|
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 - FD
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 82
276
« on: January 23, 2011, 20:45 »
Your comments would be welcome. Web Presence
277
« on: January 22, 2011, 14:32 »
'The search engine needs to be in full control of the contributors too. If you do a site-wide search on photodeck, photoshelter, smugmug, clustershot - you won't have any ranking between quality and snapshots.'
Right, well that's one problem with any co-op idea. If you want people to come and use it, it must present quality. While everyone thinks their stuff is awesome, there'd be no control over innumerable sunsets or peoples snaps. And as Groucho said, sort of,' I'm not sure I'd want to be a part of any club that would have me'. I believe in good old fashioned dictators. It can't be popular as you see what types of critiques StockFresh got and why. Part of the coop system would to be coopt members too, or you could limit the images to those that had significant sales on the external sites. The point of a coop is that it is wikied and limited. An aggregation site won't have access to sales numbers but you can rely on their QC. If not, you're just another stock site.
278
« on: January 22, 2011, 14:14 »
General rules: - The smaller the agency and the lesser sales, the more "fair" they are. Who cares? They always can go bankrupt when they ate their resting money from the payout limit and they don't sell enough anyways (except for the very talented happy few) to reach that limit. - No agency founded after 2005 ever made it.- The larger the agency, the more they will scrw you in any possible way, going from bans, no replies, moving goalposts, commission "changes". It's called "crowd sourcing". There will always be enough crowd left in the crowd that are happy with less. It's called "sustainable", like windmills. - "Commission structure change" is always newspeak for contributor share cut. - Cutting your ear off and dying early might make you famous - a century later. 
279
« on: January 22, 2011, 13:46 »
Exactly. It's effort that would better be directed towards something more than a page of links. That was my point. There are many photography link farms around and they score very low as such. Google punishes link farms. You need a side by side comparison of content as a consequence of a search. You will need to reflect your comps (not thumbs) to Google Images, Bing, etc... surrounded by description, keywords, title, with all possible image SEO tricks. Starting from the comp on the aggregation site, you need just one click to the external sales page so you don't need to bother with QC, carts, licenses. The search engine needs to be in full control of the contributors too. If you do a site-wide search on photodeck, photoshelter, smugmug, clustershot - you won't have any ranking between quality and snapshots.
280
« on: January 22, 2011, 13:20 »
- Design too wide: would I have to scroll horizontally all the time like on the new IS? - No left margin on left text. - Colorless too spread out landing page; main slide show too large. - Search for Asian sunset and get this bunch of chairs; - "Similar pictures" on this one is a server cleaning table. Hmpff.... 
281
« on: January 22, 2011, 13:05 »
Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work. It's on page 2, following your link. Didn't have to make a big effort to find it.
282
« on: January 22, 2011, 13:03 »
I have been away for a while but there is still elitestockimages. It has been programmed from scratch using php/mysql with a joomla shell around it, by reading all posts here about a stock guild, a union, and a unified search engine that should be under the control of the contributors only. The idea was to offer sales links to existing sites, either stock or personal sites - and to break in into Google as super-search engine. What elitestockimages can offer is a one stop search portal over all participants and a single sales link wherever they like. A portal with just links to personal sites won't score high in Google since it will be considered as a link farm. The buyer will not know where to go for what type of content. A buyer likes to see the options side by side, not by clicking multiple sites. As the search engine is the key to any sales-oriented site, I put some algorithms in it, by default random. Since I wrote the site from scratch it's very easy to change the best match or whatever: view count, age, relevance, personal weights. The intention was to make the search engine wikied and totally open for the members. The source of elitestockimages will also be semi-open and can be used for a single photographer too. I looked into Ktools/Photostore (which I have been promoting for long) of course, but I don't like the partial search engine and the priority that is given on images. Many RF sites have defective search engines, like CC, YAY and T3D. Moreover, Fotonaut said that they are working on a totally new version (overdue long) so it's not an immediate solution. I don't know if there would be any interest in elitestockimages. For the time being I kept it out of Google. The basic idea though is that contributors have and always will have control over the algorithms and content.
283
« on: January 22, 2011, 12:28 »
Uh-oh. I agree. The white balance is far off.
284
« on: January 22, 2011, 12:14 »
I love this picture. I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases.  - (Info: no model release required  ) Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity 
285
« on: January 20, 2011, 11:03 »
Credits -> Conversions -> Convert Credits Thanks.
286
« on: January 20, 2011, 10:56 »
anyone dares to delete from fotolia? Yes. I'm so unfamiliar with the site and/or they did hide the payout link so well that I can't find it.
287
« on: January 19, 2011, 05:34 »
(d@mn - idea taken) 
288
« on: January 19, 2011, 01:03 »
but I preffer to take the time to do a serious discussion and investigation together with the other party. After that I'd like to make an explanatory statement (ideally together with the other party). Well I really hope it is one giant mistake. Nothing to have Schadenfreude about. I think everybody is waiting for the explanation when the dust is settled.
289
« on: January 18, 2011, 09:10 »
My new application to one of the "Low tier" sites was responded to by rejecting all of my uploads (150+) stating that they have a very high quality standard and that my images are basically of inferior quality. Yes StockFresh is quite tough, unlike StockXpert before. If they have the same reviewers, they must have put them all on Benzedrine. I was accepted very early and I had little rejections but I didn't like the reject reasons (" please upload better quality" when the images were on iStock). That's why they won't make it and that's why I deleted my port there. The same images are listed on 7 sites, all higher on the list than them. I beg you pardon but with 3 sales on DT in 2 years and none on iStock, I would rather think it's me.
290
« on: January 18, 2011, 08:49 »
The reason why Pixmac might bring extra value "as a middleman" is that we might be smarter and more effective in marketing. Vita, with all due respect but you didn't counter the allegations of fraud by DT at all: thread here. You have been talking very elegantly and smoothly about transparency, mistakes by others. being smart etc... ignoring the elephant in the room. Apparently DT did an audit (controlled test-buying by a third party, I presume) and they claim to have found out that you [ an unnamed sublicenser] sold their sublicensed content at a higher price point without reporting it. This hurts the DT contributors too since they are paid by DT, not by Pixmac [ an unnamed sublicenser]. It was also stated that - even if you [ an unnamed sublicenser] only seem to have access to the DT thumbs - you [ an unnamed sublicenser] installed a cache system. This means that (if I guess it well) you [ an unnamed sublicenser] intercepted the traffic between the full sizes on DT and your(?) own client, you [ an unnamed sublicenser] stored those copies in your(?) system, and when another client bought that file you [ an unnamed sublicenser] sold him the cached copy. DT didn't get its commission and we, contributors, were robbed. In that case (if it's true) you [ an unnamed sublicenser] infringed in a premeditated and fraudulent way on our copyright and you [ an unnamed sublicenser] stole our earnings. DT has been around very long time and it has a very good reputation as to transparency to contributors. If they did an audit and they found irregularities, they will certainly have repeated that audit thoroughly and with all due legal precautions. If DT decides to nail you [ an unnamed sublicenser] for those practices they will have had very good reasons. The allegations are very serious.
291
« on: January 02, 2011, 13:35 »
"Visa fee (+ bribes) 45$ per month" . . . . you are kidding, right . . I guess not.  No I'm not. I could tell much more to the point you wouldn't believe me, but I learned one lesson well: Vivons cachs, vivons heureux.
292
« on: January 02, 2011, 13:14 »
Philippines (Southern)
Currency PHP (converted to USD)
Minimum wage 0.85$ (college graduates, industry) 0.55$ (agriculture, fastfood)
Pint (500 ml) of beer 0.75$
Cinema ticket - 1.5$ (not advisable due to loud SMS ringtones all the time)
Rent for a two bedroom apartment in guarded compound per month - 200$ (60 sq m)
Visa fee (+ bribes) 45$ per month
Visit to the doctor ?
Cappuccino 3.5$ (Starbucks) 1.5$ (elsewhere)
Pack of 20 long filter cigs 0.43$
Booze (35%) 750cc 1.5$
Public transport ride 0.15$ - taxi ride (5km) 1.5$
Fuel 1.30$/l
293
« on: December 04, 2010, 12:59 »
I don't have any idea what they are talking about, but my entire port at Bigstock and Shutterstock was removed suddenly. I must have made some serious enemies here or elsewhere. What bothers me most is that there is no indication at all about the images I should have infringed upon, since of course I have all the raws and more factual info that all images I uploaded are mine. I also don't understand why they would just block a contributor of more than 5 years without asking an explanation first. I can easily prove the images are mine of course. I'm still waiting for the reply of "Glynnis Jones" so I will refrain of any other comment now. I'll just reflect the response here, but it makes me wonder about the morality of microstock in general. Let's see... In accordance with Paragraph 2-6 of the Terms and Conditions you agreed to when you became a submitter at Bigstock, you warranted and represented that you are the owner of the copyright thereto of any image files uploaded to Bigstock.
Paragraph 10-1 of the Bigstock Terms of Service states Bigstock, in its sole discretion, may remove any content uploaded to the Website including that appearing to infringe the intellectual property rights of other entities.
We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images on Shutterstock Images, LLC. Based upon our investigation, we have determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock Images, LLC.
As Bigstock is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shutterstock Images, LLC, your Bigstock portfolio has now been terminated. You may not open up a new account.
Regards,
Glynnis Jones
Sr. Review Coordinator
Bigstock
294
« on: December 03, 2010, 09:18 »
Being rejected by a microstuck site doesn't say anything about the quality of your shots. That's what the brother of Van Gogh kept telling him.
295
« on: December 03, 2010, 09:03 »
There is no point of nagging about rejections anywhere until we can see the images. What's the point of this thread without the images?
296
« on: December 02, 2010, 09:07 »
Maybe it is one of their new "punk'dem" days where they take 100% royalty. Is that really sustainable? Why not 110% and what's the difference between 100% and 85%?
297
« on: December 02, 2010, 06:35 »
Teach him.. or was it... add potatoes? Add potatoes. Well NASA found that there still can be life in arsenic lakes, and the organisms they found even use the poisonous stuff. Life must be abundant in the galaxies, as defined by self-replicating conglomerates, based on O, C, S, or even arsenic. It took 800 million to 1 billion years on our earth to evolve from spontaneous amino-acids to the first proto-cell, just by probability math (sorry to offend any creationists in the audience). That was the first quantum leap. The second one was when HSS (homo sapiens sapiens) got hold of his environment, another 2 billion years. There is no indication yet that intelligent life exists elsewhere, but if it does, perhaps they are not interested in a species that spreads its radio-waves around to shout it's very eatable. Any intelligent xenolife will probably very hostile, that's why Hawking recently insisted to blanket our communications.
298
« on: December 02, 2010, 06:02 »
Read it while you still can.
299
« on: December 02, 2010, 05:59 »
Just realised how much I miss StockXpert  +1
300
« on: December 02, 2010, 05:56 »
At current rate of sales will NEVER reach payout in my lifetime....! That depends on your lifetime
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 82
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
