|
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 - sharply_done
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 73
276
« on: June 16, 2009, 09:03 »
Congrats to everyone who took part and especially to the winners who made some great posts. Nice to see members who have contributed a lot to the site place well, and also great to see a new member steal third place  . The winners are........
1st Place ($100): lisafx
2nd Place ($25): Whitechild
3rd Place ($25): Catastrophe
The winners should be getting an email soon telling you how to claim your prize.
Catastrophe? Are you serious? Pardon me, but I've been around here for a while and have never heard of that person. Looking at his/her profile shows that (s)he's made only six posts over the course of four days and hasn't been on the forum since May 21. And for that a prize is awarded over others who are regular and long time contributors? Sorry, leaf, but you gave third place to someone who clearly doesn't deserve it.
277
« on: June 15, 2009, 22:29 »
Why is everyone so surprised by this announcement?
It was very clear this was going to be happening - all you had to do was read jjthompson's May 21 front page posting at iStock, where he wrote "... 4. Photos.com Powered by iStockphoto. We will become the driving force behind Photos.com, improving the quality of the collection with the strength of the iStock brand." What about that is unclear?
278
« on: June 15, 2009, 22:25 »
Maybe it's too early in the voting, or maybe it's just me, but seeing that 6/8 people have selected 'parasite' makes me wonder why I'm still bothering to visit this forum.
My question to the six people (so far) who view their agencies as parasites is this: Why are you still involved with them? If you view all microstock agencies as parasites, why are you still involved in this industry?
280
« on: June 13, 2009, 14:12 »
What you are referring to is called Revenue per Image (RPI). This varies a great deal in this industry, but I think a broad line can be made between amateurs/hobbyists, who typically earn something in the $1-1.50 per image per month range, and pros, who earn $2+ per image per month. Looking at your chart, and assuming that the y-axis measures $ per photo per month, it appears your RPI is about $0.47 ($0.22 + .09 + .06 + .04 + .03 + .02 + .01), which means your income is well below average for the size of your portfolio. It's even worse if the y-axis measures total $ over a 3-4 month period.
282
« on: June 12, 2009, 19:09 »
Hmm, very interesting.
So, which came first? the chicken (favourable placement in search) or the egg (the sales and downloads)?
IOW, did they get to be downloaded the most because they were placed first in the search and found the most, or they earned that favorable placement AFTER they became downloaded the most?
...
Sales are always a direct result of exposure. Putting it another way, a mediocre image with good exposure will outsell an outstanding image with poor exposure by a very large margin. This is why knowing the ins and outs of each agency's search engine is so important. Once you know how to make an image that is 'good enough', exposure and keywording become the most important aspects to success in this industry.
283
« on: June 12, 2009, 12:35 »
... Seems odd that buyers could get one from the 'main' collection for a lower price than a similar-ish one in the Premier collection - and the polar opposite to the 'similars' rule with Getty.
I don't think similar images is much of an issue. The hope is that fussy or short-on-time buyers will search only the Premiere Collection. I think the success of Fotolia's Infinite Collection is because of this - it isn't because of quality, that much is certain.
284
« on: June 11, 2009, 21:44 »
No, it's pretty much a mishmash of hot shots and random stuff at this point. There's really neat stuff in there, and then some where you're like "what?".
I was hoping the last email about it would spell things out more clearly - something like a collection of similar shots captioned "this is premiere" and "this isn't" would have been nice. Can anyone see what's in the collection so far, or do you have special privileges?
285
« on: June 11, 2009, 16:07 »
Well how do you think Getty goes about Flickr for images? ...
Given that a lot of Flickr people don't use keywords (they're called 'tags' on Flickr), and that a lot of the keywords used are nonsensical, I'd venture a guess that Getty searches by 'interestingness'. If you're on Flickr and want to get noticed (by Getty or anyone else), you need to work the 'interestingness' algorithm. Just ask Jeff Clow - he'll tell ya!
286
« on: June 11, 2009, 13:30 »
well clearly dunsmore knows more then me... but that still doesn't answer my questions.
Are the only/main two ways to get accepted on Getty:
1. Be exclusive and at least Silver in IS
2. Register on Getty and give them the link to your Flickr website (in this case, make sure to only have your best photos on flickr?)
With regards to getting into Getty via iStock, it's not an automatic 'in': being an exclusive Silver, Gold, or Diamond only allows you to apply to Getty, and even then it's only as a contributor to their RF Photodisc collection - getting accepted is another matter. The images you submit cannot already have been on iStock, nor can they be similar to anything you have on iStock. As far as the Flickr route goes, it's more-or-less a 'canned' deal: editors at Getty will look over your Flickr images and decide which ones they want, and how they will be listed (i.e. Getty chooses RF or RM, not you). Last month they gave people the one-time option of submitting five images, but this was only for those who already had images accepted into the Getty Flickr collection. You can also apply to Getty by going here: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/index.aspAlso, your keywording concerns aren't valid: at Getty it's done by the collection editors, not the contibutors.
287
« on: June 10, 2009, 21:34 »
Although I can appreciate your sentiments and intent, I can also see how Dreamstime might see this as a bit of a slap in the face. You are in effect saying something like "I like Dreamstime a lot, but I've thought things through and it makes better sense (for me) to be exclusive at iStock." - not exactly a shining endorsement for Dreamstime, is it?
288
« on: June 09, 2009, 20:53 »
I'm just wondering why don't they always do this instead of rejecting an image altogether. This is a much faster and more efficient way.
I think they started doing this recently - I had a couple accepted this way. Maybe they finally realized that rejecting for "wrong" keywords, was just a PITA for the submitter and it would be easier to just remove those keywords and accept the image.
That's one of the perks for exclusives - no rejections for bad keywords. Looks like some reviewers are extending it to non-exclusives as well.
289
« on: June 09, 2009, 20:50 »
...
What to do now?
1. Nothing because they approved photo?
2. Or is better to delete this two keyword which is in some kind of doubt?
...
You don't have to anything - whenever an image is approved like this the questionable keywords are removed.
290
« on: June 08, 2009, 12:30 »
...
Ok 20 images isn't much, but they're all proven sellers on SS. And you can multiply zero by any number of images/weeks/months/years you want, and the result is still zero. Payout at infinity.
...
I wish I had a dime for every complaint that someone's 'proven seller' was rejected by or wasn't selling at agency x. To me a 'proven seller' at SS means 100+ sales per month - anything less makes the image an average seller, not a proven one.
291
« on: June 06, 2009, 17:50 »
As I said in a previous post, I could never find out how to remove my name from the list. Any suggestions on who I'm supposed to contact or what button I'm supposed to push?
Their email address is at the bottom of their website: [email protected]
292
« on: June 06, 2009, 17:48 »
Sharply_done: Where did you gat a chart like that, is from a software?
I used Microsoft Excel.
293
« on: June 06, 2009, 16:35 »
Ouch! Looks like you need more motivation! Feb and March looked painful.
You're confusing this chart with one that shows sales or income. This tracks ranking, so it reads upside down to how you think it does - the descending lines show that my sales and sales rates are improving faster than everyone else's. At this scale your lines would be horizontal and right across the bottom.
294
« on: June 06, 2009, 13:14 »
I visited the charts daily to track my ranking - it was an quick and easy way to get feedback on how I was doing at iStock. I enjoyed my daily dose of motivation/incentive and am sorry to see it go.
295
« on: June 05, 2009, 14:19 »
If they were making money from my sales data I'd have the same mindset: I wouldn't make data readily-available without first charging a sizable access fee with an enforceable contract that did not allow for distribution or publishing of the gleaned data.
296
« on: June 05, 2009, 13:15 »
It isn't a good sign that Rahul hasn't been here to keep people up-to-date with things, that's for sure. Taken together with iStock's latest change, the future isn't looking very bright for stats-based ventures.
297
« on: June 05, 2009, 11:12 »
Forget about that guy - if I was at iStock I'd be more concerned about giving my competitors unfettered access to my sales data. I'd be very surprised if all the 'Big 6' weren't engaged in some sort of scraping to track such things as market size and share. Pretty vital stuff, I should think.
298
« on: June 05, 2009, 11:01 »
...
I agree with what was expressed prior. While this may seem to be a good first step, it looks silly, and it still reveals most of the information anyhow. I would prefer, as most would, that the DL stats simply be removed from public view altogether.
I can guess that the motivation behind it is to eliminate 'scraping' (go here if you don't know what that is), but rounding off DLs isn't a very effective way to do that. Scraped data will still be valid, just not on a day-to-day basis. Also, it will be relatively easy for those who have a large scraped dataset to come up with a 'defuzzing' variable.
299
« on: June 05, 2009, 10:28 »
...
I just checked on istock, though, and I can still see the sales numbers. Can someone explain?
Instead of displaying the exact number of DLs a file or contributor has, iStock now rounds this number off to the nearest 10 if there are between 11 and 99 DLs and to the nearest 100 if there are more than 100 DLs. Exact DLs are still shown if the file has 10 or less DLs or if the file has an even multiple of 10 or 100 DLs. Only *you* can still see the exact number of total and individual file DLs *you* have. iStock now shows DLs like this: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, >10, >20, >30, ..., >90, 100, >100, 200, >200, 300, >300, ...
300
« on: June 03, 2009, 13:43 »
yep, that's the one. The link was on the bottom of the email. ...
Oops, sorry about that, I didn't see it. (red faced)
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
