one thousand and one rendition (colour change only) of golden men, lol..
of same poses different dresses, whatnot.

Specifically in your case, I can also see the value of not giving the subscriber too many choices. I agree that less is more in this sense, esp when an image attains a higher Level with more dls.
Although I am not sure if  a higher level actually brings more future dls,as in my case, I noticed the higher the level the less dls it seem to attract. maybe it's just my imagination, or just my specific upper level images.

anyway, i digress. Quite honestly, I have to admit , like many here, there has been a conspicuous lowering of dls lately. here's hoping this is just a seasonal occurence rather than the shapes of things to expect from DT. I have in fact increased my uploads to DT as my acceptance ratio has consistently iincreased. Hopely, this higher approval and consistent increasing portfolio , still small comparatively speaking, will reflect in an equal increase in my dls.

Happy 2010 to you , Carmen and all at DT.

Quote from: KB on January 05, 2010, 10:30

Getting back to the OP ....

I've always wondered how others vote on this poll. Myself, I assign 10 to my #1, 9 to my #2, 8 to my #3, etc.

I wish there was a better, more accurate way to reflect reality. But if I assigned by percentages (80% = , IS would get a 3, SS a 2, and everyone else a 1.  Obviously that's no good.

So how do YOU answer this poll?

yes, it's quite true...the yardstick seems pretty relative now that you've pointed it out. i don't give a 10 unless it was an outstanding month (not even bme). bme starts at 9, and all the other agencies fall in line percentage wise. ie 85% of bme is a 8, etc.

yes, yes, all good point but there is something else you have not considered.
   i don't see as many "regulars" here that used to partake in the forum , say, 6 months ago. therefore, it may not reflect accurately as if i may say so, many of these "regulars" were selling well almost regularly.

so, i wouldn't take this poll as written in stone, as to whether a site is doing better or worse.

EDITED for response to comment :

 i hope people would stop writing these RIP obituaries. you get what you wish for and i wish for continued success for StockXpert.

well spoken ap.
the great irony is that some of the same ppl who once ranted about the disparity of subs between IS and StockXpert are now trying to bade StockXpert a quick death.   the only thing that is consistent is that some ppl change  agenda like we change our dirty drawers   

Two things:
1. Economic situation which lead to layoffs so there are no reviewers to handle volume
2. Mentioned above volume, they do not need more photos

ah, we have an economist in our midst !  well said mela!
it's like the stocking (no pun intended) shelves in the local shops these days. shops are stocking small inventory and keeping counter space to the "cream of the crop"  and the "new ideas".

 it cannot be any different from micro stock.  we buy less, only now we buy what we don't already have.
i don't see any flaw in that thinking.
does anyone? ... cast aside the fact that some/most of us are getting more rejections to cloud our comments... 

mela, i think this thread serves a purpose, actually .

but it would be more useful if you could also add a pie chart to indicate which of the Big 6 sites that the top sellers intend to stop submitting or quit.
this way, i will know exactly where to increase my contribution for 2010 

earlier i came in here to comment on my UL number , not my approval rating,
which in fact, as opposed to some of you more experienced and more esteemed contributors have in fact increased rather than decreased, and curiously to say, been pretty close to 90 % in the past quarterly. even though my all time average still stands close to 70% due to massive rejection at the beginning of my "career with DT".
am i happy with this? DT rejecting more , of even our esteemed top sellers?
is DT really giving "moi" a newbie  with a tiny portfolio (count not even close to 500, lol)as opposed to the rest of the field (count more than 6000), more attention?
or is it because my work is as i indicate in my profile, "not tailor made for stock photography".
to be honest, i am quite chuffed to hear this, actually.

for months on end, i have been writing that microstock is heading close to redundance with everyone copying the great Yuri . and that it's almost impossible to be serious about micro stock for a photographer like myself who came from the old school of shooting photographs for the sake of photography... even though i have been gainfully employed in glamour, fashion, commercial, model portfolio, runway, designers on spec, photo correspondence, etc..

i never really took my insertion into microstock as something permanent nor serious, because quite honestly , i thought it be a joke with everyone claiming to sell the same old same old... and making tons of money.

then now, everyone seems to be complaining that DT is rejecting many of their new uls based on "sorry, we already have too many of these," or "too similar".
i too, had a few of that, not many, from FT , and DT.

i think it's not wrong to agree with DT, if they truly want to remain within the Big 6.  you cannot live in a vacuum making the same old same old and expect to be maintaining your income.
buyers change, trend change, your favourite buyer who thought your same old same old was cool and awesome, may also have been laid off during the real stock market correction.
or they have been replaced by younger minds with a new fresh idea of what media should be for the next decade.  and they could be the one who will be telling sites to renovate or rethink their idea of what is stock photos.

you know what?  i am going to go out on the limb to say, if this is what DT meant when they reject so many en masse , then , hurrah for DT.
it's about time.

i know i am going to make a lot of enemies saying this. but hell, i don't need friends, that i do not already have.  and i certainly won't say something just to win friends.

so i repeat, "if DT rejects everyone due to same old same old stuff.
HURRAH! it's about time."

the emperor needs new clothes.

Quote from: Persue-d on January 04, 2010, 23:07

Hey Jonathan, so good to know you take my comments seriously, lol.

I think it is good that so many hate XXX and others find them excellent. this way, it ensures we have more choices in the stock business. I'd dread to see a monopoly in any business, and micro stock is the last one I'd wish to have a monolith rise over the rest. although I already feel there is one such monolith who is succeeding in doing such a monopoly, though via devious means.
but who am I to tell others who to like or dislike. I am a small fish, and , to quote Flemish, a free poor one, lol.

It is never healthy to give any one site the keys to the kingdom. We will be sorry if we did.

Yes, I go to the greasy spoon down the street. They have average coffee, the burgers a kind of good, they charge a little more than most places, and the waitresses are kind of slow with service not that good. But I'd hate to have some good restaurant that works harder and that has earned the business, to be the "monolith" in the neighborhood.

Kind of sarcastic, but you are saying, we need to support the small sites with poor sales, low commissions, slow reviews, mixed up search engines and crappy service, because we don't want the ones that work hard to provide a bigger and better product and earning us more money, to beat them?

Do you buy inferior products to support companies who make them, just so the big ones won't get your business? 

Why should we put up with inferior agencies, just to get back at the big ones?

I don't get it? Can you explain for me.

Race, don't put words in my mouth!    and yes, I can explain it for you.

When I say monolith, I don't mean to support the hopeless little sites that promises big commissions and sell nothing. I mean just that we don't give one site to control the market that it would be tempted to exploit the contributors.  It's what monopoly does in any real world.
you're old enough to know that 

What I mean is it's healthier when we have a variety of top sites that can provide both the buyers and  contributor with a choice. Not one giant site that dictates what is micro stock or mid stock or whatever stock.
I like to be able to be a contributor to say Alamy, 3 d studio, Dreamstime, StockXpert , Fotolia...etc..
and be able to  submit different niche or different images to each of them,
rather than have all the sites in the Top 5 having reviewers choose the same old same old images as say SS . If so, then what is the point of going with the rest? We may all go to SS and leave it at that.
Less work, and if tomorrow, SS decides that you should all give away your images free,
well, ok... we give it away free because there is really no other place that will sell our images anyway.

Do I make myself clear-er?   
Good to hear from you , as always, you shoot straight and hard...
With ppl like you , we know there will always be someone who is unafraid to speak out.

I thought it was overly restrictive. It was stuff I would never ever get past inspectors for stock work and it's only six images... Still nothing back from flickr yet. I might send the istock guys a note and see if they could look past this, but dealing with either of them through email is such a painful ordeal...

yes, i do relate with you. i do find this a bit complicated too, all this retroactive skeletons in the closet syndrome. it's like blaming you for all the things you did as a child, that you never plan to forsee the future of becoming president . lol.
i find this fringing on absurdity, and we really didn't plan on becoming exclusive. who amongst us ever see this far in our crystal ball.
would it not be more realistic to say no more new images be freely distributed the moment you choose to be exclusive. much like being faithful to one woman or man when you marry?

i find this rather educating as well as hilarious.
remind me never to be exclusive , rofl.

-Of all the sites DM makes the least sense to upload multiples of similars since you make more money when a file sells more often. 
-Let the buyer contact you directly.  You can negotiate a RM license then.

to answer in  2 parts:

=first part of your comment : 
yes, i agree. in fact , it was sjlocke who gave me that advice a while back when i PM'ed him directly on a comment he made to this regard.( it was about some dude who prides himself he had 3000 samey images and almost little or sales. woo hoo, lol.)
i think Mr. Locke said, "2... and no more. give them too many choices and you water down the value of your portfolio". i feel that was very kind of him to cue me in on this.

=second part of your comment :
isn't that against your contributors' agreement?